DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment and Remarks filed on 11 July 2025 in which claim 23 was canceled, and claim 21 was amended to change the scope and breadth of the claims.
Claims 21, 22, 24 and 25 are pending in the current application and are examined on the merits herein.
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 .
Modified Rejections
The following are new ground(s) or modified rejections necessitated by Applicant's amendment, filed on 11 July 2025, where the limitations in pending independent claim 21 as amended now have been changed. Therefore, rejections from the previous Office Action, dated 14 April 2025, have been modified and are listed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 July 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends Matteuzzi provides a solution to the need for fillers with higher agarose concentrations, i.e. fillers comprising over 2.5% agarose by weight. Applicant contends unlike Matteuzzi, the present claimed dermal filler comprises ≤ 2.5% agarose by weight. Thus, Applicant argues Matteuzzi teaches away from the claimed concentration.
According to MPEP 2123: "Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). “A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994).”
Matteuzzi et al. is generally concerned with preparing a dermal filler for the correction of soft tissue volume loss, e.g. treating wrinkles, lipoatrophy or lipodystrophy (abstract). The hyaluronic acid is included with agarose, since agarose alone is not easily injectable. Matteuzzi et al. teach hyaluronic acid is degraded faster than agarose. Thus, a dermal filler having both hyaluronic acid and agarose is advantageous, because the agarose that remains after hyaluronic acid is degraded, prolongs the permanence time of the filler.
Matteuzzi et al. found the combination of hyaluronic acid and agarose allows for “even high concentrations of agarose injectable and tolerable, said high concentrations being particularly useful for ensuring the duration and stability over time of the aesthetic results that are achievable using this filler” (abstract).
However, Matteuzzi et al. do not provide any teaching or evidence that a composition having ≤ 2.5% by weight agarose in combination with 0.1 to 4% by weight hyaluronic acid, fails to be useful in treating soft tissue volume loss, like wrinkles, lipoatrophy or lipodystrophy. At para [0007], Matteuzzi suggest concentrations of 2.5% or less may be less stable or have less residence time. However, even if it is somewhat inferior to a composition having 2.6% agarose or more, the ordinary artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in delivering a dermal filler having ≤ 2.5% agarose to treat soft tissue volume loss, like wrinkles, lipoatrophy or lipodystrophy.
One having ordinary skill in the art would have expected a dermal filler having 2.5% by weight agarose to have similar residence time as a dermal filler having 2.6% by weight agarose. There is no evidence of criticality in the currently claimed amount of agarose.
Applicant also argues the present claims also require a lower range of hyaluronic acid. Applicant argues the specific concentrations of agarose and HA contribute to the G* and gel structure presently claimed. Applicant argues one of ordinary skill in the art would not have looked to the teachings of Forget, Santoro and Kablik because they do not teach modulating properties of a dermal filler having both agarose and hyaluronic acid.
The above arguments are not found persuasive. Forget et al. is relied upon for teaching advantages to preparing hydrogels having low concentrations of agarose, i.e. 0.5-2.0% by weight. While Kablik and Santoro discuss the rheological properties of HA-based dermal fillers and no mention of agarose, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to rely on their teachings because Matteuzzi et al. is concerned with HA-based dermal fillers, even if it contains agarose.
The ordinary artisan would have known polysaccharide concentration is a result-effective variable. For example, Kablik et al. teach “The degree of cross-linking and gel concentration play important roles in defining the modulus of the gel, and many manufacturers use these parameters to influence the hardness or softness of their fillers. Higher gel concentration produces more molecular entanglements and in so doing increase the modulus of the gel.” (p.306, left column).
Thus, the ordinary artisan would have been motivated to look to the teachings of Kablik and Santoro for modifying concentration to optimize rheological properties like G*, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Applicant contends modifying Matteuzzi et al. to have lower concentrations of agarose would “render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose”. Applicant argues the intended purpose of Matteuzzi is to provide a filler composition “owing to its particular concentration of agarose, that makes it possible to achieve slow absorption by the human body, which translates into a prolonged permanence time of the filler in the injection site, enabling a reduction or even the elimination of subsequent refilling treatments”.
The above argument is not found persuasive. As discussed above, Matteuzzi et al. is generally concerned with preparing a dermal filler for the correction of soft tissue volume loss, e.g. treating wrinkles, lipoatrophy or lipodystrophy (abstract). The hyaluronic acid is included with agarose, since agarose alone is not easily injectable. Matteuzzi et al. teach hyaluronic acid is degraded faster than agarose. Thus, a dermal filler having both hyaluronic acid and agarose is advantageous, because the agarose that remains after hyaluronic acid is degraded, prolongs the permanence time of the filler.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected a composition having 2.5% by weight agarose with 0.1 to 4% by weight hyaluronic acid, to have similar absorption time, and thereby permanence time as a composition having 2.6% by weight agarose. More generally, one having ordinary skill in the art would have expected a composition having 2.5% by weight agarose to function as a dermal filler for the correction of soft tissue volume loss.
The recitation “wherein the dermal filler has gel structure that is made of approximately 10 to 50% by volume of the agarose and 90 to 50% by volume of the hyaluronic acid” in claim 21 appears to be a product-by-process limitation, and is based on mixing 10-50 mL of agarose solution with 50-90 mL hyaluronic acid solution (based on guidance provided by the disclosed examples).
One having ordinary skill in the art would have modified the amount of each solution mixed with each other to maintain the concentration of hyaluronic acid and agarose desired.
For the above stated reasons, said claims are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Thus, the rejection is hereby maintained.
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 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.
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 21, 22, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matteuzzi et al. (US 2016/0038635, cited in previous Office Action) in view of Forget et al. (US Patent No. 9,388,252, cited in previous Office Action), Kablik et al. (Dermatol Surg, 2009, vol. 35, pp. 302-312, cited in previous Office Action), Santoro et al. (J. Appl. Biomater. Biomech., 2011, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 127-136, cited in previous Office Action), and Rennerfeldt et al. (Biomaterials, 2013, vol. 34, pp. 8241-8257, cited in previous Office Action).
Matteuzzi et al. teach a filler composition comprising hyaluronic acid or a salt thereof in an amount between 0.1% and 4% by weight; agarose in an amount between 2.6% and 5% by weight; and water (claim 1). The composition further includes phosphate buffered saline solution (claim 9). The composition is iso-osmolar, and Matteuzzi et al. specifically disclose it has the same ion content as blood plasma (para [0060]-[0061]). Thus, Matteuzzi et al. teach the composition is isotonic. The mixture contains chlorides and/or phosphates, such as sodium chloride (para [0061]-[0062]). For example, Matteuzzi et al. describe an aqueous solution having 0.6-0.8% NaCl and 0.2-0.4% sodium phosphate (para [0062]). The composition can be formulated as gel granules (para [0065]). Matteuzzi et al. further incorporate fillers to increase the sensitivity of the tissues adjacent to the injection site, ensure greater in vivo stability and longer duration of the cosmetic (para [0036]). Filler compositions comprising agarose and/or HA are known, wherein the concentration of agarose is usually less than 2%, or less than 2.5% because higher concentrations require arduous injection procedures and cause rigidity of the composition to be injected (para [0007]). Increased rigidity can cause unpleasant sensations for the patient, particularly for sensitive areas such as the lips or cheekbones. Matteuzzi et al. teach the combination of the agarose with the hyaluronic acid allows for high concentrations of agarose that are tolerable and useful for ensuring the duration and stability of the aesthetic result over time (abstract). The composition can be used to treat lipodystrophy (para [0002]). The composition can be administered in the deep layer of the skin, and it also maintains the characteristic softness and elasticity that make it particularly suited to treatment of sensitive areas of the body, including the cheekbones and lips (para [0009]).
While Matteuzzi et al. teach a composition comprising 2.6-5% by weight agarose, Matteuzzi et al. do not expressly disclose 0.15-2.5% by weight agarose (present claim 21). Matteuzzi et al. do not expressly disclose the G* (complex modulus) of the composition (present claims 21 and 22). Matteuzzi et al. do not expressly disclose the volume limitations (present claim 21). Matteuzzi et al. do not expressly disclose a system comprising two dermal fillers with different G* (present claim 24).
Forget et al. teach agarose is a known polysaccharide useful as a dermal filler, wherein it is necessary to remove contaminants like endotoxins (col.1:23-38). Forget et al. teach purifying agarose (abstract). After purification, the agarose can be dissolved in a suitable solvent, its pH adjusted, filtered, and the volume of the solution can be adjusted to obtain the desired concentration of material, e.g. 2% w/v, and loaded into a device such as a syringe (col.6:50-61). Forget et al. expressly teach preparing a 2% w/v agarose hydrogel, and loading it into a syringe (example 1, step 8; claim 6). An agarose gel or chemically modified agarose derivative can have high gel strength at a low concentration, such as in the range of 0.5-2.0% (col.8:8-24).
Kablik et al. analyzed the use of hyaluronic acid in dermal fillers, and reviewed the properties of various fillers including concentration, gel-to-fluid ratio, HA gel concentration, degree of HA modification, percentage of cross-linking, swelling, modulus, and particle size (abstract). Kablik et al. found commercial fillers exhibit a wide variety of properties. Most dermal fillers are viscoelastic, which can be described as the complex modulus (G*), which is the sum of the elastic modulus (G’) and viscous modulus (G’’), (p.305, Modulus). Elastic modulus (also known as storage modulus) describes the storage of energy from the motion in the structure. The magnitude of the elastic modulus G’ depends on elastic interaction and strength of the interaction in the sample. Viscous modulus (also known as loss modulus), describes energy that is lost as viscous dissipation, i.e. it is a measure of the flow properties of a sample. A stiffer material will have a higher modulus, and require a greater force to deform the material a given distance. Gels with lower elastic modulus are better suited to areas like the lips, where resistance to deformation is less critical.
Santoro et al. reviewed known commercial hyaluronic acid-based dermal fillers with the aim to correlate the rheologic and physical properties of different dermal fillers to their clinical effectiveness (abstract). Complex shear modulus is defined as G*, which is the combination of viscous and elastic behavior (p.128, Rheological measurements). Santoro et al. teach measuring the complex shear modulus of multiple commercially available crosslinked-HA fillers, which were identified as having a G* of 11.19-584.87 Pa (Table II). Restylane, Belotero Intense, Juvéderm Ultra 3, Juvéderm Ultra 4, Teosyal deep line and Teosyal Ultra Deep had G* ranging from 80.88 Pa to 304.74 Pa, which lies within the range of present claim 21. From this group, Teosyal Ultra Deep and Restylane had a G* of 275.45 and 304.74 Pa, respectively, which lies within the range of present claim 22. Teosyal deep lines is injected into the mid to deep dermal layer and is used to treat nasal furrows, while Teosyal Ultra Deep is injected into the deep layer of the dermis and is designed for treating deep wrinkles. While Teosyal fillers behave as strong gels, Belotero Intense, Juvéderm Ultra 3 and Juvéderm Ultra 4 behave as a weak gel (p.130). Their viscoelastic properties are indicative of entanglement networks (p.133, right col.). Belotero Intense is intended for mid to deep dermis (p.134, left col.). Juvéderm Ultra 3 is also injected into the mid to deep dermis, medium to deep facial lines and skin depression. Juvéderm Ultra 4 is intended for volumizing and correcting deeper folds and wrinkles (p.134, left col.).
Santoro et al. conclude polymer concentration, degree of crosslinking, and percent elasticity affects duration of the HA-based dermal fillers (p.135). Santoro et al. teach the viscoelastic properties of the gels (which is characterized by G*) determines where they can be injected, i.e. upper dermis, superficial wrinkles, deep lines, volume enhancement, mid-dermis, deep wrinkles, nasal furrows, etc. (p.134, left col.; see fig. 4; Table I). Santoro et al. teach “there is not a[n] ideal dermal filler for all applications and in commerce there are many types of DF that differ for their chemical-physical properties” (abstract).
Rennerfeldt et al. is directed towards the preparation of agarose-based hydrogels (abstract). The shear modulus of compositions comprising varying amounts of agarose and PEG as measured by percent by volume were measured (fig. 3a; see p.8242, Materials and methods and Table 1). Rennerfeldt et al. demonstrated the shear modulus was effected by the percent by volume agarose and the other polymer present in the hydrogel. Rennerfeldt et al. prepared hydrogels comprising 0% w/v, 2% w/v and 5% w/v agarose in combination with 10% w/v, 15% w/v or 20% w/v PEG-DA.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare an injectable dermal filler comprising hyaluronic acid and agarose having a G* of between 50 and 400 Pa; to prepare a composition having 0.5-2.5% agarose, and to prepare an injectable dermal filler comprising varying percent by volume hyaluronic acid and agarose.
Because Matteuzzi et al. describe preparing an isotonic composition, it is expected to “create a G* value of between 50 and 400” as recited in claim 21. The recitation “wherein the G* value is greater than 200” in claim 2 is a latent property of the dermal filler of claim 21. However, in the event that these properties are not inherent, the property is obvious for the reasons discussed later below.
One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to prepare a dermal filler having less than 2.5% by weight agarose, because Matteuzzi et al. expressly recognize dermal fillers having this amount of agarose were known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. And, in the same field of endeavor, Forget et al. teach agarose can have high gel strength at a low concentration, such as in the range of 0.5-2.0%. Gel strength is a result-effective variable, wherein the ordinary artisan would have expected lower concentrations of agarose to be less rigid and more ideal for injection into sensitive areas of the face including the lips and cheekbone. Thus, Forget et al. teach a range of agarose that lies within the range of present claim 21.
See MPEP 2123, section I, “A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (reference disclosing optional inclusion of a particular component teaches compositions that both do and do not contain that component)”, (emphasis added).
Starting from Matteuzzi et al., one having ordinary skill in the art would have looked to the teaching of Santoro et al. and Kablik et al. because they are concerned with correlating chemical properties to physical properties of hyaluronic acid-based dermal fillers. Matteuzzi et al. are concerned with improving stability and duration of HA-based fillers.
The G* or complex shear modulus of a composition is a result-effective variable. From the combined teaching of Kablik et al. and Santoro et al., the ordinary artisan would have known the complex modulus G* of the composition determines where it can be injected in the dermis. A G* of 80 Pa for example is representative of a soft gel that can be injected to volumize and correct mid to deep wrinkles, while a G* of over 200 is representative of a hard gel that can be injected to fill and volumize deep wrinkles. The ordinary artisan would have known various parameters can be modified to arrive at a soft gel or a hard gel, including for example optimizing the concentration of the polymers, modifying the polymer itself with pendent groups to cause entanglement and/or induce chemical crosslinking. While entanglement allows for the formation of soft gels, chemical crosslinking allows for the formation of harder gels. Furthermore, Matteuzzi et al. also teach adding polymers like agarose to HA-based dermal fillers can improve the stability and duration of the fillers. The addition of fillers can also effect the physical properties of the dermal filler.
With respect to present claim 24, directed towards a system having two dermal fillers, each dermal filler having a different G*, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a system having two dermal fillers because it gives the aesthetician dermal fillers that can each be injected into different parts of the dermis, including deep regions of the dermis, or mid-deep regions of the dermis. As Santoro et al. teach “there is not a[n] ideal dermal filler for all applications and in commerce there are many types of DF that differ for their chemical-physical properties” (abstract). Thus, the ordinary artisan would have been motivated to optimize each dermal filler to have different G* so that it can be injected in more than one place.
While Matteuzzi et al. report the amount of agarose and HA as percent by weight, the ordinary artisan would have varied the amounts of each component based on the percent by volume because Matteuzzi et al. prepare the composition in an aqueous solution, wherein the agarose/HA form a gel. From Rennerfeldt et al., the ordinary artisan would have known the complex modulus (shear modulus) is a result effective variable. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify the concentrations of agarose and hyaluronic acid as percent by volume to obtain dermal fillers having the desired complex modulus, which depends on the desired location of injection.
Present claim 21 recites “approximately 10 to 70% by volume of the agarose”. The percent by weight of agarose taught by Matteuzzi et al. and Forget et al., and the percent by volume of agarose taught by Rennerfeldt et al. is close to the lower limit of 10% presently claimed. See MPEP 2144.05, “Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.”.
Furthermore, it is noted the recitation “wherein the dermal filler has gel structure that is made of approximately 10 to 50% by volume of the agarose and 90 to 50% by volume of the hyaluronic acid” in claim 21 appears to be a product-by-process limitation, and is based on mixing 10-50 mL of agarose with 50-90 mL hyaluronic acid gel (based on guidance provided by the disclosed examples).
One having ordinary skill in the art would have modified the amount of each solution mixed with each other to maintain the concentration of hyaluronic acid and agarose desired.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to place a dermal filler to add volume and/or diminish the appearance of wrinkles and creases because this is the intended use of the HA-dermal fillers taught by the prior art of record.
Thus, the claimed invention as a whole is prima facie obvious over the combined teaching of the prior art.
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 21, 22 and 23-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 9,884,138 in view of Forget et al. (cited above).
The reference claims are directed towards a process for preparing a filler composition consisting of agarose in an amount between 2.6% and 5% by weight; HA in an amount between 0.1 and 4% by weight; water and salt and mixing to form an iso-osmolar composition with respect to blood plasma. The composition further comprises sodium chloride and phosphate buffered saline (claims 11 and 12).
Since the composition is isotonic, it is expected to “create a G* value of between 50 and 400” as recited in claim 1.
Because the reference Patent describe preparing an isotonic composition, it is expected to “create a G* value of between 50 and 400” as recited in claim 21. The recitation “wherein the G* value is greater than 200” in claim 2 is a latent property of the dermal filler of claim 21.
The difference between the reference Patent and the present claims is the concentration of agarose.
Forget et al. teach as discussed above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the concentration of agarose to 0.5-2.0 wt.% by volume because Forget et al. teach agarose at 2% wt. by volume for use in a dermal filler.
Thus, the claimed invention as a whole is prima facie obvious over the claims of the reference Patent and the combined teaching of the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 July 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are the same as discussed above.
The above arguments are not found persuasive for the reasons discussed above.
The rejection is hereby maintained.
Conclusion
In view of the rejections to the pending claims set forth above, 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 BAHAR A CRAIGO whose telephone number is (571)270-1326. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: Noon-8pm 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, Fereydoun Sajjadi can be reached at 571-272-3311. 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.
/BAHAR CRAIGO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1699