DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 13 is withdrawn.
Claims 1-12 and 14-17 are pending and represent all claims currently under consideration.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025, regarding the niosomes of Bevier (Remarks, pages 7-12), were previously considered in the Advisory Action mailed 12/04/2025.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025, regarding the composition as amended (Remarks, pages 7-9), have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that the cited references contain no suggestion that the at least one linear or branched polyglycerol and the at least one polysaccharide are not chemically linked to the at least one cannabinoid (Remarks, pages 8-9). This argument is not persuasive, because the previously cited references do suggest the composition of the amended claim, as discussed in the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-12 and 14-17 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, there is not support in the instant specification for excluding chemical linking of the at least one cannabinoid and the polyglycerol or polysaccharide. Newly added claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure. See MPEP 2163(I)(B). Applicant states that one of skill in the art would understand that the method used to prepare the niosomes would result in the at least one linear or branched polyglycerol esterified with linear saturated or monounsaturated fatty acids and the at least one polysaccharide not being chemically linked to the at least one cannabinoid (Remarks, page 7, “Support for the Amendments”). This argument is not persuasive, because there is no support in the disclosure for the interaction between each component of the composition. Per MPEP 2173.05(i), any negative limitations or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. If alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be excluded in the claim. In the instant case, there is no negative or positive recitation of chemical linking of the at least one cannabinoid and the polyglycerol or polysaccharide.
Regarding claims 2-12 and 14-17, each claim is dependent on the rejected claims 1 and 11 and does not cure the deficiencies of the independent claims.
Modified/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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9, and 11-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 and 9 of copending Application No. 18/257,796 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 1, the reference application teaches a topical formulation comprising a water-based (i.e., aqueous-based) composition comprising cannabinoids in niosomes and at least one topically acceptable excipient, wherein the niosomes have a size of less than 500 nm (reference application, claim 1), and wherein the niosomes comprise at least one linear or branched polyglycerol esterified with saturated or monounsaturated linear fatty acids and at least one polysaccharide (reference application, claim 2). The reference application does not specify any chemical linking of the at least one cannabinoid and the polyglycerol or polysaccharide and therefore reads on the invention as stated in the amended claim.
Regarding claim 2, the reference application teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. The reference application further teaches the cannabinoids are of natural or synthetic origin (reference application, claim 3).
Regarding claim 3, the reference application teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. The reference application further teaches the at least one polysaccharide is of natural origin (reference application, claim 6).
Regarding claim 5, the reference application teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. The reference application further teaches the at least one linear or branched polyglycerol is at least one selected from the group consisting of triglycerol, tetraglycerol, hexaglycerol, octaglycerol, and decaglycerol (reference application, claim 4).
Regarding claim 6, the reference application teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. The reference application further teaches the saturated or monounsaturated linear fatty acids are selected from the group consisting of monocarboxylic acids having from 4 to 32 carbon atoms (reference application, claim 5).
Regarding claim 9, the reference application teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. The reference application further teaches the niosomes comprise at least one glycol having 4 to 16 carbon atoms (reference application, claim 7).
Regarding claim 11, the reference application teaches a topical formulation comprising a water-based (i.e., aqueous-based) composition comprising cannabinoids in niosomes (reference application, claim 1), wherein the niosomes comprise at least one linear or branched polyglycerol esterified with saturated or monounsaturated linear fatty acids and at least one polysaccharide (reference application, claim 2) and the niosomes comprise at least one glycol having 4 to 16 carbon atoms (reference application, claim 7).
Regarding claim 12, the reference application teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 11. The reference application teaches the formulation is water-based (i.e., aqueous-based; reference application, claim 1) and is in the form of a solution (reference application, claim 9).
Modified/Maintained 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.
Claims 1-9, 11-12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bevier (US 20130011484 A1), further in view of Pacchetti (US 20170281481 A1; IDS reference, 08/31/2022), and evidenced by Synytsya (Annals of Translational Medicine, 2014). The references were previously cited by the Examiner.
Regarding claim 1, Bevier teaches a composition comprising niosomes encapsulating a cannabinoid receptor binding agent (claim 13), which can be cannabidiol (i.e., at least one cannabinoid; page 14, paragraph 0147, table 2), and is aqueous (page 14, paragraph 0147, table 2), and exemplifies such niosomes to be 150-300 nm in size (i.e., smaller than 500 nm; Bevier, page 11, paragraph 0119, formulation 9). Bevier teaches nanoparticles may be coated with a polysaccharide (Bevier, page 5, paragraph 0057), suggesting the polysaccharide is not chemically linked to the cannabinoid, as claimed. Bevier teaches the composition is for topical use (Bevier, page 1, paragraph 0002) and further teaches the use of excipients (Bevier, page 5, paragraph 0060) which should be compatible with the intended functionality (i.e., the excipient should be topically acceptable; Bevier, page 6, paragraph 0060).
Bevier does not specifically teach a polyglycerol which is esterified with a fatty acid and is not chemically linked to the cannabinoid, but does teach the use of non-ionic surfactants as permeation enhancers (Bevier, page 7, paragraph 0073) and further teaches permeation enhancers can be encapsulated within the vesicle with the cannabinoid (Bevier, page 5, paragraph 0051), suggesting the non-ionic surfactant is not chemically linked to the cannabinoid.
Pacchetti teaches a topical composition comprising niosomes having a size of smaller than 500 nm and comprising a topically acceptable excipient (Pacchetti, abstract), wherein the niosomes comprise esters of linear or branched polyglycerols with saturated or monounsaturated linear fatty acids (Pacchetti, page 2, paragraph 0026). Pacchetti defines the esterified linear or branched polyglycerols as non-ionic surfactants (Pacchetti, claim 6).
Bevier and Pacchetti are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because both are in the same field of topical compositions comprising niosomes comprising polymers. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bevier to have included esters of linear or branched polyglycerols with saturated or monounsaturated linear fatty acids (Pacchetti, page 2, paragraph 0026) as taught by Pacchetti, because Bevier teaches the use of non-ionic surfactants to enhance permeation (Bevier, page 7, paragraph 0073), while Pacchetti teaches esters of linear or branched polyglycerols as particularly preferred surfactants in niosome production (Pacchetti, page 2, paragraph 0039).
Regarding claim 2, Bevier and Pacchetti together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Bevier further teaches the use of natural or synthetic cannabinoids (Bevier, page 2, paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 3, Bevier and Pacchetti together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Bevier further teaches the polysaccharide is a natural polymer (Bevier, page 8, paragraph 0086).
Regarding claim 4, Bevier and Pacchetti together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. As above, Bevier teaches nanoparticles may be coated with a polysaccharide (Bevier, page 5, paragraph 0057), and Bevier further teaches polysaccharides such as dextran (i.e., an alpha-glucan as evidenced by Synytsya, table 1; Bevier, page 8, paragraph 0086).
Regarding claim 5, Bevier and Pacchetti together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. As above, Bevier does not specifically teach a polyglycerol which is esterified with a fatty acid and is not chemically linked to the cannabinoid, but does teach the use of non-ionic surfactants as permeation enhancers (Bevier, page 7, paragraph 0073) and further teaches permeation enhancers can be encapsulated within the vesicle with the cannabinoid (Bevier, page 5, paragraph 0051), suggesting the non-ionic surfactant is not chemically linked to the cannabinoid. Pacchetti teaches niosomes comprising esters of linear or branched polyglycerols with saturated or monounsaturated linear fatty acids (Pacchetti, page 2, paragraph 0026), and further teaches the polyglycerol is preferably triglycerol, tetraglycerol, hexaglycerol, octaglycerol, or decaglycerol (Pacchetti, page 2, paragraph 0042). Pacchetti defines the esterified linear or branched polyglycerols as non-ionic surfactants (Pacchetti, claim 6). As above, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bevier to have included a preferred polyglycerol ester (Pacchetti, page 2, paragraph 0026) as taught by Pacchetti, because Bevier teaches the use of non-ionic surfactants to enhance permeation (Bevier, page 7, paragraph 0073), while Pacchetti teaches esters of linear or branched polyglycerols as particularly preferred surfactants in niosome production (Pacchetti, page 2, paragraph 0039).
Regarding claim 6, Bevier and Pacchetti together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. As above, Bevier does not specifically teach a polyglycerol which is esterified with a fatty acid and is not chemically linked to the cannabinoid, but does teach the use of non-ionic surfactants as permeation enhancers (Bevier, page 7, paragraph 0073) and further teaches permeation enhancers can be encapsulated within the vesicle with the cannabinoid (Bevier, page 5, paragraph 0051), suggesting the non-ionic surfactant is not chemically linked to the cannabinoid. Pacchetti, however, teaches esters of linear or branched polyglycerols with saturated or monounsaturated linear fatty acids (Pacchetti, page 2, paragraph 0026), wherein the fatty acid comprises a monocarboxylic acid having from 4-32 carbon atoms, including stearic acid (Pacchetti, page 3, paragraph 0044). As above, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bevier to have included a preferred polyglycerol/fatty acid ester (Pacchetti, page 2, paragraph 0026) as taught by Pacchetti, because Bevier teaches the use of non-ionic surfactants to enhance permeation (Bevier, page 7, paragraph 0073), while Pacchetti teaches that an ester of the two is particularly preferred for niosome production (Pacchetti, page 2, paragraph 0039).
Regarding claim 7, Bevier and Pacchetti together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. As above, Bevier does not specifically teach a polyglycerol which is esterified with a fatty acid and is not chemically linked to the cannabinoid, but does teach the use of non-ionic surfactants as permeation enhancers (Bevier, page 7, paragraph 0073) and further teaches permeation enhancers can be encapsulated within the vesicle with the cannabinoid (Bevier, page 5, paragraph 0051), suggesting the non-ionic surfactant is not chemically linked to the cannabinoid. Pacchetti, however, teaches esters of linear or branched polyglycerols with saturated or monounsaturated linear fatty acids (Pacchetti, page 2, paragraph 0026), wherein the fatty acid comprises a monocarboxylic acid having from 4-32 carbon atoms, including stearic acid (Pacchetti, page 3, paragraph 0044). As above, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bevier to have included a preferred polyglycerol/fatty acid ester (Pacchetti, page 2, paragraph 0026) as taught by Pacchetti, because Bevier teaches the use of non-ionic surfactants to enhance permeation (Bevier, page 7, paragraph 0073), while Pacchetti teaches that an ester of the two is particularly preferred for niosome production (Pacchetti, page 2, paragraph 0039).
Regarding claim 8, Bevier and Pacchetti together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. As above, Bevier does not specifically teach a polyglycerol which is esterified with a fatty acid and is not chemically linked to the cannabinoid, but does teach the use of non-ionic surfactants as permeation enhancers (Bevier, page 7, paragraph 0073) and further teaches permeation enhancers can be encapsulated within the vesicle with the cannabinoid (Bevier, page 5, paragraph 0051), suggesting the non-ionic surfactant is not chemically linked to the cannabinoid. Pacchetti, however, teaches esters of linear or branched polyglycerols with saturated or monounsaturated linear fatty acids (Pacchetti, page 2, paragraph 0026), wherein the fatty acid comprises a monocarboxylic acid having from 4-32 carbon atoms, including myristoleic acid (Pacchetti, page 3, paragraph 0046). As above, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bevier to have included a preferred polyglycerol/fatty acid ester (Pacchetti, page 2, paragraph 0026) as taught by Pacchetti, because Bevier teaches the use of non-ionic surfactants to enhance permeation (Bevier, page 7, paragraph 0073), while Pacchetti teaches that an ester of the two is particularly preferred for niosome production (Pacchetti, page 2, paragraph 0039).
Regarding claim 9, Bevier and Pacchetti together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Bevier teaches the use of glycols (Bevier, page 3, paragraph 0037) such as propylene glycol (Bevier, page 8, paragraph 0085), but does not specify a glycol having from 4-16 carbon atoms. Pacchetti, however, teaches glycols to include both propylene glycol and butylene glycol (i.e., a glycol with 4 carbon atoms; Pacchetti, page 4, paragraph 0077). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize butylene glycol in place of the propylene glycol taught by Bevier, because Pacchetti teaches the two chemicals to be reasonable alternatives (Pacchetti, page 4, paragraph 0077).
Regarding claim 11, Bevier teaches a composition comprising niosomes encapsulating a cannabinoid receptor binding agent (claim 13), which can be cannabidiol (i.e., at least one cannabinoid; page 14, paragraph 0147, table 2), and is aqueous (page 14, paragraph 0147, table 2), and exemplifies such niosomes to be 150-300 nm in size (i.e., smaller than 500 nm; Bevier, page 11, paragraph 0119, formulation 9). Bevier teaches nanoparticles may be coated with a polysaccharide (Bevier, page 5, paragraph 0057), suggesting the polysaccharide is not chemically linked to the cannabinoid, as claimed. Bevier teaches the composition is for topical use (Bevier, page 1, paragraph 0002) and further teaches the use of excipients (Bevier, page 5, paragraph 0060) which should be compatible with the intended functionality (i.e., the excipient should be topically acceptable; Bevier, page 6, paragraph 0060).
Bevier does not specifically teach a polyglycerol which is esterified with a fatty acid and is not chemically linked to the cannabinoid, but does teach the use of non-ionic surfactants as permeation enhancers (Bevier, page 7, paragraph 0073) and further teaches permeation enhancers can be encapsulated within the vesicle with the cannabinoid (Bevier, page 5, paragraph 0051), suggesting the non-ionic surfactant is not chemically linked to the cannabinoid. Pacchetti teaches a topical composition comprising niosomes having a size of smaller than 500 nm and comprising a topically acceptable excipient (Pacchetti, abstract), wherein the niosomes comprise esters of linear or branched polyglycerols with saturated or monounsaturated linear fatty acids (Pacchetti, page 2, paragraph 0026). Pacchetti defines the esterified linear or branched polyglycerols as non-ionic surfactants (Pacchetti, claim 6).
Bevier further teaches glycols including propylene glycol (Bevier, page 8, paragraph 0085), but does not specify a glycol having from 4-16 carbon atoms. Pacchetti, however, teaches glycols including either propylene glycol and butylene glycol (i.e., a glycol with 4 carbon atoms; Pacchetti, page 4, paragraph 0077).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bevier to have included esters of linear or branched polyglycerols with saturated or monounsaturated linear fatty acids (Pacchetti, page 2, paragraph 0026) as taught by Pacchetti, because Bevier teaches the use of non-ionic surfactants to enhance permeation (Bevier, page 7, paragraph 0073), while Pacchetti teaches esters of linear or branched polyglycerols as particularly preferred surfactants in niosome production (Pacchetti, page 2, paragraph 0039). Further, it would have been obvious to utilize butylene glycol in place of the propylene glycol taught by Bevier, because Pacchetti teaches the two chemicals to be reasonable alternatives (Pacchetti, page 4, paragraph 0077).
Regarding claim 12, Bevier and Pacchetti together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 11. Bevier teaches the composition is in the form of a solution in water (i.e., an aqueous solution; Bevier, page 11, paragraph 0113, formulation 3).
Regarding claim 14, Bevier and Pacchetti together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Bevier further teaches the composition comprises cannabidiol (Bevier, page 11, paragraph 0119, formulation 9).
Regarding claim 15, Bevier and Pacchetti together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 2. Bevier further teaches the composition comprises cannabidiol (Bevier, page 11, paragraph 0119, formulation 9).
Regarding claim 16, Bevier and Pacchetti together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 3. Bevier further teaches the use of polysaccharides which can be alginate (Bevier, page 8, paragraph 0086).
Regarding claim 17, Bevier and Pacchetti together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 4. Bevier further teaches the use of natural polymers which can be cellulose (i.e., a beta-glucan as evidenced by Synytsya, table 1; Bevier, page 8, paragraph 0086).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bevier (US 20130011484 A1) and Pacchetti (US 20170281481 A1; IDS reference, 08/31/2022) as applied to claims 1-9, 11-12, and 14-17, further in view of Blume (US 9211238 B2). The references were previously cited by the Examiner.
Regarding claim 10, Bevier and Pacchetti together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 9. Bevier teaches the use of glycols (Bevier, page 3, paragraph 0037) such as propylene glycol (Bevier, page 8, paragraph 0085), but does not specify a glycol having from 4-16 carbon atoms. Pacchetti teaches glycols to include both propylene glycol and butylene glycol (i.e., a glycol with 4 carbon atoms; Pacchetti, page 4, paragraph 0077), but does not specifically state the butylene glycol is 1,2-butanediol. Blume teaches vesicles such as niosomes (Blume, column 1, line 25) comprising polymers (Blume, column 5, line 31), fatty acids (Blume, column 3, line 44), and polysaccharides (Blume, column 6, line 14) for topical application (Blume, column 3, line 33), and further teaches suitable solvents include propylene glycol and 1,2-butylene glycol (i.e., 1,2-butanediol; Blume, column 7, lines 65-66).
Bevier, Pacchetti, and Blume are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because all are in the same field of topical compositions comprising niosomes comprising polymers. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize butylene glycol in place of the propylene glycol taught by Bevier, because Pacchetti and Blume teach the two chemicals to be reasonable alternatives (Pacchetti, page 4, paragraph 0077).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHASITY P JANOSKO whose telephone number is (703)756-5307. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-3:30 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, Brian-Yong 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.
/C.P.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1613
/JENNIFER A BERRIOS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613