FINAL 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 .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to papers filed 03/04/2026 in which claims 3 and 13-19 were canceled; and claim 1 was amended. All the amendments have been thoroughly reviewed and entered.
Claims 1-2 and 4-12 are under examination.
New Rejection
Necessitated by Applicant’s Claim Amendments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 – NEW MATTER
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 1-2 and 4-12 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 introduces new matter as the claims recite the limitation: “a water-permeable pouch consisting of a nonwoven fabric.” There is no support in the specification for the water-permeable pouch consisting of only a nonwoven fabric.
Applicant asserted that the support for the amendments in claim 1 can be found “throughout the original application as filed, for example, within the specification at page 37, lines 21-24.” (see Remarks filed 03/04/2026, page 4, 2nd paragraph).
However, after a thorough review of said page 37, lines 21-24, as well as, throughout the specification, there remains no disclosure for the a water-permeable pouch to consist of only a nonwoven fabric.
It is noted that page 37, lines 21-24 discloses:
“a fleece material comprising a nonwoven fabric and nanocellulose as disclosed herein. The term "nonwoven" is used herein in reference to fabric (e.g., webs, mats, batts, or sheets) in which fibers are aligned in an undefined or random orientation. In various embodiments, the nonwoven fabric can be made in a spunlaid or spunmelt process, which includes both spunbond and meltblown processes, wherein such processes are understood to typically entail melting, extruding, collecting and bonding thermoplastic polymer materials to form a fibrous nonwoven web.”
As disclosed above on page 37, the specification indicated that the “fleece material comprising a nonwoven fabric and nanocellulose as disclosed herein.” Thus, as per page 37, the fleece material contains not only the nonwoven fabric, but also the nanocellulose. Additionally, page 4, lines 20-24 of the specification discloses “[a] fleece material comprising a nonwoven fabric and nanocellulose, and an active ingredient comprising one or more botanical materials, stimulants, amino acids, vitamins, antioxidants, nicotine components, cannabinoids, cannabimimetics, terpenes, pharmaceutical agents, nutraceuticals, or a combination thereof, disposed on or absorbed in the fleece material.” “Fleece material” is the water-permeable pouch per page 9, lines 19-21 of the specification. Furthermore, page 7, lines 4-10 discloses “a pouched product comprising nanocellulose and at least one active ingredient, wherein at least a portion of the nanocellulose forms at least part of the a pouch of the pouched product and at least a portion of the at least one active ingredient is at least partially retained on at least one portion of the nanocellulose.” As such, nowhere in the specification does it disclose or provide support for the water-permeable pouch to consist of only a nonwoven fabric, as the specification describes the pouch as also comprising nanocellulose and an active ingredient.
Claims 2 and 4-12 are also rejected, as they dependent directly or indirectly from claim 1, respectively, thereby also containing the conflicting new matter limitations.
As such, the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of amended claim 1 at the time of filing of the instant application.
Maintained-Modified Rejections
Modification Necessitated by Applicant’s Claim Amendments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapman et al (US 2016/0157515 A1) in view of Hanner et al (11 January 2018; WO 2018/009139 A1), Mua et al (US 2016/0100625 A1), and as evidenced by Salajková et al (J. Mater. Chem., 2012, 22: 19798-19805).
Regarding claim 1, Chapman teaches an oral pouched product comprising a water-permeable fabric pouch, wherein a composition is contained within the cavity of the water-permeable fabric pouch ([0001], [0002], [0008], [0009], [0011], [0014], [0024]-[0026], [0036]-[0037], [0051]-[0054], [0087], [0092]-[0094], [0096]-[0100] and [0109]; Figs 1-2; claims 1, 5 and 17). Chapman teaches the fabric pouch is formed of a nonwoven web fibers ([0011] and [0092]-[0093]), thereby meeting the claimed “a water-permeable pouch consisting of a nonwoven fabric.” Chapman teaches the pouch further nicotine and flavoring agents being bound to or contained within the cavity of the fabric and/or cellulose fibers ([0024], [0026], [0037], [0043], [0054]-[0055], and [0118]; Figs 1-2).
While Chapman does not expressly teach that a composition comprising nanocellulose is enclosed within the pouch as recited in claim 1, it would have been obvious to include a composition containing nanocellulose in view of the teachings from Hanner.
Hanner teaches cellulose nanofibers (nanocellulose) as drug delivery structures suitable for use in sachet (pouch) products to provide a desired controlled release of active ingredients, wherein the active ingredients include at least one active substances such as flavors, pharmaceutical agents and micronutrients and the active substances is contained within the drug deliver structure (Hanner: page 1, lines 4-8; page 3, lines 10-end; page 4, lines 4-6; page 6, lines 13-24; page 9, lines 5-25; page 10, lines 4-19; page 13, lines 22-end to page 14, lines 1-6; page 20, lines 21-end; page 16, lines 5-12; page 17, lines 9-20; page 18, page 19, lines 1-9; and page 24, lines 11-21; claim 11). Hanner teaches the drug deliver structure is suitable for oral use (pages 16-18; claim 10). Hanner teaches the active ingredients are adsorbed by the drug delivery structure (nanocellulose) (page 13, lines 13-19; page 14, lines 1-6; page 18, lines 1-3). Hanner teaches the drug delivery structure contains at least 10 wt% nanocellulose, at least 0.2 wt% active substance, and water (Hanner: page 9, lines 23-25; page 10, lines 13-15; page 20, lines 20-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a composition comprising nanocellulose, an active ingredient is absorbed in the nanocellulose and water, in the pouch of Chapman, and produce the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Hanner provided the guidance to do so by teaching that nanocellulose as a drug delivery structure is suitable for use in a sachet (pouch) product to provide a desired controlled release product (Hanner: page 17, lines 15-20; page 18, line 21 to page 19, line 8; claim 11). Thus, an ordinary artisan seeking to design a pouch product containing nanocellulose which would provide the desired controlled release of active ingredient and for better drug delivery to patients, would have looked to including a composition comprising nanocellulose, an active ingredient is absorbed in the nanocellulose, and water, in the pouch of Chapman, per guidance from Hanner, and achieve Applicant’s claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success.
However, Chapman and Hanner do not teach the water in the composition is in an amount of about 5% by weight or higher, based on the total weight of the composition of claim 1.
Regarding the weight % of water of claim 1, Mua teaches oral snuff pouch product comprising a composition containing a filler such as a cellulose material, active ingredient such as tobacco, botanical materials, drugs and/or antioxidants, humectant such as glycerol and water ([0006]-[0019], [0026]-[0028], [0044], [0075], [0081], [0084]-[0085], [0091], [0131]-[0132]; claims 1-20). Mua teaches the composition has a moisture content (water content) of about 25% weight percent to about 50% weight percent so as to provide a moist snuff pouch product ([0028]-[0084]-[0085], [0091], [0131]-[0132]; claim 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to routinely optimize the weight % of water in the drug delivery structure of Hanner to an amount of about 5% by weight or higher as claimed, and produce the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Hanner teaches the drug delivery structure contains at least 10 wt% nanocellulose, at least 0.2 wt% active substance, and water (Hanner: page 9, lines 23-25; page 10, lines 13-15; page 20, lines 20-24), and Mua provided the guidance for optimizing the water content (moisture content) of the composition (drug delivery structure) in the pouch (sachet) of Hanner to about 25% weight percent to about 50% weight percent so as to provide a moist snuff pouch product. Thus, it is noted that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” and even when 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 similar properties, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F2d 775. 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Absent some demonstration of unexpected results showing criticality from the claimed parameters, the optimization of the weight % of water in the composition would have been obvious before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention. See MPEP §2144.05 (I)-(II).
Regarding claim 2, Hanner teaches the nanocellulose is in the form of a gel, film or foam (pages 12-13 and 19-24; claim 11).
Regarding claim 4, Hanner teaches the nanocellulose is in the form of a foam (pages 19-24; claim 14).
Regarding claim 5, Hanner teaches the drug delivery structures containing cellulose nanofibers (nanocellulose) is provided in the form of a gel (Hanner: page 19; claim 11). Mua teaches the composition containing cellulose material is in the form of a gel that can further contain glycerol as a humectant ([0006], [0016], [00057]-[0060], [0081], [0104], [0131]-[0132], [0168]-[0169]; claim 19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include glycerol to the drug delivery structure of Hanner, and produce the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Mua provided the guidance to do so by teaching that glycerol (glycerin) can be included in the drug delivery structures containing cellulose material of Hanner as humectant such glycerol is a typical additive/excipient normally added oral pouch product (Mua: [0006], [0016], [00057]-[0060], [0081], [0104], [0131]-[0132], [0168]-[0169]; claim 19). One ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success of including glycerol to the drug delivery structure of Hanner because Hanner indicated that the drug delivery structures containing cellulose nanofibers (nanocellulose) can be provided in the form of a gel, where further pharmaceutically acceptable excipients can added to the drug delivery structure (Hanner: page 7, lines 5-15; page 19; page 21, lines 18-end; claim 11), and glycerol as taught by Mua is within the scope of the pharmaceutically acceptable excipients.
Regarding claim 6, Hanner teaches that the nanocellulose used as the cellulose fibers typically have a diameter in the range 2-100 nm and a length of several micrometers such as up to 10 µm (page 6, lines 13-21; page 17, lines 9-20; page 19, lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 8, Hanner teaches the nanocellulose can be hydrophobically modified (Hanner: page 10, lines 4-11), and per Salajková, functionalizing nanocellulose with glycidyltrimethylammonium chloride renders the surface of the nanocellulose hydrophobic (Salajková: Abstract; Introduction; pages 19799-19800 and 19802-19804), thereby the glycidyltrimethylammonium chloride functionalized nanocellulose of Hanner is a hydrophobically modified nanocellulose.
Regarding claim 9, Hanner teaches the drug delivery structure contains at least 10 wt% nanocellulose, at least 0.2 wt% active substance, and water (Hanner: page 9, lines 23-25; page 10, lines 13-15; page 20, lines 20-24). It is noted that the weight % of nanocellulose and active substance as taught in Hanner overlaps or fall within the claimed ranges for nanocellulose and active ingredient as recited in claim 9. Thus, it is noted that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” and even when 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 similar properties, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F2d 775. 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP 2144.05.01). Absent some demonstration of unexpected results showing criticality from the claimed parameters, the optimization of the amounts of nanocellulose and active ingredient in the composition would have been obvious before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention. See MPEP §2144.05 (I)-(II).
Regarding claim 10, Chapman teaches the oral pouched product further contains additional ingredients such as sweeteners, binders and humectants ([0051]).
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, as evidenced by the reference, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapman et al (US 2016/0157515 A1) in view of Hanner et al (11 January 2018; WO 2018/009139 A1), Mua et al (US 2016/0100625 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Retsina et al (24 December 2015; US 2015/0368368 A1).
The oral product of claim 1 is discussed above, said discussion being incorporated herein in its entirety.
However, Chapman, Hanner and Mua do not teach the nanocellulose comprises cellulose nanocrystals having a diameter and length, wherein the diameter is form about 5 to about 20 nm, and the length is from about 50 to about 400 nanometers of claim 7.
Regarding claim 7, Retsina teaches a composition comprising nanocellulose, wherein the composition is suitable for use in pharmaceutical and drug delivery applications (Abstract; [0037]-[0038], [0049], [0079], [0084], [0090], [0137], [0166], [0211], [0212] and [0222]). Retsina teaches nanocellulose material including cellulose nanofibrils, cellulose nanocrystals, or both cellulose nanofibrils, cellulose nanocrystals ([0049] and [0079]). Retsina teaches the cellulose nanocrystals can have a length range of about 100 nm to 500 nm, and a diameter of about 4 nm, translating to an aspect ratio of 25 to 125 ([0084]). Retsina teaches the aspect ratio of the cellulose nanocrystals is less than 20, less than 15 or less than 10 ([0084]). It is noted that the Courts have stated where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” and even when 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 similar properties, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F2d 775. 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP 2144.05.01). Absent some demonstration of unexpected results showing criticality from the claimed parameters, the optimization of the diameter and length of cellulose nanocrystals of the nanocellulose based on aspect ratio of would have been obvious before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention. See MPEP 2144.05 (I)-(II).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art incorporate/include cellulose nanocrystals as the nanocellulose material of Chapman in view Hanner and Mua, and produce the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Retsina provided the guidance to do so by teaching that the nanocellulose material in the composition of Chapman in view Hanner and Mua can include cellulose nanofibrils, cellulose nanocrystals, or both cellulose nanofibrils and cellulose nanocrystals. Thus, an ordinary artisan provided the guidance from the prior art would looked including cellulose nanocrystals as one of the forms of nanocellulose in the oral product of Chapman in view Hanner and Mua so as to form a desired drug delivery application, and achieve Applicant’s claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, as evidenced by the reference, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapman et al (US 2016/0157515 A1) in view of Hanner et al (11 January 2018; WO 2018/009139 A1), Mua et al (US 2016/0100625 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Crawford et al (US 2009/0025741 A1).
The oral product of claim 1 is discussed above, and said discussion are incorporated herein in its entirety.
However, Chapman, Hanner and Mua do not teach the at least one active ingredient comprises a combination of taurine and caffeine of claim 11.
Regarding claim 11, Crawford teaches a pouched product comprising an inner filling material containing at least one functional ingredient, wherein the functional ingredient include energizing ingredients such as caffeine and taurine (Abstract; [0010], [0031], [0033]; claims 1, 8 and 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include taurine and caffeine in the oral pouched product of Chapman in view of Hanner and Mua, and produce the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Crawford provided the guidance to do by teaching that energizing agents such as caffeine and taurine can be added as active ingredients in an oral pouched product. Thus, an ordinary artisan seeking to design an oral product which additionally provide increase energy boost, would have looked to including taurine and caffeine in the oral product of Chapman in view of Hanner and Mua, and achieve Applicant’s claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, as evidenced by the reference, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapman et al (US 2016/0157515 A1) in view of Hanner et al (11 January 2018; WO 2018/009139 A1), Mua et al (US 2016/0100625 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cohen (US 2019/0000907 A1).
The oral product of claim 1 is discussed above, and said discussion are incorporated herein in its entirety.
However, Chapman, Hanner and Mua, do not teach the at least one active ingredient is a combination of theanine, gamma-amino butyric acid (GABA), and lemon balm extract of claim 12.
Regarding claim 12, Cohen teaches an oral composition containing theanine, gamma-aminobutyric acid and lemon balm extract, wherein the oral composition is useful in reducing stress and anxiety (Cohen: Abstract; [0007]-[0035] and [0046]-[0074]; claims 1 and 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art include theanine, gamma-aminobutyric acid and lemon balm extract in the oral pouched product of Chapman in view of Hanner and Mua, and produce the claimed invention. One ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Cohen teaches that a combination of theanine, gamma-aminobutyric acid and lemon balm extract can be included as active ingredients in an oral product, as such resultant oral product would be useful in reducing stress and anxiety. Thus, an ordinary artisan seeking to design an oral product which provide the benefit of reducing stress and anxiety, would have looked to including theanine, gamma-aminobutyric acid and lemon balm extract in the oral product of Chapman in view of Hanner and Mua, and achieve Applicant’s claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, as evidenced by the reference, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that none of the cited prior arts including Hanner teaches a nanocellulose material suitable for including in a pouch. Applicant alleges that “one of skill, based on a fair reading of Chapman and Hanner, would have no reason to enclose the nanocellulose material of Hanner in a pouch when the nanocellulose material is already in a form suitable for multiple uses, and the material would not benefit from enclosure in a pouch.” Applicant further alleges that “the nanofibers of Hanner are in the form of cellular solid materials, and that the cellular solid material may take multiple forms, including as a sachet (purportedly corresponding to a pouch). Thus, Applicant alleges that “it is the cellulose nanofiber material itself that would form such pouch, which is a different and distinct configuration from a water-permeable pouch and a composition configured for oral use enclosed within the water-permeable pouch, the composition comprising nanocellulose, as recited in Applicant's claim 1. As such, Applicant alleges that “Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite a ‘water-permeable pouch consisting of a nonwoven fabric’” and [t]hus, the pouch of claim 1 as amended does not include nanocellulose and is clearly distinguished from the pouch allegedly taught by modified Chapman.” (Remarks, pages 4-9).
In response, the Examiner disagrees. As discussed above in the pending 103 rejection, Chapman teaches the claimed “water-permeable pouch consisting of a nonwoven fabric” (103 rejection, page 6 of this office action). Hanner provides a direct guidance for including a composition comprising nanocellulose, an active ingredient absorbed in the nanocellulose, and water in a pouch, by teaching said composition is suitable for inclusion in a sachet, which is a water-permeable pouch. See 103 rejection, pages 6-7 of this office action. Particularly, Hanner does teach the drug delivery structure is provided in a sachet (a pouch) for oral delivery (i.e., “edible” sachet) (Hanner: page 17, lines 15-20; page 18, line 21 to page 19, line 8; claim 11). This is a direct guidance from Hanner for including a composition comprising nanocellulose, an active ingredient absorbed in the nanocellulose, and water in a pouch. Furthermore, it is noted that Hanner further indicated that the use of a cellulose solid material comprising cellulose nanofibers (nanocellulose) and at least one active substance in a structure for controlled release of said active substance (Hanner: at least page 4, lines 4-7; page 8, lines 21-end to page 9, lines 1-3; page 15, lines 17-end to page 16, lines 1-3; page 17, lines 15-20; page 18, page 19, lines 1-9; claim 11), thereby further supporting the fact that Hanner does teach and provide guidance for a composition containing nanocellulose and active ingredient, wherein the composition is included in a pouch (a sachet).
Accordingly, the combined teachings of Chapman and Hanner as discussed in the pending 103 rejection remain to render obvious the claimed “an oral product configured for oral use comprising a water permeable pouch consisting of a nonwoven fabric; and a composition configured for oral use enclosed within the water-permeable pouch, the composition comprising nanocellulose and at least one active ingredient” as recited in claim 1.
As a result for at least the reason discussed above, claims 1-2 and 4-12 remain rejected as being obvious and unpatentable over the combined teachings of the cited prior arts in the pending 103 rejections as set forth in this office action.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOAN THI-THUC PHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3288. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Brian Kwon can be reached at 571-272-0581. 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.
/DOAN T PHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613