Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Application
The Amendments and Remarks filed on 01/02/26 are acknowledged.
Claim 16 was cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 6-12, and 17-20 were amended.
Claims 1-15 and 17-20 are pending and included in the prosecution.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 09/12/25 is acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the examiner is considering the information disclosure statement.
Please see the attached copy of PTO-1449.
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
The objections to claims 1, 2, 6-8, 10-12, 17-18, and 20 are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
The rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite is withdrawn in view of the amendments.
The provisional double patenting rejections over Application Nos. 17/944,982; 17/945,011; 17/945,035; and 17/945,036 are withdrawn in view of the Terminal Disclaimer filed on 01/02/26. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Notice for all US Patent Applications filed on or after March 16, 2013
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.
Maintained & Updated Rejections
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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 1-5, 7, 9-14, and 17-20 are again rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durkacz et al. (US 10,851,077 B2 – “Durkacz”) as evidenced by Pall (Introduction to Tangential Flow Filtration for Laboratory and Process Development Applications 2003, 8 pages), in view of Garabagi et al. (WO 2020/044116 A1 – “Garabagi”), and Akhtar et al. (WO 2010/013224 A2 – “Akhtar”).
The claimed invention is a method of stabilizing active ingredients from plant materials in an aqueous suspension, the method comprising the steps of:
extracting one or more active ingredients of a plant material using an extraction solvent, wherein the extraction of the one or more active ingredients of the plant materials comprises:
transferring the plant material into a temperature-controlled reactor;
adding the extraction solvent to the temperature-controlled reactor, thereby producing an eluant from the plant material;
incubating the eluant at a selected temperature for a duration of time; and
running the eluant through a filtration process to obtain an extractant solution filtrate and a separated solid plant material product;
encapsulating the one or more active ingredients in one or more nanoparticles; and
dispersing the one or more nanoparticles in an aqueous suspension, wherein
the one or more nanoparticles have a Z-average diameter between 50 to 950 nanometers;
the Z-average diameter of the one or more nanoparticles changes less than 20% when the aqueous suspension is incubated at 40°C for four weeks;
the Z-average diameter of the one or more nanoparticles changes less than 20% when the aqueous suspension is incubated at 90°C for 30 minutes; and
the one or more nanoparticles have a zeta potential of 30 m V or larger.
Durkacz teaches a method for extracting and concentrating cannabinoids using ultrasound-enhanced solvent extraction (Abstract, Col. 4, line 20 to Col. 7, line 3). Plant materials (Col. 22, lines 34-37) are extracted using ultrasound-assisted extraction (Abstract). Shredded plant material is added to a mixing tank and pure ethanol (i.e., an extraction solvent) is added (Col. 9, line 12) forming a slurry (i.e., eluant) that is mixed for 30 seconds to 10 minutes at 26°C (i.e., incubated for at a first temperature for a first duration) (Table 1-1) prior to ultrasound (Col. 9, lines 65-66). The slurry is subjected to ultrasound (Col. 9, line 66) under temperature control (i.e., the extraction is carried out in a “temperature controlled reactor”) (Col. 19, lines 30-35) followed by filtration through a disc filter (Col. 17, line 54), membrane filtration techniques (Col. 14, lines 17-18), known to one familiar in the art as direct flow or tangential flow filtration, as evidenced by Pall (Page 2), or a centrifugal filter (Col. 14, line 8). Following filtration the ethanol is vacuum distilled (Col. 15, line 7) and fed to a condenser for reuse (i.e., recovered by a recycling conduit) (Col. 15, lines 22-24).
Durkacz does not expressly teach encapsulating the one or more active ingredients in one or more nanoparticles; dispersing the one or more nanoparticles in an aqueous suspension; the Z-average diameter of the nanoparticles, or the zeta potential of the nanoparticles.
Garabagi teaches therapeutic combinations of cannabinoid and curcumin for oral administration ([0005]) that can be a tincture ([0006]). Formulations include cannabinoids in addition to other natural health products, including curcumin, Echinacea, Lavender or St. John’s Wort ([0073]). The ingredients can be formulated as “liposomes (fully encapsulated or aggregated) and nanoparticles” ([0075]). Additional excipients including methylcellulose, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, microcrystalline cellulose ([0077]) and hydrogenated vegetable oil ([0077]) are disclosed.
Akhtar teaches preparing curcumin nanoparticles (Abstract) and includes an aqueous suspension of nanoparticles containing curcumin (Page 10, lines 9-13, and claim 8). Akhtar also teaches that the chitosan loaded curcumin nanoparticles have a size of 43 nm to 325 nm ( Figure 1 and Page 11, lines 19-21) and claims the diameter range of between 50 nm and 284 nm (claim 2). Figure 1.3 shows that the zeta potential of curcumin bound to chitosan nanoparticles is about 65 mV (Figure 1.3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method for extracting plant materials such as cannabinoids, as taught by Durkacz, wherein the method includes using membrane filtration techniques which are the same as direct flow or tangential flow filtration, as evidenced by Pall, in view of the therapeutic combinations of cannabinoid and curcumin for oral administration where the ingredients are formulated as liposomes and nanoparticles, as taught by Garabagi, include the curcumin containing nanoparticles in an aqueous suspension wherein the chitosan loaded curcumin nanoparticles have a size of 43 nm to 325 nm and the zeta potential of curcumin bound to chitosan nanoparticles is about 65 mV, as taught by Akhtar, and arrive at the instant invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this because all the references are drawn to methods of preparing formulations containing plant extracts and it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Please see MPEP 2141(III)(A).
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Regarding instant claims 1 and 20, the limitations of the method of stabilizing active ingredients of plant materials in an aqueous suspension would have been obvious over the method for extracting plant materials such as cannabinoids, as taught by Durkacz (Abstract, Col. 4, line 20 to Col. 7, line 3, Col. 22, lines 34-37, Col. 9, lines 12 and 65-66, Table 1-1, Col. 19, lines 30-35, Col. 17, line 54, Col. 14, lines 17-18, Col. 14, line 8, Col. 15, lines 7 and 22-24), wherein the method includes using membrane filtration techniques which are the same as direct flow or tangential flow filtration, as evidenced by Pall (Page 2), in view of the therapeutic combinations of cannabinoid and curcumin for oral administration where the ingredients are formulated as liposomes and nanoparticles, as taught by Garabagi ([0005], [0006], [0073], [0075], and [0077]), include the curcumin containing nanoparticles in an aqueous suspension, as taught by Akhtar (Abstract, Page 10, lines 9-13, and claim 8).
Regarding instant claims 1 and 20, the limitations of the Z-average diameter between 50 to 950 nanometers would have been obvious over the curcumin nanoparticles having a diameter between 50 nm to 284 nm (claim 2), and the chitosan loaded curcumin nanoparticles having a size of 43 nm to 325 nm (Figure 1, Page 11, lines 19-21), as taught by Akhtar. According to MPEP 2144.05, “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Regarding instant claims 1 and 20, the limitations regarding changing the diameter after specific incubation periods and temperatures are properties associated with the nanoparticle formulation and inseparable from it. Since the prior art teaches the same nanoparticle, the same properties regarding stability would have been expected.
Regarding instant claims 1 and 20, the limitations of the one or more nanoparticles having a zeta potential of 30 mV or larger would have been obvious over the zeta potential of curcumin bound to chitosan nanoparticles which is about 65 mV (Figure 1.3), as taught by Akhtar. Please see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding instant claims 2 and 20, the limitations of a device for applying ultrasound waves would have been obvious over the ultrasound-enhanced solvent extraction (Abstract, Col. 9, lines 65-66), as taught by Durkacz.
Regarding instant claims 3 and 20, the limitations of ethanol would have been obvious over the ethanol (Col. 9, line 12), as taught by Durkacz.
Regarding instant claim 4, the limitation of the extractant solvent would have been obvious over the solvents including coconut oil (Col. 5, lines 12-17), as taught by Durkacz.
Regarding instant claim 5, the limitation of carbon dioxide as the extractant solvent would have been obvious over the solvents including super critical CO2 (Col. 5, lines 12-17), as taught by Durkacz.
Regarding instant claims 7 and 20, the limitations of the plant material would have been obvious over the curcumin ([0005]) from Curcuma longa ([0028]), echinacea, lavender, cinnamon, ginger, maca root, Kava Piper methysticum, Valerian root, etc. ([0073]), as taught by Garabagi.
Regarding instant claim 9, the limitation of 35°C to 300°C would have been obvious over the overlapping temperature range of 40 to 50°C (Col. 15, lines 10-13), as taught by Durkacz. Please see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding instant claim 10, the limitation of a disk filter would have been obvious over the multi-disk screw filter (Col. 17, lines 43-45), as taught by Durkacz.
Regarding instant claim 11, the limitation of tangential flow filtration would have been obvious over the membrane filtration techniques (Col. 14, lines 17-18), taught by Durkacz, which are known to one familiar in the art as direct flow or tangential flow filtration, as evidenced by Pall (Page 2).
Regarding instant claim 12, the limitation of centrifugation filtration would have been obvious over the centrifugal filter (Col. 14, line 8), as taught by Durkacz.
Regarding instant claim 13, the limitation of adding the extractant solution filtrate to a carrier solvent would have been obvious over the solvents including ethanol, isopropyl alcohol, coconut oil, glycerin, propylene glycol, as well as super critical CO2 or water (Col. 5, lines 12-17), as taught by Durkacz.
Regarding instant claim 14, the limitation of a recycling conduit would have been obvious over the recycling (Col. 6, lines 9-10), as taught by Durkacz.
Regarding instant claim 17, the limitation of the cannabinoids would have been obvious over the cannabinoids including tetrahydrocannabinol, cannabivarin, etc.(Col. 21, line 47 to Col. 22, line 33), as taught by Durkacz, and the cannabidiol, cannabigerol, tetrahydrocannabinol, etc. (claim 1), as taught by Garabagi.
Regarding instant claim 18, the limitation of the emulsifying agents would have been obvious over the glycerin (glycerol) (Col. 5, lines 12-17), as taught by Durkacz, and the lecithin ([0076]), as taught by Garabagi.
Regarding instant claim 19, the limitation of the hydrophobic active ingredients would have been obvious over the cannabinoids including tetrahydrocannabinol, cannabivarin, etc.(Col. 21, line 47 to Col. 22, line 33), as taught by Durkacz, and the cannabidiol, cannabigerol, tetrahydrocannabinol, etc. (claim 1), as taught by Garabagi. The limitation of hydrophilic active ingredients would have been obvious over the ascorbic acid and green tea ([0076]), as taught by Garabagi. The limitation of the second plurality of the one or more active ingredients diffusing from the nanoparticles into the aqueous suspension is a property associated with the nanoparticle formulation in the aqueous suspension and inseparable from it. Since the prior art teaches the same nanoparticle in aqueous suspension, the same properties regarding the active ingredient diffusing from the nanoparticles into the aqueous suspension would have been expected.
Claim 6 is again rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durkacz et al. (US 10,851,077 B2 – “Durkacz”) as evidenced by Pall (Introduction to Tangential Flow Filtration for Laboratory and Process Development Applications 2003, 8 pages), in view of Garabagi et al. (WO 2020/044116 A1 – “Garabagi”), and Akhtar et al. (WO 2010/013224 A2 – “Akhtar”), as applied to claims 1-5, 7, 9-14, and 17-20 above, in view of Elsohly et al. (US 2002/0086438 A1 – “Elsohly”).
Instant claim 6 is drawn to the method of claim 1, wherein the extraction of the one or more active ingredients of plant materials further comprises:
drying the plant material until the plant material has water content of less than 2% by weight; and
running the dried plant material through a device configured to apply milling or mechanically disrupting the dried plant material.
The teachings of Durkacz, Pall, Garabagi, and Akhtar are discussed above.
Durkacz, Pall, Garabagi, and Akhtar do not expressly teach that the plant material has water content of less than 2% by weight.
Elsohly teaches a method of isolating delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol from cannabis plant material wherein the water content ranges from 0-30% (claims 6 and 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method for extracting plant materials such as cannabinoids, as taught by Durkacz, wherein the method includes using spiral coil or screw-type shredders and cryomilling, as well as membrane filtration techniques which are the same as direct flow or tangential flow filtration, as evidenced by Pall, in view of the therapeutic combinations of cannabinoid and curcumin for oral administration where the ingredients are formulated as liposomes and nanoparticles, as taught by Garabagi, include the curcumin containing nanoparticles in an aqueous suspension wherein the chitosan loaded curcumin nanoparticles have a size of 43 nm to 325 nm and the zeta potential of curcumin bound to chitosan nanoparticles is about 65 mV, as taught by Akhtar, dry the plant material in order to have a water content ranging from 0-30%, as taught by Elsohly, and arrive at the instant invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this because all the references are drawn to methods of preparing formulations containing plant extracts and it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Please see MPEP 2141(III)(A). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found the recited range of less than 2% by weight of water obvious over the overlapping range of 0-30% (claims 6 and 10), as taught by Elsohly. According to MPEP 2144.05, “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Regarding instant claim 6, the limitation of drying the plant material until the plant material has water content of less than 2% by weight would have been obvious over the drying (Col. 8, lines 34-38), as taught by Durkacz, in view of the cannabis plant material wherein the water content ranges from 0-30% (claims 6 and 10), as taught by Elsohly. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to dry the plant material to a desired level. the recited range of less than 2% by weight of water obvious over the overlapping range of 0-30% (claims 6 and 10), as taught by Elsohly. According to MPEP 2144.05, “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” The limitation of running the dried plant material through a device configured to apply milling or mechanically disrupting the dried plant material would have been obvious over the spiral coil or screw-type shredders and cryomilling (Col. 4, line 60 to Col. 5, line 3), as taught by Durkacz.
Claim 8 is again rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durkacz et al. (US 10,851,077 B2 – “Durkacz”) as evidenced by Pall (Introduction to Tangential Flow Filtration for Laboratory and Process Development Applications 2003, 8 pages), in view of Garabagi et al. (WO 2020/044116 A1 – “Garabagi”), and Akhtar et al. (WO 2010/013224 A2 – “Akhtar”), as applied to claims 1-5, 7, 9-14, and 17-20 above, in view of Sorbo et al. (US 2017/0368022 A1 – “Sorbo”).
Instant claim 8 is drawn to the method of claim 1, wherein the temperature-controlled reactor is a pressure-resistant reactor and the extraction of the one or more active ingredients of plant materials is performed at a pressure from the range of 0.7 MPa to 17.2 MPa.
The teachings of Durkacz, Pall, Garabagi, and Akhtar are discussed above.
Durkacz, Pall, Garabagi, and Akhtar do not expressly teach a pressure from the range of 0.7 MPa to 17.2 MPa.
Sorbo teaches a liquid carbon dioxide botanical extraction system (Title and Abstract) including a process for extracting cannabinoids from plant material wherein the extraction vessel has a pressure between 2.76 to 4.99 MPa ([0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method for extracting plant materials such as cannabinoids, as taught by Durkacz, wherein the method includes using spiral coil or screw-type shredders and cryomilling, as well as membrane filtration techniques which are the same as direct flow or tangential flow filtration, as evidenced by Pall, in view of the therapeutic combinations of cannabinoid and curcumin for oral administration where the ingredients are formulated as liposomes and nanoparticles, as taught by Garabagi, include the curcumin containing nanoparticles in an aqueous suspension wherein the chitosan loaded curcumin nanoparticles have a size of 43 nm to 325 nm and the zeta potential of curcumin bound to chitosan nanoparticles is about 65 mV, as taught by Akhtar, use the process for extracting cannabinoids from plant material wherein the extraction vessel has a pressure between 2.76 to 4.99 MPa, as taught by Sorbo, and arrive at the instant invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this because all the references are drawn to methods of preparing formulations containing plant extracts and it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Please see MPEP 2141(III)(A). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found the recited pressure from the range of 0.7 MPa to 17.2 MPa obvious over the extraction vessel having a pressure between 2.76 to 4.99 MPa ([0006]), as taught by Sorbo. According to MPEP 2144.05, “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Regarding instant claim 8, the limitation of a pressure-resistant reactor and a pressure range of 0.7 MPa to 17.2 MPa would have been obvious over the extraction vessel having a pressure between 2.76 to 4.99 MPa ([0006]), as taught by Sorbo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to extract the plant material by using a desired pressure. The recited range of less than 0.7 MPa to 17.2 MPa would have been an obvious variant over the teaching by Sorbo unless there is evidence of criticality or unexpected results.
Claim 15 is again rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durkacz et al. (US 10,851,077 B2 – “Durkacz”) as evidenced by Pall (Introduction to Tangential Flow Filtration for Laboratory and Process Development Applications 2003, 8 pages), in view of Garabagi et al. (WO 2020/044116 A1 – “Garabagi”) and Akhtar et al. (WO 2010/013224 A2 – “Akhtar”), as applied to claims 1-5, 7, 9-14, and 17-20 above, in view of Faraci et al. (WO 2018/152334 A1 – “Faraci”).
Instant claim 15 is drawn to the method of claim 14, wherein:
the extraction solvent is ethanol;
the carrier solvent is medium-chain triglycerides (MCT); and
the recycling conduit is a condenser unit.
The teachings of Durkacz, Pall, Garabagi, and Akhtar are discussed above.
Durkacz, Pall, Garabagi, and Akhtar do not expressly teach that the carrier solvent is MCT.
Faraci teaches self-emulsifying cannabinoid formulations comprising at least one cannabinoid extract, a surfactant, and a triglyceride (Abstract, Page 3, lines 1-4, and claims 1 and 48). The triglyceride is MCT (Page 20, lines 26-29). An oil comprising at least 5 wt% MCT, e.g., coconut oil, is disclosed (Page 32, lines 24-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method for extracting plant materials such as cannabinoids, as taught by Durkacz, wherein the method includes using coconut oil and membrane filtration techniques which are the same as direct flow or tangential flow filtration, as evidenced by Pall, in view of the therapeutic combinations of cannabinoid and curcumin for oral administration where the ingredients are formulated as liposomes and nanoparticles, as taught by Garabagi, include the curcumin containing nanoparticles in an aqueous suspension wherein the chitosan loaded curcumin nanoparticles have a size of 43 nm to 325 nm and the zeta potential of curcumin bound to chitosan nanoparticles is about 65 mV, as taught by Akhtar, and the MCT that is contained within the coconut oil, as taught by Faraci, and arrive at the instant invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this because all the references are drawn to methods of preparing formulations containing plant extracts and it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Please see MPEP 2141(III)(A). One of ordinary skill in the art would have known that the coconut oil disclosed by Durkacz contains the MCT, as taught by Faraci (Page 32, lines 24-26).
Regarding instant claim 15, the limitation of ethanol would have been obvious over the ethanol (Col. 9, line 12), as taught by Durkacz. The limitation of MCT would have been obvious over the coconut oil (Col. 5, lines 12-17), as taught by Durkacz, and the MCT in the coconut oil (Page 32, lines 24-26), as taught by Faraci. The limitation of the recycling conduit that is a condenser unit would have been obvious over the recycling (Col. 6, lines 9-10) and the condenser 254 (FIGS. 2 & 3, Col. 15, lines 22-24 and 29-35), as taught by Durkacz.
Response to Arguments
Rejection of claims under 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments (Pages 9-12, filed 01/02/26) with respect to the following rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 9-14, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durkacz as evidenced by Pall, in view of Garabagi and Akhtar
Rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durkacz as evidenced by Pall, in view of Garabagi, Akhtar, and Elsohly
Rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durkacz as evidenced by Pall, in view of Garabagi, Akhtar, and Sorbo
Rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durkacz as evidenced by Pall, in view of Garabagi, Akhtar, and Faraci
Applicant argues (Page 11, filed 01/02/26) that the independent claims recite “the one or more nanoparticles have a zeta potential of 30 mV or larger” and that these features are not taught in the prior art of record (emphasis original).
This is not persuasive because Akhtar teaches that the zeta potential of curcumin bound to chitosan nanoparticles is about 65 mV (Figure 1.3), which meets the claimed zeta potential range of 30 mV or larger.
Therefore, the rejections of 07/01/25 are maintained.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 ARADHANA SASAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9022. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 6:30 am to 3:00 pm.
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, Robert A. Wax can be reached on 571-272-6023. 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.
/ARADHANA SASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1615