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 .
Withdrawn Rejections:
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed on 09/17/2025 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. The Examiner has re-weighed all the evidence of record. Any rejection and/or objection not specifically addressed below is herein withdrawn.
The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections and/or objections presently being applied to the instant application.
Claims 1-11, 13-14, 16-20 are pending and under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/17/2025 and 02/06/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephan et al. (US20080108568).
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Stephan et al. teaches method for improving learning and memory in a subject by administering a therapeutically effective amount of a compound (abstract). In one embodiment, the compound is fasudil (page 4, [0044]), and Oral Fasudil is typically administered to patients three times daily at doses between 40-80 mg each dose (page 4, [0028]). The memory disorder includes vascular dementia (page 6. [0062]). The compounds of the present invention can be administered as frequently as necessary, including hourly, daily, weekly or monthly. The compounds utilized in the pharmaceutical method of the invention are administered at the initial dosage of about 0.0001 mg/kg to about 1000 mg/kg daily. A daily dose range of about 0.01 mg/kg to about 500 mg/kg, or about 0.1 mg/kg to about 200 mg/kg, or about 1 mg/kg to about 100 mg/kg, or about 10 mg/kg to about 50 mg/kg, can be used. The dosages, however, may be varied depending upon the requirements of the patient, the severity of the condition being treated, and the compound being employed. For example, dosages can be empirically determined considering the type and stage of disease diagnosed in a particular patient. The dose administered to a patient, in the context of the present invention should be sufficient to effect a beneficial therapeutic response in the patient over time. The size of the dose also will be determined by the existence, nature, and extent of any adverse side-effects that accompany the administration of a particular compound in a particular patient. Determination of the proper dosage for a particular situation is within the skill of the practitioner. Generally, treatment is initiated with smaller dosages which are less than the optimum dose of the compound. Thereafter, the dosage is increased by small increments until the optimum effect under circumstances is reached. For convenience, the total daily dosage may be divided and administered in portions during the day, if desired. Doses can be given daily, or on alternate days, as determined by the treating physician. Doses can also be given on a regular or continuous basis over longer periods of time (weeks, months or years), such as through the use of a subdermal capsule, sachet or depot, or via a patch (page 11, [0121]).
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
The difference between the instant application and Stephan et al. is that Stephan et al. is not specific enough for anticipation.
Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rational and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the instant invention.
Regarding claims 1-2, 5, Stephan et al. teaches a method of improving memory of patient with vascular dementia by administering fasudil orally with daily dose 40-80mg x3=120mg to 240mg. Since this amount 120mg-240mg is within the daily dose range of about 1 mg/kg to about 100 mg/kg for a 70Kg adult (about 70mg to 7000mg) for improving memory, daily dose of 120mg-240mg is therapeutically effective amount.
Regarding claims 3, Stephan et al. teaches treatment continues months or years, which is more than 6 months.
Regarding claims 6-8, Stephan et al. teaches treatment for patient with vascular dementia, and it is obvious to treat patient with vascular dementia who don’t have evidence of hemorrhagic lesion, pseudobulbar effect or hypertension since Stephan et al. does not exclude any patient with vascular dementia with any other symptoms or condition.
Regarding claims 9-11, Stephan et al. teaches improving learning and memory after treatment, which results in cognition improving, executive improving and activities improving. In summary, although the reference is silent about all the functional properties instantly claimed, it does not appear that the claim language or limitations result in a manipulative difference in the method steps when compared to the prior art disclosure. See Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Ben Venue Laboratories, 58 USPQ2d 1508 (CAFC 2001). “It is a general rule that merely discovering and claiming a new benefit of an old process cannot render the process again patentable.” In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Granting a patent on the discovery of an unknown but inherent function would remove from the public that which is in the public domain by virtue of its inclusion in, or obviousness from, the prior art. In re Baxter Travenol Labs, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See M.P.E.P. 2145. On this record, it is reasonable to conclude that the same patient is being administered the same active agent by the same mode of administration in the same amount in both the instant claims and the prior art reference. The fact that Applicant may have discovered yet another beneficial effect from the method set forth in the prior art does not mean that they are entitled to receive a patent on that method. Thus, prior art teaches, either expressly or inherently implied, each and every limitation of the instant claims. it remains the Examiner's position that the instantly claimed method is not only anticipated in the prior art but also obvious.
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103.
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 was 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.
Claims 4, 13-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephan et al. (US20080108568), as applied for the above 103 rejection for claims 1-3, 5-11 in view of Vincent (“Drugs and Kidneys” Clinical Pharmacology Perspectives”, CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS, VOLUME 102 NUMBER 3, SEPTEMBER 2017, page 368-372; cited in IDS), Hafezi-Moghadam (US20150297679), Groenendijk et al. (US20140274938), Bimmler et al. (US20140199318), Kamei et al. (“Evaluation of Fasudil Hydrochloride Treatment for Wandering Symptoms in Cerebrovascular Dementia with 31P-Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy and Xe-Computed Tomography”, Clinical Neuropharmacology, Vol. 19, No. 5. pp. 428-438, 1996; cited in IDS), Algase et al. (“The Algase wandering Scale: Initial psychometrics of a new caregiving reporting tool”, American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Dementias, 141 Volume 16, Number 3, May/June 2001).
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Stephan et al. teaching has already been discussed in the above 103 rejections and is incorporated herein by reference.
Vincent teaches the intricate role of the kidneys with respect to drug therapy demands that the status of a patient’s renal function be known at the time of prescribing a wide variety of drugs in order to avoid iatrogenic therapeutic errors. The IOM17 has reported that one of the commonest causes for hospitalization and death is adverse reactions to drugs that may be caused by inappropriate dose selection. Impaired renal function may result in either no change to dosing for some drugs, a change in dose, or the frequency of administration or a change in the therapeutic agent. A careful appraisal of the role of the kidneys relative to any drug that a subject may receive will go a long way to ensuring that the medical profession lives true to its dictum as previously mentioned—“to do no harm.” (page 371, last paragraph).
Hafezi-Moghadam teaches composition comprising fasudil (page 5, [0040-0041]), and composition is immediate release as conventional dosage in one embodiment ([0062]).
Groenendijk et al. teaches the mini-mental state examination (MMSE) is a brief 30-point questionnaire test that is used to assess cognition. ([0064]). A score of 20-26 indicates mild/early dementia; 10-19 moderate dementia, and below 10 severe dementia ([0066]). Alternatively, the subjects have a MMSE score between 20 and 30, preferably 20-26, even more preferably of 24, 25 or 26 and have (or suffer from) Alzheimer's disease, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), age-associated memory impairment (AAMI), multiple sclerosis, vascular dementia, frontotemporal dementia, semantic dementia or dementia with Lewy bodies, more particularly have (or suffer from) Alzheimer's disease ([0070]).
Bimmler et al. teaches The patient who underwent immunoapheresis showed clinical signs of mild vascular dementia with a MMSE score of 23 ([0096]).
Kamei et al. teaches treatment with fasudil of wandering symptoms in patient with cerebrovascular dementia (abstract).
Algase et al. teaches wandering was defined as the ambulating behavior of demented persons with dimensions of frequency, pattern (lapping, random, or pacing), boundary transgressions, and deficits in navigation or wayfinding (page 142). Three subscales (i.e., persistent walking, spatial disorientation, and elopement behavior) also have good reliability and validity as dimensions of wandering (page 151).
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
The difference between the instant application and Stephan et al. is that Stephan et al. do not expressly teach upper dosing limit is determined by monitoring kidney function, immediate release, MMSE score and wandering. This deficiency in Stephan et al. is cured by the teachings of Vincent, Hafezi-Moghadam, Groenendijk et al., Bimmler et al., Kamei et al. and Algase et al.
Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rational and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Stephan et al., as suggested by Vincent, Hafezi-Moghadam, Groenendijk et al., Bimmler et al., Kamei et al. and Algase et al., and produce the instant invention.
Regarding claim 4, it is within skill of one artisan in the art to have dose amount higher enough to have efficacy and but below an amount having potential side effect. Under guidance from Vincent teaching potential damage of kidney function from dose of drug, thus, it is obvious to monitoring the kidney function to determine maximum dose of drug.
Regarding claim 13, under guidance from Hafezi-Moghadam teachingcomposition comprising fasudil with immediate release as conventional dosage, it is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have immediate release.
Regarding claim 14, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to treat vascular dementia patient with MMSE score ≤23 because this is normal assessment score for vascular dementia patient. Under guidance from Groenendijk et al. teaching the mini-mental state examination (MMSE) score of 20-26 indicates mild/early dementia; Bimmler et al. teaching clinical signs of mild vascular dementia with a MMSE score of 23; it is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to treat vascular dementia patient with MMSE score ≤23 and produce instant claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 16, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to treat (reduce) wandering for a patient with vascular dementia because Kamei et al. teaching treatment with fasudil for wandering symptoms in patient with cerebrovascular dementia, thus, it is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to treat (reduce) wandering for a patient with vascular dementia and procure instant claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 17-19, as evidence by Algase et al. teaching wandering including pattern (lapping, random, or pacing), boundary transgressions, and deficits in navigation or wayfinding as well elopement behavior, it is obvious to treat patients with symptoms pacing or elopement, but without wayfinding.
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103.
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 was 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.
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neves et al. (“ER stress and Rho kinase activation underlie the vasculopathy of CADASIL”, JCI Insight. 2019;4(23): e131344, https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.131344” in view of Stephan et al. (US20080108568).
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Neves et al. teaches Cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL) leads to premature stroke and vascular dementia. Aberrant vascular responses and signaling in CADASIL were ameliorated by
inhibitors of Notch3 (γ-secretase inhibitor), Nox5 (mellitin), ER stress (4-phenylbutyric acid), and ROCK (fasudil) (abstract). These vascular abnormalities likely contribute to
brain hypoperfusion injury and to the consequent stroke and dementia that characterize CADASIL (page 14). This indicates CADASIL is subtype of vascular dementia.
Stephan et al. teaching has already been discussed in the above 103 rejection and is incorporated herein by reference.
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
The difference between the instant application and Neves et al. is that Neves et al. do not expressly teach effective amount of fasudil at least 70mg daily. This deficiency in Neves et al. is cured by the teachings of Stephan et al.
Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rational and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Neves et al., as suggested by Stephan et al., and produce the instant invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have amount of fasudil at least 70 mg daily because this is optimization under prior art condition or though routing experimentation. MPEP 2144.05. Under guidance from Stephan et al. teaching oral daily dosage fasudil 40-80mg x3=120mg to 240mg for treating vascular dementia, it is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have amount of fasudil at least 70 mg daily and produce instant claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success. Since this amount 120mg-240mg is within the daily dose range of about 1 mg/kg to about 100 mg/kg for a 70Kg adult (about 70mg to 7000mg) for improving memory, daily dose of 120mg-140mg is therapeutically effective amount.
Regarding claims 20-21, prior art teaches treating Cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL) for patient with vascular dementia by orally administering at least 70mg of fasudil.
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103.
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 was 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.
Response to Argument:
Applicants argue that 3 times daily oral dose of 40mg-80mg is not for treating dementia.
In response to this argument: this is not persuasive. Since this amount 120mg-240mg is within the daily dose range of about 1 mg/kg to about 100 mg/kg for a 70Kg adult (about 70mg to 7000mg) for improving memory, daily dose of 120mg-240mg is therapeutically effective amount. Oral dose amount of 120mg-140mg provides additional guidance for safe oral dose range within broad range of about 70mg to 7000mg. Therefore, the 103 rejection is still proper.
Applicants argue that fasudil approved in Asia for intravenous administration. All arguments in this section are incorporated herein by reference.
In response to this argument: this is not persuasive. Whether the drug is approved or not is not criteria for allowability. Thus, the 103 rejection is still proper.
Applicants argue that there is no teaching of at last 70mg daily dose in working example of Stephan et al. All related arguments are incorporated herein by reference.
In response to this argument: this is not persuasive. It is well settled, however, that the teachings of a reference are not limited to the working examples. See in re Miiis and Pairner, 470 F.2d 649 (CCPA 1972) ("[A] reference is not limited to the disclosure of specific working examples."), In re Chapman and Cosby, 357 F.2d 418, (CCPA 1966) ("A reference can be used for all it realistically teaches, and is not limited to the disclosures in its specific illustrative examples."), and In re Widmer, Batzer and Nikles, 353 F2d 752 (CCPA 1965) ("Examples in a reference are merely that, exemplary of the broader disclosure, all of which is available for what it clearly teaches."). As discussed in the above 103 rejection, Stephan et al. teaches a broad dose range of daily dose range of about 1 mg/kg to about 100 mg/kg for a 70Kg adult (about 70mg to 7000mg) for improving memory, with additional teaching about 120mg-240mg daily for safe oral dose, it is within skill of one artisan in the art to adjust and have 120mg-240mg daily amount and produce instant claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success.
Applicants argue that Stephan teaches away.
In response to this argument: this is not persuasive. As discussed in the above 103 rejection and response to arguments, Stephan properly teaches applicant’s claimed range. MPEP 2123, "[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Applicants argue that 10-50 mg/kg/day.
In response to this argument: this is not persuasive. As discussed in the above 103 rejection and response to argument, Stephan et al. teaches a broad dose range of daily dose range of about 1 mg/kg to about 100 mg/kg for a 70Kg adult (about 70mg to 7000mg) for improving memory, with additional teaching about 120mg-240mg daily for safe oral dose, it is within skill of one artisan in the art to adjust and have 120mg-240mg daily amount and produce instant claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success. The dose of 10-50 mg/kg/day is only one embodiment, and Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). ". NONPREFERRED AND ALTERNATIVE EMBODIMENTS CONSTITUTE PRIOR ART. Therefore, the 103 rejection is still proper.
Applicant’s argue that those secondary or other references does not cure the deficiency of Stephan et al. regarding at least 70mg/day.
In response to this argument: this is not persuasive. As discussed in the above 103 rejection, Stephan et al. teaches claimed range of at least 70mg per day. Therefore, the 103 rejection is still proper.
MPEP 2141 III states: “The proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts.” Respectfully, after weighing all the evidence, the Examiner has reached a determination that the instant claims are not patentable in view of the preponderance of evidence and consideration of all the facts which is more convincing than the evidence which has been offered in opposition to it.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-11, 13-14, 16-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 11944633. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference patent teaches treating vascular dementia by fasudil and the applicant’s claimed invention.
Claims 1-11, 13-14, 16-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 11865119. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference patent teaches treating vascular dementia by fasudil and the applicant’s claimed invention.
Claims 1-11, 13-14, 16-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of copending Application No. 18837780 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference patent application teaches treating vascular dementia by fasudil and the applicant’s claimed invention
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-11, 13-14, 16-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-14 of copending Application No. 17760347 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference patent application teaches treating vascular dementia by fasudil and the applicant’s claimed invention
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 11-11, 13-14, 16-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 18300445 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference patent application teaches treating vascular dementia by fasudil and the applicant’s claimed invention
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Argument:
Applicants argue no need to make double patent rejection because of effective filling date.
In response to this argument: this is not persuasive. The calculation of adjust patent term is unpredictable, and argument about patent term is not criteria to withdrawn double patent rejection in MPEP. Thus, the double patent rejection are maintained for record.
Conclusion
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 JIANFENG SONG. Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1978. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached at (571)272-0581. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JIANFENG SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613