DETAILED ACTION
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 1-4, 6-19 and 22 filed January 30, 2026 are currently pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 01/30/2026 are acknowledged. Claim 5 is canceled in its entirety. Claim 1 is amended and directed to an aqueous ophthalmic composition, comprising: a therapeutically effective amount of brimonidine or their salts thereof; a therapeutically effective amount of brinzolamide or their salts thereof; buffers at a concentration that is at least about 0.05% w/v to 5.0% w/v of the ophthalmic composition; a preservative and; pharmaceutically acceptable excipients, wherein the pH of said composition is less than 8.0; and the composition is substantially free of borate buffers.
In view of Applicant’s amendments, the pending 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) rejection of record of claims 1, 4, 6-7, 10-15, 17, 19 by Kabra (U.S. Patent 9,044,484 published 06/02/2015) is withdrawn as Kabra exemplifies aqueous ophthalmic compositions that utilize a borate buffer. As recited in page 7 of the specification, “substantially free of borate buffer” reads on lacking a borate-polyol complex formation. Kabra teaches that the brimonidine and brinzolamide composition comprises a borate-polyol complex (claim 1).
Secondly, the pending 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) rejection of record of claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 10-19 by Karavas (WO2019/091596 published 05/16/2019) is withdrawn as Karavas exemplifies aqueous ophthalmic composition that comprise a borate buffer. As recited in page 7 of the specification, “substantially free of borate buffer” reads on lacking a borate-polyol complex formation. Karavas teaches that the brimonidine and brinzolamide composition comprises a borate-polyol complex (claim 1).
Applicant's arguments, filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from the previous Office Action are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections and objections presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102-Rejection(s) Maintained
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 22 remains are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kabra (U.S. Patent 9,044,484 published 06/02/2015).
Claim 22 is directed to an aqueous ophthalmic composition, comprising: a therapeutically effective amount of brimonidine or their salts thereof; a therapeutically effective amount of brinzolamide or their salts thereof; buffers at a concentration that is at least about 0.05% w/v to 5.0% w/v of the ophthalmic composition; a preservative; one or more polyols; a suspending agent and; optionally pharmaceutically acceptable excipients, wherein the pH of said composition is less than 8.0.
Kabra (U.S. Patent 9,044,484 published 06/02/2015) teaches aqueous ophthalmic compositions comprising brimonidine with brinzolamide. As shown in Table H, composition M comprises the following components: 0.15% wt. brimonidine, 1.0% wt. brinzolamide, 0.3% wt. of a boric acid buffer further containing 0.3% wt. of the polyol mannitol and 0.75% wt. of the polyol propylene glycol, the preservative benzalkonium chloride (0.003% wt.), the suspending agent carbomer 974P and buffered with sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid to a pH of 6.5 (col 2 lines 65 - col. 3 line 20; col. 15-16). As shown in col. 13, said composition corresponds to Ph Eur A and Ph Eur. B preservation efficacy (col. 15-16, col. 13 lines 60-65, claims 22-23). Kabra teaches that said composition is an aqueous solution to be delivered topically to the eye in a subject in need in a frequency of 1-3 times per day (col. 7 lines 55-65, col. 9 lines 15-40).
Applicant traverses. Applicant asserts that the composition of Kabra embraces a borate-polyol complex (borate, mannitol, sorbitol) and preserved with benzalkonium chloride and fails to disclose any compositions that are borate free and BAC such as the composition of the instant claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/30/2026 are acknowledged and have been carefully considered. Regarding Applicant’s contention that Kabra fails to disclose any compositions that are borate free and BAC such as the composition of the instant claims, this argument is unavailing. The aqueous ophthalmic composition of brimonidine and brinzolamide in claim 22 does not exclude borate buffers not benzalkonium chloride. Rather, the composition is directed to any buffer at a concentration that is at least about 0.05% w/v to 5.0% w/v of the ophthalmic composition; any preservative and one or more polyols. As such, composition M of Kabra that comprises 0.15% wt. brimonidine, 1.0% wt. brinzolamide, 0.3% wt. of a boric acid buffer further containing 0.3% wt. of the polyol mannitol and 0.75% wt. of the polyol propylene glycol, the preservative benzalkonium chloride (0.003% wt.), the suspending agent carbomer 974P and buffered with sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid to a pH of 6.5 still reads on the structural limitations of claim 22, and thus, the rejection of record is maintained.
Claim(s) 22 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karavas (WO2019/091596 published 05/16/2019).
Karavas teaches aqueous ophthalmic compositions comprising brimonidine with brinzolamide. As shown in Table 1, compositions 1-4 comprise the following components: 0.2% wt. brimonidine tartrate, 1.0% wt. brinzolamide, 0.3% wt. of a boric acid buffer further containing 0.3% wt. of the polyol mannitol and 0.75% to 1.00% wt. of the polyol propylene glycol, the preservative benzalkonium chloride (0.005% wt.), the tonicity adjusting agent sodium chloride, the suspending agent carbomer 974P and buffered with sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid to a pH of 6.5 (pages 13-14, Table 1).
Karavas teaches preparation of said ophthalmic composition as a sterile aqueous suspension (page 9 line 5 to page 10 line 15; page 11 line 10-20 claim 15). Karavas teaches that said composition is an aqueous solution to be delivered topically to the eye in a subject in need in a frequency of 1-3 times per day (page 10 lines 20-35).
Applicant traverses. Applicant asserts that the composition of Karavas embraces a borate-polyol complex (borate, mannitol, sorbitol) and preserved with benzalkonium chloride and fails to disclose any compositions that are borate free and BAC such as the composition of the instant claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/30/2026 are acknowledged and have been carefully considered. Regarding Applicant’s contention that Karavas fails to disclose any compositions that are borate free and BAC such as the composition of the instant claims, this argument is unavailing. The aqueous ophthalmic composition of brimonidine and brinzolamide in claim 22 does not exclude borate buffers not benzalkonium chloride. Rather, the composition is directed to any buffer at a concentration that is at least about 0.05% w/v to 5.0% w/v of the ophthalmic composition; any preservative and one or more polyols. As such, compositions 1-4 of Karavas which comprise the following components: 0.2% wt. brimonidine tartrate, 1.0% wt. brinzolamide, 0.3% wt. of a boric acid buffer further containing 0.3% wt. of the polyol mannitol and 0.75% to 1.00% wt. of the polyol propylene glycol, the preservative benzalkonium chloride (0.005% wt.), the tonicity adjusting agent sodium chloride, the suspending agent carbomer 974P and buffered with sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid to a pH of 6.5 still reads on the structural limitations of claim 22, and thus, the rejection of record is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103-Rejection(s) Maintained
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Karavas (WO2019/091596 published 05/16/2019) and Iwatsuka (WO2017/217450 published 12/21/2017; machine translation provided).
Karavas (WO2019/091596 published 05/16/2019) teaches aqueous ophthalmic compositions comprising brimonidine with brinzolamide. As shown in Table 1, compositions 1-4 comprise the following components: 0.2% wt. brimonidine tartrate, 1.0% wt. brinzolamide, 0.3% wt. of a boric acid buffer further containing 0.3% wt. of the polyol mannitol and 0.75% to 1.00% wt. of the polyol propylene glycol, the preservative benzalkonium chloride (0.005% wt.), the tonicity adjusting agent sodium chloride, the suspending agent carbomer 974P and buffered with sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid to a pH of 6.5 (pages 13-14, Table 1). Karavas teaches preparation of said ophthalmic composition as a sterile aqueous suspension (page 9 line 5 to page 10 line 15; page 11 line 10-20 claim 15). Karavas teaches that said composition is an aqueous solution to be delivered topically to the eye in a subject in need in a frequency of 1-3 times per day (page 10 lines 20-35).
Regarding claims 8-9, Karavas teaches alternative preservatives are suitable to prevent microbial contamination of the brimonidine and brinzolamide ophthalmic composition including methyl paraben, propyl paraben which read on the claimed methyl and propyl parahydroxybenzoate. Karavas also suggest thimerosal as a suitable preservative (page 8 lines 20-30). Karavas teaches that the preservative should be used in the minimal amount required to prevent contamination and should not be harmful to the patient (page 3 lines 5-15, page 8 lines 20-30).
The difference between the presently claimed composition and the aqueous ophthalmic compositions comprising brimonidine with brinzolamide taught by Karavas is that Karavas does not specifically teach wherein the composition is substantially free of borate buffers and substantially free of the preservative benzalkonium chloride.
Iwatsuka (WO2017/217450 published 12/21/2017; machine translation provided) teaches aqueous ophthalmic compositions comprising brimonidine with brinzolamide. Iwatsuka teaches that the ophthalmic composition comprises a buffer which is necessary to impart a buffering action and adjusting the osmotic pressure. Iwatsuka teaches that the buffer is not particularly limited as phosphate, citrate, acetate and borate buffers are all suitable buffers to provide optimal buffering action. Iwatsuka teaches that the buffer concentration is between 0.1% wt. to 0.5% wt. of the composition, which reads on the amount embodied within the present claims.
Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of the invention would have found it prima facie obvious to substitute the preservative benzalkonium chloride in the aqueous ophthalmic compositions comprising brimonidine with brinzolamide of Karavas, for an alternative preservative such as methyl paraben in view of Karavas in order to arrive at the presently claimed composition that is substantially free of benzalkonium chloride.
MPEP provides rationale for a conclusion of obviousness including (B): Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
In the present case, Karavas teaches alternative preservatives are suitable to prevent microbial contamination of the brimonidine and brinzolamide ophthalmic composition including methyl paraben, propyl paraben which read on the claimed methyl and propyl parahydroxybenzoate. Accordingly, said skilled artisan would have readily predicted that substitution of the preservative benzalkonium chloride in the aqueous ophthalmic compositions comprising brimonidine with brinzolamide of Karavas with methyl paraben would have yielded suitable antimicrobial stability to the ophthalmic composition.
Secondly, said skilled artisan would have found it prima facie obvious to substitute the boric acid buffer in the aqueous ophthalmic compositions comprising brimonidine with brinzolamide of Karavas for an alternative buffer, such as a phosphate buffer in view of Iwatsuka in order to arrive at the claimed composition substantially free of borate buffers.
MPEP provides rationale for a conclusion of obviousness including (B): Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
In the present case, Iwatsuka teaches that phosphate, citrate and acetate are all suitable alternative buffers to boric acid in order to impart a buffering action on ophthalmic compositions comprising brimonidine with brinzolamide. Accordingly, said skilled artisan would have readily predicted that substitution of the boric acid buffer in the aqueous ophthalmic compositions comprising brimonidine with brinzolamide of Karavas with a phosphate buffer would have yielded a suitable buffering action to the ophthalmic composition.
Applicant traverses. As disclosed above, Applicant asserts that the composition of Karavas embraces a borate-polyol buffering complex to use in the brimonidine and brinzolamide ophthalmic composition and does not teach nor suggest an alternative buffering system. Nor does Karavas motivate one of ordinary skill to pursue composition without a borate-polyol buffering complex as the borate-polyol also acts as an antimicrobial preservative and preserved with benzalkonium chloride. Applicant further contends that Karavas fails to disclose any compositions that are borate free and BAC such as the composition of the instant claims
Applicant asserts that Iwatsuka fails to cure the deficiencies of Karavas as Iwatsuka is directed to controlling viscosity changes under light exposure and does not address preservative efficacy, nor borate avoidance nor BAC related tolerability.
Applicant further contends that the unexpected technical advantage of an antimicrobial efficacy achieved with a borate-free buffer system and benzalkonium chloride preservative system by employing benzododecinium bromide, sodium perborate or polyquaternium 1 is sufficient to overcome a prima facie case.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/30/2026 are acknowledged and have been carefully considered. Regarding Applicant’s contention that Karavas does not teach nor suggest an alternative buffering system, nor motivate one of ordinary skill to pursue composition without a borate-polyol buffering complex as the borate-polyol also acts as an antimicrobial preservative, this argument is unpersuasive. A suggestion, teaching or motivation to combine prior art teachings to achieve the claimed invention does not have to be found explicitly in the prior art references, but rather, it may be found within other sources, including common knowledge, the prior art as a whole or the nature of the problem itself. Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 82 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
In the instant case and as set forth above, while the working embodiments of Karavas employ a boric acid-polyol system buffering system, the prior art as a whole does not teach away from employing alternative buffering systems for the brimonidine/brinzolamide ophthalmic composition. Rather, Karavas teaches that alternative buffering agents such as dibasic/monobasic sodium phosphate is a suitable buffer to employ in order to maintain the pH of the composition between 4-8 and minimize chemical stability and solubility of the drug (page 7 lines 1-20). Meanwhile, Iwatsuka teaches the inclusion of phosphate and citrate buffers for ophthalmic compositions comprising brimonidine with brinzolamide, in order to provide a buffering action and maintain the desired osmotic pressure. Accordingly, said skilled artisan would have readily predicted that substitution of the boric acid buffer in the aqueous ophthalmic compositions comprising brimonidine with brinzolamide of Karavas with an alternative buffer that maintains a pH of 4-8, such as a phosphate buffer as taught by Karavas and Iwatsuka would have yielded a suitable buffering action to the ophthalmic composition.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that Iwatsuka does not address preservative efficacy, nor borate avoidance nor BAC related tolerability, this argument is also unpersuasive. Preservative efficacy was addressed within the teachings of Karavas wherein alternative preservatives are suitable to prevent microbial contamination of the brimonidine and brinzolamide ophthalmic composition other than benzalkonium chloride including the same benzyl dodecanium bromide as demonstrated in the working embodiments as well as methyl paraben and propyl paraben which read on the claimed methyl and propyl parahydroxybenzoate of the present claims (page 8 lines 20-30). Karavas teaches that the preservative should be used in the minimal amount required to prevent contamination and should not be harmful to the patient (page 3 lines 5-15, page 8 lines 20-30). Further, borate buffer alternatives is a strategy taught by Iwatsuka. Iwatsuka teaches that the buffer is not particularly limited as phosphate, citrate and acetate are all suitable buffers to provide optimal buffering action for the ophthalmic compositions comprising brimonidine with brinzolamide in 0.1% wt. to 0.5% wt. of the composition, which reads on the amount embodied within the present claims. Applicant is reminded that “Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references” In re Merck and Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Thirdly, regarding Applicant’s contention of the unexpected antimicrobial efficacy achieved with a borate-free buffer system by employing benzododecinium bromide, sodium perborate or polyquaternium 1, the examiner has reviewed the data in the instant specification. However, said unexpected results fail to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness for the following reasons.
MPEP 716.02(d) addresses the subject of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention: "[W]hether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the objective evidence of non-obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. See In re Peterson, 315 F. 3d 1325, 1329-31 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-85 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
The present claims are directed to a therapeutically effective amount of brimonidine or their salts thereof; a therapeutically effective amount of brinzolamide or their salts thereof further comprising any preservative at any amount and any buffer at a concentration of 0.05%-5.0% w/v wherein the composition is substantially free of borate buffers.
However, as demonstrated in the working Examples 1-5 found in the tables of the instant specification, each of the compositions that Applicant discloses comprises the distinct tromethamine buffer, at a concentration of 0.5% w/v, and preservatives benzododecinium bromide or polyquaternium-1 at 0.01% w/v or sodium perborate at 0.005% w/v. Applicant states that tromethamine has imparted stability and there is no change in pH of formulations during the stress stability in all three examples 5A-5C (pages 26-27 of the instant specification).
In the present case, Applicant has provided no comparison to alternative preservative systems, such as methyl paraben taught in Karavas to demonstrate that the unexpected antimicrobial efficacy is not maintained with alternative preservatives in the disclosed amount taught within the prior art. Nor does Applicant provide comparison to alternative buffering systems, such as citrate buffers or phosphate buffers as embraced within the teachings of Iwatsuka, to demonstrate that the unexpected antimicrobial efficacy is not maintained with alternative buffering systems.
MPEP 716.02(D) also states that “[T]o establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). In the present case, Applicant have not demonstrated criticality of the claimed range of any buffering system excluding a borate buffer any preservative system, let alone the criticality of the amounts of each component in claim 1 in comparison to the distinct 0.5% w/v tromethamine buffer and preservatives 0.01% w/v benzododecinium bromide, 0.01% w/v polyquaternium-1 or 0.005% w/v sodium perborate wherein the unexpected antimicrobial efficacy is achieved.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Karavas (WO2019/091596 published 05/16/2019) and Horn (WO2018/226942 published 12/13/2018).
Karavas (WO2019/091596 published 05/16/2019) teaches aqueous ophthalmic compositions comprising brimonidine with brinzolamide. As shown in Table 1, compositions 1-4 comprise the following components: 0.2% wt. brimonidine tartrate, 1.0% wt. brinzolamide, 0.3% wt. of a boric acid buffer further containing 0.3% wt. of the polyol mannitol and 0.75% to 1.00% wt. of the polyol propylene glycol, the preservative benzalkonium chloride (0.005% wt.), the tonicity adjusting agent sodium chloride, the suspending agent carbomer 974P and buffered with sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid to a pH of 6.5 (pages 13-14, Table 1). Karavas teaches preparation of said ophthalmic composition as a sterile aqueous suspension (page 9 line 5 to page 10 line 15; page 11 line 10-20 claim 15). Karavas teaches that said composition is an aqueous solution to be delivered topically to the eye in a subject in need in a frequency of 1-3 times per day (page 10 lines 20-35). Regarding claims 8-9, Karavas teaches alternative preservatives are suitable to prevent microbial contamination of the brimonidine and brinzolamide ophthalmic composition including methyl paraben, propyl paraben which read on the claimed methyl and propyl parahydroxybenzoate. Karavas also suggest thimerosal as a suitable preservative (page 8 lines 20-30). Karavas teaches that the preservative should be used in the minimal amount required to prevent contamination and should not be harmful to the patient (page 3 lines 5-15, page 8 lines 20-30).
The difference between the presently claimed composition and the aqueous ophthalmic compositions comprising brimonidine with brinzolamide taught by Karavas is that Karavas does not specifically teach wherein the composition comprises brinzolamide in a concentration of 0.01-0.5%w/v.
Horn (WO2018/226942 published 12/13/2018) teaches ophthalmic compositions comprising the aqueous ophthalmic compositions comprising low dose brimonidine (0.01% wt. to 0.05% wt.) in combination with the glaucoma drug brinzolamide at a pH of 5-8 (abstract, [0054]-[0059], claims 1, 4). Horn teaches that brinzolamide is present in 0.001% wt. to 1.0 % wt. of the ophthalmic composition, which overlaps with the amount embraced within the present claims (claims 1, 3-5). Applicant is reminded of MPEP 2144.05 wherein the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of the invention would have found it prima facie obvious to adjust the concentration of brinzolamide in the aqueous ophthalmic compositions comprising 1% wt. brinzolamide and 0.02% wt. brimonidine tartrate of Karavas from 1% wt. brinzolamide to wherein brinzolamide is present in 0.01% wt. to 0.5% wt. of the composition in view of Horn. Motivation to adjust the concentration from 1% wt. brinzolamide to wherein brinzolamide is present in 0.01% wt. to 0.5% wt. logically flows from the fact that Horn teaches that overlapping 0.001% wt. to 1.0 % wt. doses of brinzolamide are suitable to combine with low dose brimonidine (0.01% wt. to 0.05% wt.) in ophthalmic compositions to treat ocular disorders. Accordingly, said artisan would have readily predicted that administration of the aqueous ophthalmic compositions comprising brimonidine with brinzolamide, wherein brinzolamide is present in 0.001%wt. to 1.0% wt. would effectively treat the ocular disorder in the afflicted patient.
Applicant traverses. Applicant argues Karavas does not teach nor suggest the claimed composition for similar reasons cited above and that Horn fails to cure the deficiencies of Karavas. Applicant asserts that Horn is directed to compositions with brimonidine in combination with other agents and does not teach or suggest a brimonidine and brinzolamide ophthalmic composition. Applicant further asserts that Horn utilizes borate buffers and fails to address the impact of borate avoidance on formulation stability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/30/2026 are acknowledged and have been carefully considered. Arguments pertaining to the teachings of Karavas have been addressed above. Regarding Applicant’s assertion that Horn is directed to compositions with brimonidine in combination with other agents and does not teach or suggest a brimonidine and brinzolamide ophthalmic composition, this argument is unpersuasive. Claims 1-5 of Horn embraces an ophthalmic composition comprising brimonidine at 0.05% w/v and brinzolamide, wherein brinzolamide is present in 0.001-1.0% w/v of the composition. Further, regarding Applicant’s assertion that Horn fails to disclose the impact of borate avoidance, Horn teaches that buffers are to be used to maintain the ophthalmic composition at a pH of 4-8, including citrate and phosphate buffers, which reads on a composition substantially free of borate buffer ([0042], claim 12).
Conclusion
In view of the rejections set forth above, no claim is 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE W KOSTURKO whose telephone number is (571)270-5903. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, CLINTON A BROOKS can be reached at 571-270-7682. 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.
/GEORGE W KOSTURKO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1621
Prosecution Insights