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 .
Applicant’s arguments, filed 09/23/2025, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 22 are pending.
Claims 17 and 22 are withdrawn.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract compares the invention with the prior art where it is recited that the “formulations having improved bio-lubrication properties and a lower friction coefficient compared to commercially available bio-lubricants and human saliva”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: as newly amended, the claim recites “the one or more polysaccharide-based nanofibrils is…,” and “the polysaccharide-based nanofibrils is…,” in ln. 5, 7, 13, where “is” should be replaced by “are”. The examiner notes that Applicants have amended biopolymeric to polysaccharide-based, however, in this case “one or more” is plural, and should therefore be followed by the plural “are”. Appropriate correction is required. The examiner notes that the recitation in ln. 11 is correct as “is” refers to the singular “% outer surface coverage”.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: as newly amended, claim 1 recites “of the oppositely charged proteinaceous” in line 7. It appears that Applicant inadvertently removed “microgel”. Accordingly, the claim should read “of the oppositely charged proteinaceous microgel”.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: as newly amended, claim 2 recites “the one or more polysaccharide-based nanofibrils is…,” and “is” should be replaced by “are” for the same reasons discussed above.
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: as newly amended, the claims recite “the one or more polysaccharide-based nanofibrils is…,” and “is” should be replaced by “are” for the same reasons discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10-13, 15, and 18, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei (CN 108578357 A, cited on IDS dated 11/17/2022), as evidenced by Scholin et al (WO 2019241138 A1, cited on IDS dated 11/17/2022).
Lei teaches a protein polysaccharide nanometer self-assembled gel comprising with a core-shell structure, wherein the core is a natural protein with gelling properties, with examples comprising bovine serum albumin, etc. (ex. 1, ex. 4). The polysaccharide shell can be pectin, sodium alginate, and other negatively charged polysaccharides (claim 2, pg. 2). The outer shell and protein core utilize electrostatic interaction between protein and polysaccharide (abs). Particle sizes for nanoparticle drug delivery systems range from 1 to 1000 microns, with embodiments at about 100 nm (pg. 1, fig. 2). The instant specification defines “microgel” as a particle of a gel of any shape with a diameter of approximately 0.05-100 microns (see ¶ 30 of the instant specification). In embodiments, the pH of the protein solutions were adjusted from 3.0-6.8 with NaOH or HCl (ex. 1-5). In examples, the protein:polysaccharide ratio was 2:1 to 6:1 (ex. 1-6, claim 4). As evidenced by Scholin et al, colloidosomes are structures that have a shell defined by a plurality of micro- and/or nanomaterials and a core that is defined by the micro- and/or nano-structured shell (¶ 37).
Lei does not specifically disclose that the polysaccharide shell is in the form of nanofibrils.
Regarding the proteinaceous microgel of claim 1, where the formulation of Lei comprises a protein gel core surrounded by an outer polysaccharide shell, and where the particle diameters in the working embodiments appear to be about 100 nm (i.e., 0.1 microns), it would have been obvious to formulate the protein gel in the form of a microgel, where the particle sizes of Lei overlap the definition of a microgel as evidenced above by the instant specification. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding the polysaccharide of claim 1, it would have been obvious to select from negatively charged polysaccharides, such as pectin, as taught by Lei.
Regarding the charge of claims 1, 2, and 10, where the polysaccharide in the shell made obvious above is negatively charged and form electrostatic interaction with the protein core, it appears that the core would be positively charged, otherwise the polysaccharide shell would not associate with the outer surface of the core.
Regarding the nanofibrils of claim 1, while it appears that nanofibril shape is unrecognized by Lei, where the components instantly claimed are made obvious above, with a positively charged proteinaceous microgel and a negatively charged polysaccharide shell that forms electrostatic interaction with the protein core, it is reasonably expected that the shape would be the same, whether recognized or not. See MPEP 2112(II) and (III).
Regarding the % surface coverage of claim 1, Lei does not specifically teach the % percent surface coverage of the nanofibrils on the microgel, however, where the inner core of Lei is surrounded by a polysaccharide shell, it would be expected that the surface would be mostly covered by the shell, thereby falling within the claimed range. Further, it would have been within the relative skills of a skilled artisan to optimize the outer surface coverage, such as in order to achieve desired surface properties, including surface charge, etc. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, it would have been obvious to include the proteinaceous microgel and biopolymeric nanofibrils in a ratio from 2:1 to 6:1, which were known ratios suitable for core-shell particles, as taught by Lei. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 5, it would have been obvious to select bovine serum albumin as the proteinaceous microgel, as taught by Lei.
Regarding claim 8, it would have been obvious to select pectin and any negatively charged polysaccharide, as taught by Lei.
Regarding claim 11, where the formulation of Lei made obvious above comprises a proteinaceous core and negatively charged polysaccharide on the surface of the proteinaceous core, as instantly claimed, it appears that the surface charge is inherent to the components and structure of the formulation, and it would be expected that the surface charge would be negative, where the polysaccharide shell present on the surface of the core is negatively charged. See MPEP 2112(II) and (III).
Regarding claim 12, where the formulation of Lei comprise a shell defined by a plurality of nanomaterials (i.e., the nanofibrils) and a core defined by the nanostructured shell, it appears the formulation made obvious above is a colloidosome, as evidenced by Scholin et al.
Regarding claim 13, it would have been obvious to formulate the colloidosomes of Lei with a particle size of about 100 nm (0.1 microns), from the working embodiments of Lei, which are no more than 1000 nm as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 15, it appears that the addition of HCl or NaOH read on pharmaceutically acceptable excipients.
Regarding claim 18, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. Where the formulation of claim 1 is made obvious above, the limitations appears to be met.
Response to Arguments
First, Applicants assert nanofibril shape is not an inherent property of Lei’s formulation and a skilled artisan would recognize that Lei’s formulation is not nanofibrillar. Applicants assert that it is clear from the examples of the instant application that the method of producing the claimed formulation includes high temperature and/or high acid-induced processing of the biopolymer prior to mixing with the proteinaceous microgel, which contributes to the nanofibril shape (ex. 1-3, 5). Applicants assert the nanofibrils in the claimed invention are produced prior to mixing the two main components of the claimed formulations by high temperature and/or high-acid induced processing prior to mixing with the proteinaceous microgel. In contrast, Applicants assert Lei involves heat treating the combination of the protein and polysaccharide. Second, Applicants assert a skilled person would not expect that nanofibril shape improves bio-lubrication properties in view of Lei and in combination with Liu, Scholin, Hezaveh, or Laukkanen. Applicants assert that fig. 6a and 6b of the instant specification show improved friction coefficients as a function of speed as compared to human saliva. Applicants assert fig. 7 extends this comparison to other commercial bio-lubricants. Applicants assert Lei fails to provide any disclosure of nanofibrils capable of improving bio-lubrication properties. Third, Applicants assert the coverage of the outer surface of the proteinaceous microgel is critical to the lubrication properties. Applicants assert there is no evidence in any of the cited references showing what the desired surface properties are or how to carry out experiments to reach these properties. Applicants assert ex. 6 and 11 and fig. 6a and 6b show the importance of the recited percentage of surface coverage. Applicants assert ex. 6 and fig. 6a and 6b show that the ratio of KCnF/LFM is critical to the observed friction coefficient were ratios of 0.01, 0.3, and 0.07 all lead to friction coefficient that is similar to human saliva. In contrast, KCnF/LFM ratios of 0.20, 0.40, 1.00, 2.00, and 3.00 exhibit a friction coefficient that is lower than, and thus improved relative to, human saliva.
First, respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. Applicants assert that the nanofibril shape is not an inherent property of Lei’s formulation and that the skilled artisan would recognize that Lei’s formulation is not nanofibrillar, however, the prior art teaches a polysaccharide based shell comprising the same components instantly claimed, which inherently possesses a shape, wherein the formulations are produced under the application of heat, similar to those of the instant working embodiments. The shapes that are inherently produced are expected to be in a range that overlaps the instantly claimed shape of a nanofibril (i.e., shape is the genus, nanofibril is the species). Applicants assert that certain processing conditions are required for the nanofibrillar shape to form, but Applicants have not shown this for the entire claimed range of components, amounts, product by process steps, surface charges, etc. Applicants point to specific working embodiments that produce the nanofibrillar shape, such as in examples 1-5 of the instant specification, where it is said that nanofibrillar shapes form, but it appears that this is only shown for very specific product by process steps, as well as only for particular combinations of polysaccharides and proteins (e.g., k-carrageenan and lactoferrin microgel, agar and lactoferrin microgel, k-carrageenan and potato protein microgel, and xanthan gum and potato protein microgel). It is unclear of the breadth of the claim where it is uncertain what exactly is required for the nanofibrils to form. For example, is it the surface charge, the particular combination of polysaccharide and protein microgel, the processing steps, or a specific combination of the above that result in the production of the nanofibrillar shape instantly claimed?
Second, respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. While it does appear that Applicants show that a number of the working embodiments have better friction coefficients as a function of speed as compared to human saliva and some of the commercial bio-lubricants at certain speeds, Applicants have not compared the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art. Applicant must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 716.02(e). Here, the composition made obvious above is not saliva nor any of the commercial bio-lubricants tested.
Third, respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. While it does appear that particular ratios of KCnF/LFM, having a percent outer surface coverage falling within the claimed range has a lower coefficient of friction at certain speeds, but not all, when compared to human saliva, Applicants have not compared the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art. See MPEP 716.02(e). Nevertheless, the examiner also notes that at certain speeds, LFM and KCnF, each when used alone, had improved coefficient of friction compared to human saliva. Likewise, KCnF/LFM (0.03, 0.5% outer surface coverage) appears to also be improved over human saliva at all speeds, which is outside of the claimed range. Therefore, contrary to Applicants assertion, it does not appear that the % outer surface coverage as instantly claimed is critical to achieving an improved coefficient of friction when compared to human saliva.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei (CN 108578357 A) as applied to claim 1-5, 7, 8, 10-15, and 18, above, and further in view of Liu et al (Trends in Food Sci and Tech, 2018, 79, pp. 67-77).
Lei is discussed above but does not teach wherein the microgel is lactoferrin microgel.
Liu et al teach lactoferrin was a known protein used to formulate microgels for delivery of bioactive compounds, where lactoferrin improved the stability and bio accessibility of bioactive compounds (abs, 4.3).
It would have been obvious to select lactoferrin as the microgel, where lactoferrin was a known to be used to formulate microgels for drug delivery, as taught by Liu et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicants have not provided arguments with respect to the prior art rejection further in view of Liu et al. Accordingly, the claims stand rejected for the same reasons above and of record.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei (CN 108578357 A) applied to claim 1-5, 7, 8, 10-15, and 18, above, and further in view of Hezaveh et al (Jour Taiwan Institute of Chem Engineers, 2013, 44, 2, pp. 182-191).
Lei is discussed above but do not teach kappa-carrageenan.
Hezaveh et al teach kappa-carrageenan based hydrogels were known for controlled drug delivery, and does not having toxicity in biomedical applications (abs, intro 2nd ¶). The morphology of the hydrogel microstructure varies and can be in the form of fibers (fig. 14).
It would have been obvious to substitute the polysaccharides of Lei, with other polysaccharides suitable for hydrogel formulations for controlled drug delivery, such as kappa-carrageenan, where this polysaccharide was known to be non-toxic and can be formed into fibers.
Response to Arguments
Applicants have not provided arguments with respect to the prior art rejection further in view of Hezaveh et al. Accordingly, the claims stand rejected for the same reasons above and of record.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei (CN 108578357 A), as applied to claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-15, and 18 above, and further in view of Scholin et al (WO 2019241138 A1).
Lei is discussed above but does not teach the addition of a buffered solution of claim 16.
Scholin et al teach colloidosome compositions comprising core and a micro-structured shell comprising micromaterials and/or nanomaterials (abs). The core can comprise a gel (¶ 50). The colloidosome compositions can comprise a buffer, etc. (¶ 60).
Regarding claim 16, it would have been obvious to further include a buffered solution to the formulation of Lei, where Lei teaches adjusting the pH, in order to maintain desired pH levels. Further, it would have been obvious to include buffered solutions having a pH with the desired pH range for the formulation, such as from 3.0-6.8, as taught by Lei.
Response to Arguments
Applicants have not provided arguments with respect to the prior art rejection further in view of Scholin et al. Accordingly, the claims stand rejected for the same reasons above and of record.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10-13, 15, and 18, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei (CN 108578357 A), in view of Laukkanen et al (US 20150367024 A1).
Lei is discussed above, and for the sake of argument, if the polysaccharides are not in the shape of nanofibrils, then the following applies.
Laukkanen et al teach polysaccharide hydrogels were known to be formulated in a nanofibril shape, and include pectin, etc. (abs, ¶ 61).
Regarding the proteinaceous microgel of claim 1, it would have been obvious to formulate the protein gel in the form of a microgel, for the same reasons discussed above.
Regarding the polysaccharide of claim 1, it would have been obvious to select from negatively charged polysaccharides, such as pectin, as taught by Lei for the same reasons discussed above.
Regarding the charge of claims 1, 2, and 10, it appears that the polysaccharide of Lei is negatively charged and the core is positively charged for the same reasons discussed above.
Regarding the nanofibrils of claim 1, it would have been obvious to modify Lei to include the polysaccharide shell in any known shape suitable for polysaccharide hydrogels, including nanofibrils, as taught by Laukkanen et al.
Regarding the % surface coverage of claim 1, Lei does not specifically teach the % percent surface coverage of the nanofibrils on the microgel, however, where the inner core of Lei is surrounded by an outer shell, it would be expected that the surface would be mostly covered by the shell, thereby falling within the claimed range. Further, it would have been within the relative skills of a skilled artisan to optimize the outer surface coverage of the nanofibrils made obvious above, such as in order to achieve desired surface properties, including surface charge, etc. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, it would have been obvious to include the proteinaceous microgel and biopolymeric nanofibrils in a ratio from 2:1 to 6:1, for the same reasons discussed above by Lei.
Regarding claim 5, it would have been obvious to select bovine serum albumin as the protein, as taught by Lei.
Regarding claim 8, it would have been obvious to select pectin and any negatively charged polysaccharide, as taught by Lei.
Regarding claim 11, it appears that the surface charge is inherent to the components and structure of the formulation of Lei, and it would be expected that the surface charge would be negative, for the same reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 12, it appears the formulation of Lei made obvious above is a colloidosome, for the same reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 13, it would have been obvious to formulate the colloidosomes of Lei and Scholin et al with a particle size of about 100 nm, as taught by Lei, falling within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 15, it appears that the addition of HCl or NaOH read on pharmaceutically acceptable excipients.
Regarding claim 18, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. Where the composition of claim 1 is made obvious above, the limitations appears to be met.
Response to Arguments
First, Applicants assert Laukkanen specifically discloses hydrogel compositions that should not include a protein. Applicants refer to paragraphs [0092]-[0095] for support. Applicants assert that the combination of Lei and Laukkanen teaches away from the claimed formulation that comprises a proteinaceous microgel. Second, Applicants assert the percent coverage of the outer surface of the proteinaceous microgel is critical to the lubrication properties for the same reasons discussed above.
First, respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. While Laukkanen teach that it may be advantageous that the product contains no protein residues for their intended uses, this does not limit the inclusion of the proteins disclosed by Lei, where Laukkanen was only relied upon for teaching that nanofibril shapes for polysaccharides were known, not for the inclusion of proteins. As such, it would have been obvious to modify the polysaccharide shell, which inherently has a shape, to any known shape suitable for polysaccharide hydrogels.
Second, respectfully this argument is not persuasive for the same reasons discussed above and of record.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei (CN 108578357 A) and Laukkanen et al (US 20150367024 A1) as applied to claim 1-5, 7, 8, 10-15, and 18, above, and further in view of Liu et al (Trends in Food Sci and Tech, 2018, 79, pp. 67-77).
Lei and Laukkanen et al are discussed above but does not teach wherein the microgel is lactoferrin microgel.
Liu et al is discussed above.
It would have been obvious to select lactoferrin as the microgel, for the same reasons discussed above by Liu et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicants have not provided arguments with respect to the prior art rejection further in view of Liu et al. Accordingly, the claims stand rejected for the same reasons above and of record.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei (CN 108578357 A) and Laukkanen et al (US 20150367024 A1) applied to claim 1-5, 7, 8, 10-15, and 18, above, and further in view of Hezaveh et al (Jour Taiwan Institute of Chem Engineers, 2013, 44, 2, pp. 182-191).
Lei and Laukkanen et al are discussed above but do not teach kappa-carrageenan.
Hezaveh et al are discussed above.
It would have been obvious to substitute the polysaccharides of Lei, with other polysaccharides suitable for hydrogel formulations for controlled drug delivery, such as kappa-carrageenan, for the same reasons discussed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicants have not provided arguments with respect to the prior art rejection further in view of Hezaveh et al. Accordingly, the claims stand rejected for the same reasons above and of record.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei (CN 108578357 A) and Laukkanen et al (US 20150367024 A1) as applied to claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-15, and 18 above, and further in view of Scholin et al (WO 2019241138 A1).
Lei and Laukkanen et al are discussed above but do not teach the addition of a buffered solution of claim 16.
Scholin et al teach colloidosome compositions comprising core and a micro-structured shell comprising micromaterials and/or nanomaterials (abs). The core can comprise a gel (¶ 50). The colloidosome composition can comprise a buffer, etc. (¶ 60).
Regarding claim 16, it would have been obvious to further include a buffered solution to the combination of Lei and Laukkanen et al, for the same reasons discussed above by Lei. Further, it would have been obvious to include buffered solutions having a pH with the desired pH range for the formulation, such as from 3.0-6.8, as taught by Lei.
Response to Arguments
Applicants have not provided arguments with respect to the prior art rejection further in view of Scholin et al. Accordingly, the claims stand rejected for the same reasons above and of record.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15, 16, and 18, stand provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 19/100,516 (reference application), hereinafter referred to as ‘516, in view of Laukkanen et al (US 20150367024 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘516 disclose a formulation comprising a proteinaceous microgel and a biopolymeric hydrogel, wherein either one is negatively charged, and wherein the biopolymeric hydrogel is associated with an outer surface of the oppositely charged proteinaceous microgel (claims 1, 18). The weight ratio of biopolymeric hydrogel to proteinaceous microgel is about 0.1:1 to about 10:1 (claims 3, 4). The proteinaceous microgel is selected from lactoferrin, etc. (claims 5, 6). The biopolymeric hydrogel is a polysaccharide based hydrogel and is selected from kappa-carrageenan, etc. (claims 7, 8). The biopolymeric hydrogel is associated with an outer surface of the proteinaceous microgel by electrostatic interaction (claim 10). The outer surface has an overall negative charge (claim 11). The formulation is a colloidosome (claim 12). The % outer surface coverage of the microgel by the hydrogel is the calculated using the same formula of instant claim 14 (claim 13). The formulation has a pH from about 2 to about 7 (claims 16, 17).
The claims of ‘516 do not directly disclose wherein the biopolymeric hydrogel is in the form of nanofibrils.
Laukkanen et al are discussed above.
While the shape of nanofibrils are unrecognized by the claims of ‘516, where the components instantly claimed are disclosed by ‘516 with oppositely charged proteinaceous microgel and polysaccharide shell that forms electrostatic interaction with the protein core, it is reasonably expected that the shape would be the same, whether recognized or not. See MPEP 2112(II) and (III).
Even if not, it would have been obvious to modify the claims of ‘516 to include the biopolymer hydrogel shell, which can include polysaccharides, in any known shape suitable for polysaccharide hydrogels, including nanofibrils, as taught by Laukkanen et al.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Response to Arguments
Applicants elect to address this ground of rejection upon notification that the rejection has been made non-provisional, all other conditions for patentability have been met, and the pending claims are otherwise in condition for allowance.
The examiner acknowledges applicants assertion. According, the claims stand rejected for the same reasons above and of record.
Conclusion
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 JOSHUA A ATKINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0877. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM + Flex.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sahana Kaup can be reached at 571-272-6897. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA A ATKINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/MARIANNE C SEIDEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1600