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 .
Claims 14-16, 26-31, and 35-44 are pending in this application.
Election without traverse
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group I, claims 14-16 and 35-44, in the reply filed on 12/9/2025 is acknowledged.
Accordingly, claims 26-31 are withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. Claims 14-16 and 35-44 will presently be examined.
35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 36 is a dependent claim that depends on independent claim 14. Claim 14 recites “a mean particle size between 1 µm and 20 µm,” but its dependent claim 36 recites the mean particle size in “about” language: “about 1 µm, about 2 µm … about 19 µm, or about 20 µm.” Thus, dependent claim 36 is broader than independent claim 14. Consequently, claim 36 fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
35 U.S.C. 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.
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 14-16, 35-36, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lao et al. (US 2014/0080712; hereinafter, Lao) in view of Ai et al. (hereinafter, Ai) and Roy et al. (hereinafter, Roy).
Lao defines “HAIP” as “High Active Ingredient Product,” which is 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) caged in alpha-cyclodextrin, which can be composed of 100-150 µm crystals and which can be air-milled to 3-5 µm (paragraph 33). Lao discloses in Example 2, “Typically, the HAIP has 3-5 µm particle size, but some aggregates of larger particles can be observed” (emphases added) (paragraph 145; see Figures 6a1, 6a2). Blend of HAIP with carnauba wax to provide particle size of 75-100 µm is disclosed (paragraph 145). Double encapsulation of HAIP is also disclosed (paragraph 146). Treating plants or plant parts with a sprayable slow-release formulation or treating plants by foaming, brushing, or dipping is disclosed (paragraphs 23-24, 94-95; claim 64). Commercial value of fresh plants such as vegetables, fruits after harvesting is reduced by excessive ethylene gas, which hastens ripening and early abscission of leaves; and 1-MCP is used to prevent the adverse effects of ethylene by occupying ethylene receptors and therefore inhibiting ethylene from eliciting aforementioned adverse effects (paragraphs 1-2).
Ai is cited to establish that complexation rate and dissolution rate of an inclusion complex (i.e., clathrate) of a guest molecule with β-cyclodextrin increases with smaller guest particle size and decreases with larger guest particle size (see abstract; see also entire article, in particular Table 1. Particle size reduction is an effective method to increase dissolution rate of hydrophobic drugs as preparing cyclodextrin inclusion complex (page 131, left column). “It is well recognized that particle size reduction can increase the specific surface area and dissolution rate will be improved in proportion with the more effective surface area of the drug. Therefore, particle size reduction may increase the surface area of drug accessible to the cyclodextrins.” (id.). Ai also teaches that cyclodextrins α, β, and γ are similar cyclic oligosaccharides made up of 6, 7, or 8 dextrose units, respectively (page 131, right column).
Roy is cited to further show that α- and β-cyclodextrins are structurally similar host molecules, having 6 (for α) or 7 (for β) glucopyranose units, with similar dimensions for hosting a guest molecules; although β-cyclodextrin has a slightly larger interior dimension due to an extra glucopyranose unit (pages 42383 and 42386).
Claim 14 steps a and b
Lao does not explicitly disclose step a of claim 14, wherein the 1-MCP clathrate of alpha-cyclodextrin (i.e., Lao’s HAIP) has a mean particle size between 30-100 µm. However, such mean particle size would have been obvious because Lao’s comminuting step, air milling to 3-5 µm (step b), is suitable with 100-150 µm crystals of HAIP. It would have been obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan that Lao’s air milling step would provide the final comminuted particulates when used with particulates having the claimed mean particle size range. Using particulates of a size range that is lower, such as the claimed 30-100 µm, would have been expected to result in providing 3-5 µm after air milling.
Claim 14, step c; claim 35
Lao does not explicitly disclose a mean particle size between 1-20 µm, but Lao does disclose 3-5 µm, albeit with some larger aggregates, as shown in Figures 6a1 and 6a2. A mean particle size range of 1-20 µm would have been obvious from Lao’s 3-5 µm with some larger particles, because size distribution and mean particle size are obviously obtainable by adjusting known mill parameter such as feed rate, residence time, and/or air pressure.
Additionally, the language “classifying … to select” in claim 14 is not concrete enough to require more than recognition or identification for future or intended use. Similarly, the language “comminuting and the classifying are carried out contemporaneously” in claim 35 is not concrete enough to require more than recognition or identification after air milling.
Claim 15: mean particle size of 4-5 µm, 5-6 µm, 6-7 µm, 7-8 µm, or 8-9 µm
Lao does not explicitly disclose a mean particle size as claimed here, but Lao does disclose 3-5 µm, albeit with some larger aggregates, as shown in Figures 6a1 and 6a2. A mean particle size range of claim 15 would have been obvious from Lao’s 3-5 µm with some larger particles because size distribution and mean particle size are obviously obtainable by adjusting known mill parameter such as feed rate, residence time, and/or air pressure.
Claim 16: further comprising admixing the modified particulate with “the
particulate” to obtain a combined particulate; claim 42: further comprising mixing
the combined particulate with a polymer
Claim 16 does not specify how much of “the particulate” is used in the admixture. Claim 16 is readable on Lao’s aggregates of larger size in admixture with 3-5 µm particles and/or continuous feeding of the air mill.
Claim 42 recites mixing the combined particulate with a polymer. Lao’s blend of HAIP with carnauba wax meets this claim feature (paragraph 145).
Claim 36: classifying is selecting a mean particle of … about 3 µm, about 4 µm,
about 5 µm … about 20 µm
Lao does not explicitly disclose a mean particle size as claimed here, but Lao does disclose 3-5 µm, albeit with some larger aggregates, as shown in Figures 6a1 and 6a2. A mean particle size range of claim 36 would have been obvious from Lao’s 3-5 µm with some larger particles because size distribution and mean particle size are obviously obtainable by adjusting known mill parameter such as feed rate, residence time, and/or air pressure.
Although not specifically required by the rejected claims herein, the ordinary skilled artisan would have recognized that particulates of different sizes would have different dissolution and thus different release characteristics, as evidenced by Ai and Roy. Teachings of Lao would have led the ordinary skilled artisan to modify a particulate consisting of 1-MCP clathrate of α-cyclodextrin, as claimed; and the ordinary skilled artisan would have expected differential release from particles of different sizes, although this expectation is not necessary to reject the claims herein for obviousness because differential release is not explicitly claimed.
For the foregoing reasons, the claimed invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, because every element of the invention and the claimed invention as a whole have been fairly disclosed or suggested by the teachings of the cited references.
35 U.S.C. 103
Claims 14-16 and 35-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood et al. (US 2017/0258085; hereinafter, Wood) in view of Lao (US 2014/0080712), Ai and Roy.
Wood discloses 1-MCP inclusion complex (i.e., clathrate) with α-cyclodextrin (paragraph 84) and method of treating items of produce by disposing the inclusion complex onto a surface of a packing material and placing the treated packaging material proximal to the items of produce (claim 1), wherein maturation of the produce is inhibited (claim 18; paragraphs 4, 22, 67). Suitable packaging materials that are coated with said cyclodextrin composition include thermoplastic polymeric films, sheets, fibers, woven or non-woven fabrics (paragraphs 47, 67, 69, 82). The cyclodextrin inclusion complex can be trapped or entangled within a polymerized coating (paragraph 10).
Lao defines “HAIP” as “High Active Ingredient Product,” which is 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) caged in alpha-cyclodextrin, which can be composed of 100-150 µm crystals and which can be air-milled to 3-5 µm (paragraph 33). Lao discloses in Example 2, “Typically, the HAIP has 3-5 µm particle size, but some aggregates of larger particles can be observed” (emphases added) (paragraph 145; see Figures 6a1, 6a2). Blend of HAIP with carnauba wax to provide particle size of 75-100 µm is disclosed (paragraph 145). Double encapsulation of HAIP is also disclosed (paragraph 146). Treating plants or plant parts with a sprayable slow-release formulation or treating plants by foaming, brushing, or dipping is disclosed (paragraphs 23-24, 94-95; claim 64). Commercial value of fresh plants such as vegetables, fruits after harvesting is reduced by excessive ethylene gas, which hastens ripening and early abscission of leaves; and 1-MCP is used to prevent the adverse effects of ethylene by occupying ethylene receptors and therefore inhibiting ethylene from eliciting aforementioned adverse effects (paragraphs 1-2).
Ai is cited to establish that complexation rate and dissolution rate of an inclusion complex (i.e., clathrate) of a guest molecule with β-cyclodextrin increases with smaller guest particle size and decreases with larger guest particle size (see abstract; see also entire article, in particular Table 1. Particle size reduction is an effective method to increase dissolution rate of hydrophobic drugs as preparing cyclodextrin inclusion complex (page 131, left column). “It is well recognized that particle size reduction can increase the specific surface area and dissolution rate will be improved in proportion with the more effective surface area of the drug. Therefore, particle size reduction may increase the surface area of drug accessible to the cyclodextrins.” (id.). Ai also teaches that cyclodextrins α, β, and γ are similar cyclic oligosaccharides made up of 6, 7, or 8 dextrose units, respectively (page 131, right column).
Roy is cited to further show that α- and β-cyclodextrins are structurally similar host molecules, having 6 (for α) or 7 (for β) glucopyranose units, with similar dimensions for hosting a guest molecules; although β-cyclodextrin has a slightly larger interior dimension due to an extra glucopyranose unit (pages 42383 and 42386).
Wood does not explicitly disclose a size range for a particulate consisting of 1-MCP clathrate of α-cyclodextrin. However, a mean particle size of 30-100 µm and post-comminution mean particle size of 1-20 µm as claimed herein would have been obvious from the known size range of HAIP and air-milled HAIP, as taught by Lao. Use of combined particulates of different particle size would have been obvious because the prior art teaches air-milled 3-5 µm HAIP with larger aggregates. Modification to obtain claim-specific mean particle size range would have been well within the skill of the ordinary skilled artisan upon routine optimization of milling parameters such as feed rate, residence time, and/or air pressure. Affixing the particulate, combined particulate, or combined particulate with polymer to a substrate would have been obvious from Wood’s disclosure of disposing 1-MCP α-cyclodextrin inclusion complex onto a surface of a packing material such as thermoplastic sheet, film, woven and non-woven fabric.
Although not specifically required by the rejected claims herein, the ordinary skilled artisan would have recognized that particulates of different sizes would have different dissolution and thus different release characteristics, as evidenced by Ai and Roy. Teachings of Lao would have led the ordinary skilled artisan to modify a particulate consisting of 1-MCP clathrate of α-cyclodextrin, as claimed; and the ordinary skilled artisan would have expected differential release from particles of different sizes, although this expectation is not necessary to reject the claims herein for obviousness because differential release is not explicitly claimed.
For the foregoing reasons, the claimed invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, because every element of the invention and the claimed invention as a whole have been fairly disclosed or suggested by the teachings of the cited references.
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 14-16 and 35-44 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,591,415 (‘415 patent) in view of Wood (US 2017/0258085).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons.
Claim 15 of the ‘415 patent is directed to a method of making a particulate composition comprising (a) obtaining a source particulate consisting essentially of 1-MCP clathrate of α-cyclodextrin having a mean particle size between 30-100 µm, (b) modifying a first portion of the source particulate to provide a first particulate portion having a mean particle size between 1-10 µm or between 10-20 µm, and admixing at least a portion of the first particulate portion with at least a portion of the source particulate (second particulate portion) to obtain a particulate composition. The first particulate portion and second particulate portion have different rates of release of 1-MCP, and the ultimate composition, which is a mixture of the first particulate portion and second particulate portion, has a rate of 1-MCP release that is intermediate between the two rates of 1-MCP release (claim 1). First particulate portion can have a mean particle size between 1-3 µm, 2-4 µm, 6-8 µm, 8-10 µm (claim 3), or about 4, 5, 6 or 7 µm (claims 4-7), wherein said first particulate portion is produced by comminuting a portion of the source particulate (claim 12). Method of disgorging 1-MCP gas from the particulate composition is used to treat living plant or portion thereof 9claikm 14). See also all claims 1-15 of the ‘415 patent.
Wood discloses 1-MCP inclusion complex (i.e., clathrate) with α-cyclodextrin (paragraph 84) and method of treating items of produce by disposing the inclusion complex onto a surface of a packing material and placing the treated packaging material proximal to the items of produce (claim 1), wherein maturation of the produce is inhibited (claim 18; paragraphs 4, 22, 67). Suitable packaging materials that are coated with said cyclodextrin composition include thermoplastic polymeric films, sheets, fibers, woven or non-woven fabrics (paragraphs 47, 67, 69, 82). The cyclodextrin inclusion complex can be trapped or entangled within a polymerized coating (paragraph 10).
Claims of the ‘415 patent do not explicitly disclose affixing the modified particulate to a substrate such as thermoplastic sheet or film, or woven or nonwoven fabric, but Wood provides the motivation to do so because the affixed product would find use as packaging material for vegetables and fruits.
For these reasons, the ordinary skilled artisan would have recognized the claimed invention as an obvious variation of the invention set forth in the claims of the ‘415 patent.
Claims 14-16 and 35-44 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. 11,492,419 (‘419 patent) in view of Wood (US 2017/0258085.
The ‘419 patent discloses a method of modifying a rate of 1-MCP release from a particulate product consisting essentially of a 1-MCP clathrate of α-cyclodextrin comprising providing two different mean particle sized products of 1-MCP clathrate of α-cyclodextrin having different rate of 1-MCP release, wherein the second mean particle size products are classified (claim 1) or comminuted before being classified (claims 8-9). The first classified particulates can have a mean particle size of 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, or 15 µm (claim 11). The second mean particle size is 20-200% higher than the first mean particle size of the particulate product (claim 2) or the second mean particle size is 20-99.9% lower than the first mean particle size of the particulate product (claim 3). Various admixed or combined particulates are claimed (claims 12-22). Method of obtaining selected release rate of 1-MCP is claimed, wherein particulates of different mean particle size classification are used to provide different rates of 1-MCP release (claims 23-29).
Wood discloses 1-MCP inclusion complex (i.e., clathrate) with α-cyclodextrin (paragraph 84) and method of treating items of produce by disposing the inclusion complex onto a surface of a packing material and placing the treated packaging material proximal to the items of produce (claim 1), wherein maturation of the produce is inhibited (claim 18; paragraphs 4, 22, 67). Suitable packaging materials that are coated with said cyclodextrin composition include thermoplastic polymeric films, sheets, fibers, woven or non-woven fabrics (paragraphs 47, 67, 69, 82). The cyclodextrin inclusion complex can be trapped or entangled within a polymerized coating (paragraph 10).
Claims of the ‘419 patent do not explicitly disclose affixing the modified particulates to a substrate such as thermoplastic sheet or film, or woven or nonwoven fabric, but Wood provides the motivation to do so because the affixed product would find use as packaging material for vegetables and fruits.
For these reasons, the ordinary skilled artisan would have recognized the claimed invention as an obvious variation of the invention set forth in the claims of the ‘419 patent.
Claims 14-16 and 35-44 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16 and 18-27 of copending Application No. 16/859,399 (reference application) in view of Lao (US 2014/0080712) and Wood (US 2017/0258085). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons.
Claims of the reference application are directed to a coated substrate comprising a coating affixed to a substrate, the coating comprising a mixture of a polymer and a particulate consisting essentially of at least 85 wt% of 1-MCP clathrate of α-cyclodextrin and 0-15 wt% α-cyclodextrin, the particulate having a mean particle size between 3-15 µm, e.g., 3-5 µm (claims 1, 18). The substrate is a thermoplastic sheet or film, woven or nonwoven fabric or paper (claim 22). See all of claims 16, 18-27.
Lao defines “HAIP” as “High Active Ingredient Product,” which is 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) caged in alpha-cyclodextrin, which can be composed of 100-150 µm crystals and which can be air-milled to 3-5 µm (paragraph 33). Lao discloses in Example 2, “Typically, the HAIP has 3-5 µm particle size, but some aggregates of larger particles can be observed” (emphases added) (paragraph 145; see Figures 6a1, 6a2). Blend of HAIP with carnauba wax to provide particle size of 75-100 µm is disclosed (paragraph 145). Treating plants or plant parts with a sprayable slow-release formulation or treating plants by foaming, brushing, or dipping is disclosed (paragraphs 23-24, 94-95; claim 64). Commercial value of fresh plants such as vegetables, fruits after harvesting is reduced by excessive ethylene gas, which hastens ripening and early abscission of leaves; and 1-MCP is used to prevent the adverse effects of ethylene by occupying ethylene receptors and therefore inhibiting ethylene from eliciting aforementioned adverse effects (paragraphs 1-2).
Wood discloses 1-MCP inclusion complex (i.e., clathrate) with α-cyclodextrin (paragraph 84) and method of treating items of produce by disposing the inclusion complex onto a surface of a packing material and placing the treated packaging material proximal to the items of produce (claim 1), wherein maturation of the produce is inhibited (claim 18; paragraphs 4, 22, 67). Suitable packaging materials that are coated with said cyclodextrin composition include thermoplastic polymeric films, sheets, fibers, woven or non-woven fabrics (paragraphs 47, 67, 69, 82). The cyclodextrin inclusion complex can be trapped or entangled within a polymerized coating (paragraph 10).
Although claims of the reference application do not explicitly disclose the steps of comminuting and classifying, Lao is evidence that 1-MCP clathrate of α-cyclodextrin is available in larger size range, which is air milled to reduce to 3-5 µm, wherein larger aggregate particles can be present. A mean particle size of 30-100 µm and post-comminution mean particle size of 1-20 µm as claimed herein would have been obvious from the known size range of HAIP and air-milled HAIP, as taught by Lao. Use of combined particulates of different particle size would have been obvious because Lao teaches air-milled 3-5 µm HAIP with larger aggregates. Modification to obtain claim-specific mean particle size range would have been well within the skill of the ordinary skilled artisan upon routine optimization of milling parameters such as feed rate, residence time, and/or air pressure. Affixing the particulate, combined particulate, or combined particulate with polymer to a substrate would have been obvious from the coated substrates of the reference application and Wood’s disclosure of disposing 1-MCP α-cyclodextrin inclusion complex onto a surface of a packing material such as thermoplastic sheet, film, woven and non-woven fabric.
For these reasons, the ordinary skilled artisan would have recognized the claimed invention as an obvious variation of the invention set forth in the reference application in view of Lao and Wood.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
For the foregoing reasons, all claims are rejected. No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to JOHN PAK whose telephone number is (571)272-0620. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:30 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's SPE, Fereydoun Sajjadi, can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JOHN PAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1699