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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of Amendments, Remarks and an IDS filed on 12/15/25. Claims 1, 24 and 36 have been amended, no new claims have been added and no claims have been canceled. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 8-9, 16-17, 19-20, 24-29, 31-32, 36-37 and 39 remain pending and under examination on the merits.
Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from the previous Office Action are hereby withdrawn.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/or objections presently being applied to the instant application.
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 24-27, 29, 31-32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 53 of U.S. Patent No. 11,242,318 in view of Weiner et al (US 20090318454) or Xiong et al (US 20170320831) and Goode et al (Improvement in aerosol delivery with helium-oxygen mixtures during mechanical ventilation). An obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate because while the conflicting claims are not identical, the examined claims are not patentably distinct from the reference claims because the examined claims would have been obvious over the reference claims in view of Weiner et al, or Xiong et al and Good et al.
Examined claim 24 is drawn to a method of treating a central nervous system disorder or a psychedelic disorder in a subject comprising administering to the patient via inhalation an aerosol comprising the compound of formula (II).
The reference claim 53 is drawn to a method of treating a subject with a disease or disorder comprising administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount of the compound of claim 50, wherein the disease or disorder is alcohol use disorder. Compounds of claim 50 include:
PNG
media_image1.png
443
751
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
The difference between the examined claim 24 and reference claim 53 is that the examined claims are drawn to a method of treating the subject by administering the compound via inhalation, while the reference claim 53 is not limited to a specific route of administration, and encompasses administration by inhalation. Remaining examined claims further define the administration by inhalation. However, these differences would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the prior art including Weiner et al or Xiong et al and Good et al.
Weiner et al teach compositions containing antioxidants, and method of using the antioxidants in therapies that can respond to treatment with antioxidants. The said antioxidants are effective in treating damage caused by drug abuse and/or overdose, acetaminophen toxicity, alcoholism, burn injury, acute radiation exposure, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, cerebral ischemia, cerebral stroke, traumatic brain injury, acute spinal cord injury, depression, anxiety, etc, (See [0047]). It is disclosed that the said compositions are suitable for broncho-pulmonary administration include for aerosol delivery, such as an aerosol being a finely dispersed mist, which is delivered to the nose or mouth as a spray powered by a liquefied or compressed gas or a pump. Aerosols sprays may be delivered in a pressurized pack or nebulizer with the use of a propellant, or compressed gases such as nitrogen, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide. The pressurized container or nebulizer may contain a solution or suspension of the active compound. Capsules and cartridges (made, for example, from gelatin) for use in an inhaler or insufflator may be formulated containing a powder mix of a compound of the invention and a suitable powder base such as lactose or starch (See [0174]).
Xiong et al also teach pyrazole derivatives of Formula (Ia) and pharmaceutical compositions thereof that modulate the activity of the serotonin 5HT2A receptor, and methods useful in the treatment of insomnia and related sleep disorders, agitation or symptoms thereof, behavioral disorders, drug induced psychosis, excitative psychosis, Gilles de Ia Tourette's syndrome, manic disorder, organic or NOS psychosis, psychotic disorders, psychosis, acute schizophrenia, chronic schizophrenia, NOS schizophrenia and related disorders, alcoholism, and for the treatment of 5-HT2A serotonin receptor mediated disorders in combination with other pharmaceutical agents administered separately or together (See abstract and [0210]).
It is disclosed that “Not surprisingly, serotonin is linked to pathophysiological conditions such as anxiety, depression, obsessive compulsive disorders, schizophrenia, suicide, autism, migraine, emesis, alcoholism, and neurodegenerative disorders” (See [0004]).
Xiong et al teach that the said pharmaceutical formulations include those suitable for administration by inhalation, insufflation or by a transdermal patch. Administration to the respiratory tract may also be achieved by means of an aerosol formulation in which the active ingredient is provided in a pressurized pack with a suitable propellant. This can be administered using a spray, a nebulizer, a pump nebulizer, an inhalation apparatus, a metered inhaler or a dry powder inhaler. Pharmaceutical forms for administration of the compounds can include customary propellants, for example include carbon dioxide, and the like. The said dry powder, may be a powder mix of the compound in a suitable powder base such as lactose, starch, etc; and administered vi a dry powder inhaler (See [0300] and [0322]-[0324]).
Goode et al teach that a gas mixture of helium and oxygen has shown improved aerosol delivery (See Page 109). The said helium and oxygen mixtures have been delivered via a nebulizer device and are typically in the ratio of 80/20 or 70/30, He/O2 (See pages 110-111). The said helium/oxygen mixed gas is also heated to 35 ˚C.
Thus, from the prior art’s teachings it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the psychedelic drug of examined claims would be effectively administered via inhalation with an aerosol or dry powder inhaler and can effectively treat psychedelic conditions such as alcohol abuse, drug abuse, depression, etc. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use helium oxygen mixture as it’s advantages are disclosed and known.
Claims 1-3, 8-9, 16-17, 19-20, 24-29, 31-32, 36-37 and 39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 8-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,834,410 in view of Weiner et al (US 20090318454) or Xiong et al (US 20170320831) and Goode et al (Improvement in aerosol delivery with helium-oxygen mixtures during mechanical ventilation). An obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate because while the conflicting claims are not identical, the examined claims are not patentably distinct from the reference claims because the examined claims would have been obvious over the reference claims in view of Weiner et al, or Xiong et al and Good et al.
The examined claim 1 is drawn to a method of delivering a psychedelic drug to a patient in need thereof, comprising administering an aerosol to the patient by inhalation, wherein the aerosol comprises the psychedelic drug in a carrier, and the psychedelic drug is a compound of Formula (II) or a stereoisomer, pharmaceutically acceptable salt, solvate, or prodrug thereof
PNG
media_image2.png
292
513
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Examined claim 24 is drawn to a method of treating a central nervous system disorder or a psychedelic disorder in a subject comprising administering to the patient via inhalation an aerosol comprising the compound of formula (II).
The reference claim 1 is drawn to a composition comprising a compound and a pharmaceutically acceptable vehicle wherein the compound is:
PNG
media_image3.png
342
402
media_image3.png
Greyscale
or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt, solvate, or prodrug thereof.
Reference claim 2 is to a composition of claim 1 in a liquid form, claim 3 is directed to a solid dosage form, reference claims 8-10 are directed to a method of treating a disorder including a major depressive disorder, a treatment-resistant depression or alcohol use.
The difference between the examined claims and reference claims is that the examined claims are drawn to a method of administering the composition to a subject via inhalation, including a nebulizer wherein the carrier is air or a mixture of helium and oxygen, the nebulizer containing nitrous oxide or the compound is in a dry powder form and administered via dry powder inhaler mixture, while the reference claims are open to any administration route, encompassing via inhalation. However, these differences would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the prior art including Weiner et al, Xiong et al and Good et al.
Weiner et al teach compositions containing antioxidants, and method of using the antioxidants in therapies that can respond to treatment with antioxidants. The said antioxidants are effective in treating damage caused by drug abuse and/or overdose, acetaminophen toxicity, alcoholism, burn injury, acute radiation exposure, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, cerebral ischemia, cerebral stroke, traumatic brain injury, acute spinal cord injury, depression, anxiety, etc, (See [0047]). It is disclosed that the said compositions are suitable for broncho-pulmonary administration include for aerosol delivery, such as an aerosol being a finely dispersed mist, which is delivered to the nose or mouth as a spray powered by a liquefied or compressed gas or a pump. Aerosols sprays may be delivered in a pressurized pack or nebulizer with the use of a propellant, or compressed gases such as nitrogen, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide. The pressurized container or nebulizer may contain a solution or suspension of the active compound. Capsules and cartridges (made, for example, from gelatin) for use in an inhaler or insufflator may be formulated containing a powder mix of a compound of the invention and a suitable powder base such as lactose or starch (See [0174]).
Xiong et al also teach pyrazole derivatives of Formula (Ia) and pharmaceutical compositions thereof that modulate the activity of the serotonin 5HT2A receptor, and methods useful in the treatment of insomnia and related sleep disorders, agitation or symptoms thereof, behavioral disorders, drug induced psychosis, excitative psychosis, Gilles de Ia Tourette's syndrome, manic disorder, organic or NOS psychosis, psychotic disorders, psychosis, acute schizophrenia, chronic schizophrenia, NOS schizophrenia and related disorders, alcoholism, and for the treatment of 5-HT2A serotonin receptor mediated disorders in combination with other pharmaceutical agents administered separately or together (See abstract and [0210]).
It is disclosed that “Not surprisingly, serotonin is linked to pathophysiological conditions such as anxiety, depression, obsessive compulsive disorders, schizophrenia, suicide, autism, migraine, emesis, alcoholism, and neurodegenerative disorders” (See [0004]).
Xiong et al teach that the said pharmaceutical formulations include those suitable for administration by inhalation, insufflation or by a transdermal patch. Administration to the respiratory tract may also be achieved by means of an aerosol formulation in which the active ingredient is provided in a pressurized pack with a suitable propellant. This can be administered using a spray, a nebulizer, a pump nebulizer, an inhalation apparatus, a metered inhaler or a dry powder inhaler. Pharmaceutical forms for administration of the compounds can include customary propellants, for example include carbon dioxide, and the like. The said dry powder, may be a powder mix of the compound in a suitable powder base such as lactose, starch, etc; and administered vi a dry powder inhaler (See [0300] and [0322]-[0324]).
Goode et al teach that a gas mixture of helium and oxygen has shown improved aerosol delivery (See Page 109). The said helium and oxygen mixtures have been delivered via a nebulizer device and are typically in the ratio of 80/20 or 70/30, He/O2 (See pages 110-111). The said helium/oxygen mixed gas is also heated to 35 ˚C.
Thus, from the prior art’s teachings it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the psychedelic drug of examined claims would be effectively administered via inhalation with an aerosol or dry powder inhaler and can effectively treat psychedelic conditions such as alcohol abuse, drug abuse, depression, etc. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use helium oxygen mixture as it’s advantages are disclosed and known.
Claims 32, 36-37 and 39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-7 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,746,088 in view of Weiner et al (US 20090318454) or Xiong et al (US 20170320831) and Goode et al (Improvement in aerosol delivery with helium-oxygen mixtures during mechanical ventilation). An obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate because while the conflicting claims are not identical, the examined claims are not patentably distinct from the reference claims because the examined claims would have been obvious over the reference claims in view of Weiner et al, or Xiong et al and Good et al.
The examined claim 1 is drawn to a method of delivering a psychedelic drug to a patient in need thereof, comprising administering an aerosol to the patient by inhalation, wherein the aerosol comprises the psychedelic drug in a carrier, and the psychedelic drug is a compound of Formula (II) or a stereoisomer, pharmaceutically acceptable salt, solvate, or prodrug thereof
PNG
media_image2.png
292
513
media_image2.png
Greyscale
or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt, solvate, or prodrug thereof.
Reference claim 2 is to a composition comprising a compound and a carrier wherein the compound is
PNG
media_image4.png
780
513
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and reference claim 10 is drawn to the composition of claim 2 adapted for administration via inhalation.
The difference between the examined claims and reference claims is that the examined claims are drawn to a method of administering the compound to a subject via inhalation, including a nebulizer wherein the carrier is air or a mixture of helium and oxygen, the nebulizer containing nitrous oxide or the compound is in a dry powder form and administered via dry powder inhaler mixture, while the reference claims are drawn to a composition comprising the compound in liquid or solid form and for inhalation. However, these differences would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the prior art including Weiner et al, Xiong et al and Good et al.
Weiner et al teach compositions containing antioxidants, and method of using the antioxidants in therapies that can respond to treatment with antioxidants. The said antioxidants are effective in treating damage caused by drug abuse and/or overdose, acetaminophen toxicity, alcoholism, burn injury, acute radiation exposure, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, cerebral ischemia, cerebral stroke, traumatic brain injury, acute spinal cord injury, depression, anxiety, etc, (See [0047]). It is disclosed that the said compositions are suitable for broncho-pulmonary administration include for aerosol delivery, such as an aerosol being a finely dispersed mist, which is delivered to the nose or mouth as a spray powered by a liquefied or compressed gas or a pump. Aerosols sprays may be delivered in a pressurized pack or nebulizer with the use of a propellant, or compressed gases such as nitrogen, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide. The pressurized container or nebulizer may contain a solution or suspension of the active compound. Capsules and cartridges (made, for example, from gelatin) for use in an inhaler or insufflator may be formulated containing a powder mix of a compound of the invention and a suitable powder base such as lactose or starch (See [0174]).
Xiong et al also teach pyrazole derivatives of Formula (Ia) and pharmaceutical compositions thereof that modulate the activity of the serotonin 5HT2A receptor, and methods useful in the treatment of insomnia and related sleep disorders, agitation or symptoms thereof, behavioral disorders, drug induced psychosis, excitative psychosis, Gilles de Ia Tourette's syndrome, manic disorder, organic or NOS psychosis, psychotic disorders, psychosis, acute schizophrenia, chronic schizophrenia, NOS schizophrenia and related disorders, alcoholism, and for the treatment of 5-HT2A serotonin receptor mediated disorders in combination with other pharmaceutical agents administered separately or together (See abstract and [0210]).
It is disclosed that “Not surprisingly, serotonin is linked to pathophysiological conditions such as anxiety, depression, obsessive compulsive disorders, schizophrenia, suicide, autism, migraine, emesis, alcoholism, and neurodegenerative disorders” (See [0004]).
Xiong et al teach that the said pharmaceutical formulations include those suitable for administration by inhalation, insufflation or by a transdermal patch. Administration to the respiratory tract may also be achieved by means of an aerosol formulation in which the active ingredient is provided in a pressurized pack with a suitable propellant. This can be administered using a spray, a nebulizer, a pump nebulizer, an inhalation apparatus, a metered inhaler or a dry powder inhaler. Pharmaceutical forms for administration of the compounds can include customary propellants, for example include carbon dioxide, and the like. The said dry powder, may be a powder mix of the compound in a suitable powder base such as lactose, starch, etc; and administered vi a dry powder inhaler (See [0300], [0322]-[0324].
Goode et al teach that a gas mixture of helium and oxygen has shown improved aerosol delivery (See Page 109). The said helium and oxygen mixtures have been delivered via a nebulizer device and are typically in the ratio of 80/20 or 70/30, He/O2 (See pages 110-111). The said helium/oxygen mixed gas is also heated to 35 ˚C.
Thus, from the prior art’s teachings it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the psychedelic drug of examined claims would be effectively administered via inhalation with an aerosol or dry powder inhaler and can effectively treat psychedelic conditions such as alcohol abuse, drug abuse, depression, etc. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use helium oxygen mixture as it’s advantages are disclosed and known.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are regarding the rejection of claims under obviousness type double patenting over Patent No.s 11,242,318, 11,746,088 and 11,834,410.
Applicant’s arguments are with regard to the claim analysis and the supporting documents. Applicant states that “The question, then, is whether the instantly claimed methods of delivering a psychedelic drug to a patient and methods of treating a central nervous system (CNS) disorder or psychological disorder are obvious simply from the claim 53 of the ‘318 patent, without more” and that “claim 52 specifies a method of treating an alcohol use disorder with particular compounds. Independent claim 24 has been amended herein to specify a number of CNS and psychological disorders, none of which are alcohol use disorder” (See Remarks, pages 9-10).
The arguments are not persuasive. It is not clear what Applicant mean by stating “without more”. If the examined claims were the same as the reference claims, they would be rejected under anticipatory double patenting. The mere fact that these rejections are under obviousness type double patenting means that one of ordinary skill in the art would find them obvious in view of the teachings of the secondary references, i.e. the knowledge available to them. The examined claims are directed to either a method of delivering a drug to a patient by administering a composition comprising the said drug to the subject via inhalation or a method of treating a CNS related disorder by administration of the formulations to a subject via inhalation.
Claim 53 of the reference patent ‘318 is directed to a method of treating a disorder wherein the disorder is alcohol use disorder by administration of the compound of claim 50. The reference claims 50 and 53 are not limited to a specific delivery route and as such encompass inhalation. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to not only consider inhalation as the desired route of administration but to look in the art such as Weiner, Xiong or Goode for specifics and guidance related to administration of a drug to the subject via inhalation including the device, dosage form and excipient/carrier. Regarding the examined claims 24 and dependent claims, the reference claim 53 in ‘318 patent is directed to the same method of treating a CNS related disorder such as alcohol use. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the reference claim 53 to include treating other CNS related disorders such as addiction disorder, opioid use disorder, depression, etc, based on the teachings of the art that the same compound/composition can be effective in treating multiple CNS related disorders.
As recited in the rejections, references including Xiong et al teach treating the same CNS disorders including manic disorder, organic or NOS psychosis, psychotic disorders, psychosis, alcoholism, 5-HT2A serotonin receptor mediated disorders, etc, with the same formulations by inhalation. Xiong et al also disclose that “Not surprisingly, serotonin is linked to pathophysiological conditions such as anxiety, depression, obsessive compulsive disorders, schizophrenia, suicide, autism, migraine, emesis, alcoholism, and neurodegenerative disorders” (See [0004]). Weiner also discloses that the same formulations delivered via inhalation are effective in treating CNS related disorders including depression, substance abuse and alcoholism.
Applicant states that “the test for judicially created nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting parallels the analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (M.P.E.P. § 804.II.B.2), with one key difference. Obviousness-type double patenting analysis differs from that under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in that "disclosure of the [reference] patent may not be used as prior art"(M.P.E.P.§ 804, emphasis added). Instead, as stated in the M.P.E.P., the "focus of any double patenting analysis necessarily is on the claims in the multiple patents or patent applications involved in the analysis" (See Remarks, page 9).
The Examiner agrees. As shown above the rejection is based on the reference claim 53 in view of secondary references, Weiner et al or Xiong et al and Goode et al, and parallel to an obviousness rejection under USC 103(a). The rejections did not refer to the reference disclosure. The rejection is based on the fact that one of ordinary skill in the art having possession of the prior art references and their teachings would have been motivated to have practiced the method of claim 53 in ‘318 patent by inhalation and for treating other CNS disorders than alcohol use disorder with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding the rejection of claims over claims 1-3 and 8-10 of US Patent No. 11,834,410 in view of Weiner or Xiong and Goode, Applicant’s main argument is that instant claims have been amended such that R4 cannot be hydroxyl while the reference claims recite hydroxyl as a possible substitute in R4 (See Remarks, page 10).
The above argument is also not convincing. Firstly, in both instant claims and reference claims the compound is a psychedelic compound, salt, solvate or prodrug thereof (i.e. a derivative thereof). Thus, both compounds and their substitutions are well within the scope of the compound or it’s derivative thereof. Secondly, even with the amendments excluding hydroxyl as a substitution at position R4, the instant claims allow for the placement of a hydrogen at R4 position. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select either a hydrogen or a hydroxyl at position R4 and expect the same or similar effects from the compound.
The claims are rejected on the well-established principle that compounds of sufficient structure similarity are prima facie obvious even in the absence of a teaching to modify. In this regard the courts have held that “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties. In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). MPEP § 2144.09. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reference compound by substituting a hydrogen for the hydroxyl at position R4 and expect the same function and effectiveness.
Regarding the rejection of claims over US patent No. 11,746,088, Applicant’s first argument is that instant claim 32 specifies that nitrous oxide is present in the driving gas of a nebulizer, driving gas or nitrous oxide, let alone the amount of nitrous oxide. Applicant’s second argument is the different substitution on R5 position (See Remarks, page 11).
Regarding the lack of nitrous oxide as the driving gas in a nebulizer, the secondary reference is relied upon for rendering this limitation obvious. Weiner et al clearly teach delivering the formulations with “nebulizer with the use of a propellant, or compressed gases such as nitrogen, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide” as explained in the rejection. The selection of a suitable amount is also well within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding the substitution, similar to the response above, there exist sufficient structure similarity which render the claims prima facie obvious.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claims over US Patent No. 12,122,741 were persuasive. As such this rejection is withdrawn.
Claims 1-3, 8-9, 16-17, 19-20, 24-29, 31-32, 36-37 and 39 are rejected.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Mina Haghighatian whose telephone number is (571)272-0615. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7-5 EST.
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, Sue X. Liu can be reached at 571-272-5539. 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.
/Mina Haghighatian/
Mina Haghighatian
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1616