DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/02/2026 has been entered.
Applicants' arguments, filed 02/02/2026, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application
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 .
Priority
The instant application claims domestic priority to PRO 63/223,716 filed 07/20/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 03/02/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein of NPL No. 1, 4, 5, and 6 are not legible and therefore have not been considered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of micro-hydroxyapatite in the reply filed on 01/21/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 4, 19, and 21-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group of nano-hydroxyapatite or functionalized HAP CaCO3 there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/21/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 - Obviousness
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.
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, 3, 6-13,17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucas et al. (US Patent Application Publication 20160228341A1).
Lucas recites a dentifrice composition comprising a sintered hydroxyapatite abrasive agent (Lucas at claim 1). Lucas recites wherein the average particle size of the sintered hydroxyapatite is in the range from about 1 to about 20 microns (Lucas at claim 2). Lucas recites wherein the sintered hydroxyapatite is present in an amount from 0.05 to 4% by weight of the total dentifrice composition (Lucas at claim 3). Lucas recites comprising a supplementary abrasive agent (Lucas at claim 4). Lucas teaches the sintered hydroxyapatite is present in an amount from about 0.05 to about 4% (Lucas at [0024]). Lucas recites wherein the supplementary abrasive agent is selected from silica, alumina, hydrated alumina, calcined alumina, calcium carbonate, anhydrous dicalcium phosphate, dicalcium phosphate dehydrate, water-insoluble sodium metaphosphate, zirconia, perlite, diamond, rice hull silica, silica gels, aluminium silicates, pyrophosphates, pumice, calcium phosphate based mineral (e.g. tricalcium phosphate (TCP), hydrated HA and mixed phase (HA:TCP) calcium phosphate mineral) and mixtures thereof (Lucas at claim 5). Lucas teaches that supplementary abrasive agent may be used generally in an amount ranging from about 0.1% w/w to about 50% w/w or about 0.1% w/w to about 20% w/w by weight of the total dentifrice composition (Lucas at [0025]). Lucas recites claims comprising a source of fluoride ions (Lucas at claim 10). Lucas teaches hat sintered hydroxyapatite exhibits highly effective cleaning power, whilst at the same time providing low dentine abrasion to the tooth surface (Lucas at [0014]). Lucas teaches that the sintered hydroxyapatite is present in an amount from about 0.05 to about 4%, for example from about 0.1 to about 3% or from about 0.2 to about 2.5% or from about 0.75% to about 2.0% by weight of the total dentifrice composition (Lucas at [0024]). Lucas teaches that AU518908B2 describes a translucent, isotropic, polycrystalline, sintered ceramic comprising substantially pure hydroxyapatite having an average crystallite size in the range 0.2 to 3 microns, for use in dental restorative compositions as a dense filler material having a coefficient of expansion virtually identical to that of natural tooth enamel. However, there is no disclosure of use of sintered hydroxyapatite in a dentifrice (Lucas at [0021]). Lucas teaches a benefit that the compositions to maximize cleaning and provide effective whitening with a significantly lower RDA value than traditional whitening toothpastes (Lucas at [0028]). Lucas teaches that a dentifrice composition of the present invention can therefore provide, after brushing, cleaner, whiter and smoother tooth surfaces having less plaque, tartar and/or stain thereby resulting in an overall improvement in oral health (Lucas at [0035]). Lucas teaches the use of arginine salts (Lucas at [0044]). Lucas teaches the use of potassium salts (Lucas at [0041]). Lucas teaches the use of zinc (Lucas at [0046]). Lucas teaches a dentifrice composition of the present invention are typically formulated in the form of a paste and/or a gel that is suitable for containing in and dispensing from a laminate tube or a pump as conventionally used in the art (Lucas at [0059]). Lucas teaches the use of xanthan gum and carboxymethylcellulose (Lucas at [0057]). Lucas teaches the use of sorbitol and glycerin (Lucas at [0056]).
Lucas differs from the instant claims in this rejection insofar as it does not teach the combination of the instantly recited components with sufficient specificity for anticipation. Lucas teaches the components of the instant recited composition and uses each component of their established function in the art but does not explicitly combine the components together into a single embodiment or a preferred composition. However, given the disclosure of each component individually, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the filing of the present patent application and following the teachings of Lucas to have selected and combined known components for their established functions with predictable results. MPEP §2143 and §2144.06(I).
Regarding instant claim 1, Lucas teaches that a dentifrice composition of the present invention can therefore provide, after brushing, cleaner, whiter and smoother tooth surfaces having less plaque, tartar and/or stain thereby resulting in an overall improvement in oral health (Lucas at [0035]). Lucas recites a dentifrice composition comprising a sintered hydroxyapatite abrasive agent (Lucas at claim 1). Lucas recites wherein the average particle size of the sintered hydroxyapatite is in the range from about 1 to about 20 microns (Lucas at claim 2) which lies inside the instantly claimed range of 1 to 100 microns. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I). Lucas recites comprising a supplementary abrasive agent (Lucas at claim 4). Lucas recites wherein the supplementary abrasive agent is selected from silica, alumina, hydrated alumina, calcined alumina, calcium carbonate, anhydrous dicalcium phosphate, dicalcium phosphate dehydrate, water-insoluble sodium metaphosphate, zirconia, perlite, diamond, rice hull silica, silica gels, aluminium silicates, pyrophosphates, pumice, calcium phosphate based mineral (e.g. tricalcium phosphate (TCP), hydrated HA and mixed phase (HA:TCP) calcium phosphate mineral) and mixtures thereof (Lucas at claim 5). Lucas teaches a benefit that the compositions to maximize cleaning and provide effective whitening with a significantly lower RDA value than traditional whitening toothpastes (Lucas at [0028]). Therefore, the composition of Lucas reduces or inhibits enamel erosion by providing a cleaning with less abrasion to the enamel. See MPEP 2144 (II). Lucas teaches the sintered hydroxyapatite is present in an amount from about 0.05 to about 4% (Lucas at [0024]), about 4% includes greater than 4% which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of greater than 4%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I).
Regarding instant claim 3, Lucas recites wherein the average particle size of the sintered hydroxyapatite is in the range from about 1 to about 20 microns (Lucas at claim 2), which is micro-hydroxyapatite.
Regarding instant claim 6, Lucas teaches that supplementary abrasive agent may be used generally in an amount ranging from about 0.1% w/w to about 50% w/w or about 0.1% w/w to about 20% w/w by weight of the total dentifrice composition (Lucas at [0025]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 15% to 30%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I).
Regarding instant claim 7, Lucas teaches the use of arginine salts (Lucas at [0044]).
Regarding instant claim 8, Lucas recites claims comprising a source of fluoride ions (Lucas at claim 10).
Regarding instant claim 9, Lucas teaches the use of zinc (Lucas at [0046]).
Regarding instant claim 10, Lucas teaches the use of potassium salts (Lucas at [0041]).
Regarding instant claim 11, Lucas teaches the use of sorbitol and glycerin (Lucas at [0056]).
Regarding instant claim 12, Lucas teaches the use of xanthan gum and carboxymethylcellulose (Lucas at [0057]).
Regarding instant claim 13, Lucas recites a dentifrice composition comprising a sintered hydroxyapatite abrasive agent (Lucas at claim 1). Lucas teaches a dentifrice composition of the present invention are typically formulated in the form of a paste and/or a gel that is suitable for containing in and dispensing from a laminate tube or a pump as conventionally used in the art (Lucas at [0059]).
Regarding instant claim 17, Lucas teaches that a dentifrice composition of the present invention can therefore provide, after brushing, cleaner, whiter and smoother tooth surfaces having less plaque, tartar and/or stain thereby resulting in an overall improvement in oral health (Lucas at [0035]). Lucas recites a dentifrice composition comprising a sintered hydroxyapatite abrasive agent (Lucas at claim 1). Lucas recites wherein the average particle size of the sintered hydroxyapatite is in the range from about 1 to about 20 microns (Lucas at claim 2) which lies inside the instantly claimed range of 1 to 100 microns. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I). Lucas teaches the sintered hydroxyapatite is present in an amount from about 0.05 to about 4% (Lucas at [0024]), about 4% includes greater than 4% which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of greater than 4%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I). Lucas recites comprising a supplementary abrasive agent (Lucas at claim 4). Lucas recites wherein the supplementary abrasive agent is selected from silica, alumina, hydrated alumina, calcined alumina, calcium carbonate, anhydrous dicalcium phosphate, dicalcium phosphate dehydrate, water-insoluble sodium metaphosphate, zirconia, perlite, diamond, rice hull silica, silica gels, aluminum silicates, pyrophosphates, pumice, calcium phosphate based mineral (e.g. tricalcium phosphate (TCP), hydrated HA and mixed phase (HA:TCP) calcium phosphate mineral) and mixtures thereof (Lucas at claim 5). Lucas teaches that supplementary abrasive agent may be used generally in an amount ranging from about 0.1% w/w to about 50% w/w or about 0.1% w/w to about 20% w/w by weight of the total dentifrice composition (Lucas at [0025]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 15% to 30%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I). Lucas teaches a benefit that the compositions to maximize cleaning and provide effective whitening with a significantly lower RDA value than traditional whitening toothpastes (Lucas at [0028]). Therefore, the composition of Lucas reduces or inhibits enamel erosion by providing a cleaning with less abrasion to the enamel. See MPEP 2144 (II).
Regarding instant claim 18, Lucas recites wherein the average particle size of the sintered hydroxyapatite is in the range from about 1 to about 20 microns (Lucas at claim 2), which is micro-hydroxyapatite.
Regarding instant claim 20, Lucas teaches that a dentifrice composition of the present invention can therefore provide, after brushing, cleaner, whiter and smoother tooth surfaces having less plaque, tartar and/or stain thereby resulting in an overall improvement in oral health (Lucas at [0035]). Lucas teaches a benefit that the compositions to maximize cleaning and provide effective whitening with a significantly lower RDA value than traditional whitening toothpastes (Lucas at [0028]). Therefore, the composition of Lucas reduces or inhibits enamel erosion by providing a cleaning with less abrasion to the enamel. See MPEP 2144 (II).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Lucas is silent on the structural integrity of the enamel and therefore the obviousness rejection should be withdrawn.
The Examiner does not agree. The instant application recites “A method of reducing or inhibiting enamel erosion, repairing enamel erosion damage, and/or increasing enamel microcrack resistance, comprising applying an oral care composition” (Instant application at claim 1, emphasis added). Lucas teaches a benefit that the compositions to maximize cleaning and provide effective whitening with a significantly lower RDA value than traditional whitening toothpastes (Lucas at [0028]). Lucas teaches that a dentifrice composition of the present invention can therefore provide, after brushing, cleaner, whiter and smoother tooth surfaces having less plaque, tartar and/or stain thereby resulting in an overall improvement in oral health (Lucas at [0035]). Therefore, the composition of Lucas reduces or inhibits enamel erosion by providing a cleaning with less abrasion to the enamel. See MPEP 2144 (II). Lucas does speak to structural integrity of the enamel by removing plaque, tartar and stain with less abrasion reducing the enamel erosion by applying an oral care composition. As such, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the obviousness rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that because Lucas is not specifically intended to address microcracks the obviousness rejection should be withdrawn.
The Examiner does not agree. In response to applicant's argument that the teachings of Lucas do not explicitly teach the reduction of microcracks, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Lucas teaches the application of an oral care composition to the teeth that comprises micro-hydroxyapatite and silica in overlapping amounts to the instant invention. The oral composition of Lucas with a substantially similar or identical the claimed properties are the same. The substantially similar or identical composition of Lucas would effect the enamel of the teeth in the same way as the instant application for whatever properties are being measured because they are made of the same materials and applied in the same manner to the oral cavity. See MPEP 2112.01. Lucas did not need to disclose or recognize the impact on specific enamel structures as the substantially identical composition would have the same effect. "[T]he 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. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP 2112(I) and 2112(II). As such, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the obviousness rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that because Lucas teaches the use of less hydroxyapatite the obviousness rejection should be withdrawn.
The Examiner does not agree. "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See MPEP 2123 (1). The prior art of Lucas is prior art of both the broadest and the narrowest ranges it teaches. 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). See MPEP 2123(II). The broad teachings or non-preferred teachings of Lucas do not teach away from the art. Lucas teaches the sintered hydroxyapatite is present in an amount from about 0.05 to about 4% (Lucas at [0024]), about 4% includes both less than 4% and greater than 4% which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of greater than 4%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I). As such the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the obviousness rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that the use of Lucas is due to hindsight bias and therefore the obviousness rejection should be withdrawn.
The Examiner does not agree. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). As such the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the obviousness rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that the unexpected results overcome the obviousness rejection and therefore the obviousness rejection should be withdrawn.
The Examiner does not agree. The burden is on applicant to provide the practical and statistical evidence and to explain the data. The evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). See MPEP 716.02(b)(I). See MPEP 716.02(b)(II). It is currently unclear if the range of greater than 4% is critical as no control with less than 4% is provided in Table 10. The Table 10 appears to concentrate on the improvement with the addition of arginine, and the Examiner welcomes an explanation of the data. As such the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the obviousness rejection is maintained.
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.
Claim 1, 3, 6-13, 17-18 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of US Patent 12, 521,336 B2 formerly 1-3, 6-14,16-23 of copending Application No. 17/869,215 in view of Lucas et al. (US Patent Application Publication 20160228341A1). The instant invention recites a method of reducing or inhibiting enamel erosion, repairing enamel erosion damage, and/or increasing enamel microcrack resistance, comprising applying an oral care composition comprising hydroxyapatite and a silica abrasive to the oral cavity, wherein the hydroxyapatite (HAP) is a functionalized HAP and wherein the functionalized HAP is HAP CaCO3.
The reference patent recites an oral care composition comprising from about 1% to 10% of hydroxyapatite by weight of the composition and from about 0.1% to 5% hydroxyethylcellulose by weight of the composition, wherein the hydroxyapatite (HAP) is selected from the group consisting of a micro-hydroxyapatite (m-HAP) and a nano-hydroxyapatite (n-HAP)), wherein mean diameter of the m-HAP ranges from about 1 to about 100 μm, wherein the composition increases enamel microscratch resistance, wherein the composition when applied to an enamel sample in a treatment and acid challenge regimen, provides at least a 50% reduction in a change in microscratch volume as compared to an identical composition that is free from the m-HAP or n-HAP (336 at claim 1).The reference patent recites a method of reducing or inhibiting enamel erosion, repairing enamel erosion damage, increasing enamel microcrack resistance and/or increasing enamel microscratch resistance, comprising applying an oral care composition comprising from about 1% to 10% of hydroxyapatite by weight of the composition and from about 0.1% to 5% hydroxyethylcellulose by weight of the composition to the oral cavity, wherein the hydroxyapatite (HAP) is selected from the group consisting of a micro-hydroxyapatite (m-HAP) and a nano-hydroxyapatite (n-HAP)), wherein mean diameter of the m-HAP ranges from about 1 to about 100 μm, wherein the composition when applied to an enamel sample in a treatment and acid challenge regimen, provides at least a 50% reduction in a change in microscratch volume as compared to an identical composition that is free from the m-HAP or n-HAP( 336 at claim 10).
The reference patent differs from the instant application insofar as it does not teach the use of silica. The teachings of Lucas cure this deficit.
The teachings of Lucas are discussed in the obviousness rejection above.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the hydroxyapatite of reference patent ‘336 with the hydroxyapatite of Lucas for the predictable outcome of an oral care composition comprising hydroxyapatite and silica. See MPEP §2144.06(I).
This is a nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have been patented.
Reference claims and prior art combine to produce a prima facie case of obviousness type non-statutory double patenting.
Response to Arguments
Applicant requests that the non-statutory double patenting rejection be held in abeyance.
Since terminal disclaimers have not yet been filed, the non-statutory double patenting rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
No claims are presently allowable.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA MICHELLE PETRITSCH whose telephone number is (571)272-6812. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-17:00 EST ALT Fridays.
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, Sahana S. Kaup, can be reached at 571-272-6897. 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.
/AMANDA MICHELLE PETRITSCH/Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/SAHANA S KAUP/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights