FINAL 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 .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to papers filed 11/28/2025 in which claims 2-4, 15, 28-29, and 31 were canceled; claims 21-27 were withdrawn; claims 1, 7, 9, 12, 14, and 16-19 were amended. All the amendments have been thoroughly reviewed and entered.
Claims 1, 5-14, 16-20, 30, and 32-34 are under examination.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 11/28/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of copending Applicant No. 17922111 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
The Examiner has re-weighted all the evidence of record. Any rejection and/or objection not specifically addressed below is hereby withdrawn.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.
Maintained-Modified Rejection
Modification Necessitated by Applicant’s Claim Amendments
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, 5-14, 16-20, 30, and 32-34 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 8-12, 14-17, and 21-38 of copending Application No. 18293739 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the copending application ‘739 significant overlap with the subject matter of the instant claims i.e. encapsulated compositions containing microcapsules comprising a core and a shell surrounding the core, wherein the shell is by formed complex coacervate of a protein and a polysaccharide, and wherein the microcapsules further contains a cyclic dialdehyde.
Consequently, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the obvious variation of the instantly claimed subject matter over the copending Application No. 18293739.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “[t]he patent term filing date of the present application of November 23, 2021 is earlier than the patent term filing date of the '739 application of August 9, 2022.” Applicant cited MPEP 804(I)(B)(1)(b)(i) to support Applicant’s position. (Remarks, page 8).
In response, the Examiner disagrees. MPEP 804(I)(B)(1)(b)(i) states: “[i]f a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection is the only rejection remaining in an application having the earlier patent term filing date, the examiner should withdraw the rejection in the application having the earlier patent term filing date and permit that application to issue as a patent, thereby converting the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection in the other application into a nonstatutory double patenting rejection upon issuance of the patent.” In the instant case, the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection is not the only rejection remaining in this application. Thus, per MPEP §804(I)(B)1), the provisional double patenting rejection should be made and maintained by the Examiner until Applicant overcomes the rejection by filing a terminal disclaimer.
Accordingly, the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection is maintained for the reason of record, pending filing of a terminal disclaimer.
New Rejections
Necessitated by Applicant’s Claim Amendments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 – NEW MATTER
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 9 and 19 introduces new matter as the claims recite the limitation: “combinations thereof.” There is no support in the specification for said limitation as it pertain to the Markush groups recited in claims 9 and 19.
MPEP §2163.06 states: “Applicant should therefore specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.” Applicant has not directed the Examiner to the support in the specification for the amendments.
While there is support in specification for “a protein selected from the group consisting of soy proteins, pea proteins, rice proteins and hemp proteins” (Specification: page 5, lines 18-20; page 8, lines 12-13; page 9, lines 30-end to page 10, lines 1-2; and page 25, lines 10-14), there is no support for combinations of the proteins.
While there is support in the specification for “the core is selected from the group consisting of fragrance ingredients, cosmetic ingredients and biologically active ingredients” (Specification: page 10, lines 3-5), there is not support for combinations of said ingredients.
As such, the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of amended claim 9 and 19 at the time of filing of the instant application.
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, 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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-12, 16-17, 19-20, 30 and 32-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al (US 2011/0117180 A1) in view of Ludvik et al (US 2013/0211005 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 30, Yan teaches a composition comprising microcapsules comprising a core encapsulating a biologically active substance, and a shell surrounding the core, the shell is formed by complex coacervation of a vegetable protein and a polyelectrolyte with an opposite charge to the protein (Abstract; [0006]-[0049], [0060], [0068]-[0092], [0098]-[0131]; claims 1, 6-8, 19 and 35-37). Yan teaches the microcapsules further contain a crosslinking agent ([0090]-[0091]). Yan teaches a consumer product containing the composition ([0105]-[0116]). Yan teaches the crosslinking agent is a dialdehyde such as glutaraldehyde and the crosslinking agent crosslinks the protein and the polyelectrolyte ([0090]-[0091]).
While Yan does not expressly teach the crosslinking agent is a cyclic dialdehyde, it would have been obvious to use and incorporate a cyclic dialdehyde as the crosslinking agent in the microcapsule of Yan in view of the guidance from Ludvik.
Ludvik teaches a polymer microparticles a reaction mixture of a polymer, polysaccharide, and a crosslinking agent, wherein the crosslinking agent is an dialdehyde including glutaraldehyde and isophthalaldehyde (Abstract; [0016]-[0020], [0065]-[0077], [0145], [0241]-[0245]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art use and incorporate a cyclic dialdehyde as the crosslinking agent in the microcapsule of Yan, and produce the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Ludvik provided the guidance to do so by teaching that aside from glutaraldehyde, cyclic or aromatic dialdehyde including isophthalaldehyde is also known to be a suitable dialdehyde crosslinker used in forming polymeric microparticles/microcapsules (Ludvik: [0065]-[0071]). Thus, it would have been merely simple substitution of one known dialdehyde crosslinker for another to obtain predictable results of polymeric microparticles/microcapsules, and achieve Applicant’s claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success. As such, it is noted that [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).\
Regarding claim 5, as discussed above, Yan teaches vegetable protein, thereby meeting the claimed the first polyelectrolyte is ampholyte.
Regarding claim 6, Yan teaches the vegetable protein has an isoelectric point below pH 7 ([0072]; Table 4).
Regarding claim 7, Yan teaches the protein and the polysaccharide are solubilized in water to form solutions ([0072]-[0077]). Thus, it would have been reasonable obvious that the claimed property of “the solubility of the first and section polyelectrolytes is higher than 5 wt.% in water at pH 7 ± 0.5 and at room temperature” would have been implicit in the protein and polysaccharide of Yan. It is noted that [w]here the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). It is further noted that [p]roducts of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Regarding claim 8, as discussed above, Yan teaches vegetable protein.
Regarding claim 9, Yan teaches the vegetable protein is soy protein or pea protein ([0042], [0068], [0072]; claim 8).
Regarding claim 10, Yan teaches the protein is a pea protein concentrate or a soy protein concentrate, and said protein is solubilized in water to form a protein solution ([0042], [0068], [0072]-[0077]; claim 8). Thus, it would have been reasonably obvious and implicit that the protein at a nominal percentage of 5 wt.% would contain less than 0.1 wt.% of insoluble material based on the total weight of the solution as claimed because as discussed above, the protein was solubilized in water to form a protein solution. It is noted that [w]here the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Yan teaches polyelectrolyte is polysaccharide selected from gellan gum, pectin, low methoxyl pectin, gum arabic, alginate, carboxymethyl-cellulose or a mixture thereof ([0041]-[0042]; claim 19).
Regarding claim 16, as discussed above, Ludvik taught and provided the guidance for using isophthalaldehyde as the dialdehyde crosslinker.
Regarding claim 17, Yan teaches the crosslinking agent is present in an amount from 0.1% to about 5.0% by weight, and can be added at any stage of the process of preparing the microcapsule ([0090]-[0091]). It would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art to routinely optimize the amount of crosslinking agent in the composition to an amount from 0.1% to about 5.0% by weight based on the weigh to the core composition, and produce the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation of success because Yan provides the direct guidance for optimizing the amount of crosslinking agent in the composition irrespective of when it is added the process of the preparing the microcapsules, can be from 0.1% to about 5.0% by weight, as one skilled in the art can routinely determine the desired amount in any giving case by simple experimentation ([0090]-[0091]).
Regarding claim 19, as discussed above, Yan teaches the core contains a biologically active substance.
Regarding claim 20, Yan teaches the microcapsules has a diameter from 1-5 µm ([0152]-[0169]), which falls within the claimed range of “the volume median diameter of the microcapsules (Dv(50)) is from 1 to 150 µm. Thus, it is noted that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” and even when the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have similar properties, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F2d 775. 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Absent some demonstration of unexpected results from the claimed parameters, the optimization of volume median diameter of the microcapsules would have been obvious before the effective filing date of applicant's invention. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP §2144.05 (I)-(II).
Regarding claim 32, as discussed above, Yan teaches the vegetable protein is soy protein or pea protein.
Regarding claim 33, as discussed above, Yan teaches polyelectrolyte is polysaccharide selected from gellan gum, pectin, low methoxyl pectin, gum arabic, alginate, carboxymethyl-cellulose or a mixture thereof.
Regarding claim 34, as discussed above, Yan teaches carboxymethylcellulose as one of the preferred polyelectrolyte.
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 Applicant’s invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al (US 2011/00117080 A1) in view of Ludvik et al (US 2013/0211005 A1), as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Duhoranimana et al (Food Hydrocolloids, 2017, 69: 111-120).
The encapsulated composition of claim 34 is discussed above, said discussion being incorporated herein in its entirety.
However, Yan and Ludvik do not teach the molecular weight of the carboxymethylcellulose of claim 13,
Regarding claim 13, Duhoranimana microcapsules formed by complex coacervation of a protein and a polysaccharide such as carboxymethyl cellulose (Abstract; pages 111-112; page 116 and Table 1; page 119). Duhoranimana teaches suitable carboxymethylcellulose for complex coacervate with a protein is carboxymethylcellulose having molecular weights 108 kDa and DS 1.03 and molecular weights 183 kDa and DS 0.95, as said carboxymethylcellulose form stable complex coacervate (pages 111-112; page 116 and Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate carboxymethylcellulose having molecular weight 108 kDa and DS 1.03 or molecular weights 183 kDa and DS 0.95, as the polyelectrolyte (polysaccharide) in the microcapsule of Yan, and produce the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation of success because Yan indicated that any carboxymethylcellulose is suitable for use as the polyelectrolyte, and Duhoranimana provide the direct guidance for using carboxymethylcellulose having molecular weight 108 kDa and DS 1.03 or molecular weights 183 kDa and DS 0.95 as the carboxymethylcellulose (polysaccharide) so as to provide a stable complex coacervate with the protein. Thus, an ordinary artisan seeking to maximize the stability of the resultant microcapsule would have looked to incorporate carboxymethylcellulose having molecular weight 108 kDa and DS 1.03 or molecular weights 183 kDa and DS 0.95, as the polyelectrolyte (polysaccharide) in the microcapsule of Yan, and achieve Applicant’s claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success.
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 Applicant’s invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim(s) 14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al (US 2011/00117080 A1) in view of Ludvik et al (US 2013/0211005 A1), as applied to claims 8 and 34, respectively above, and further in view of Yan et al (US 2005/0067726 A1; hereafter as Yan ‘726).
The encapsulated composition of claims 8 and 34 are discussed above, said discussion being incorporated herein in its entirety.
However, Yan ‘080 and Ludvik do not teach the weight ratio of carboxymethylcellulose to protein of claim 14 and the weight ratio of the interfacial enabler to the protein to claim 18.
Regarding claims 14 and 18, Yan ‘726 teaches microcapsules formed by complex coacervate of a protein and a polysaccharide, wherein suitable protein include soy protein, and suitable polysaccharide include gum Arabic, pectin or carboxymethylcellulose (Abstract; [0008]-[0073]; claims 16-30). Yan ‘726 teaches the microcapsules encapsulate a hydrophobic liquid ([0028], [0055]-[0056]). Yan ‘726 teaches the microcapsules contain an aldehyde crosslinking agent ([0068]). Yan ‘726 teaches the concentration of the protein in the microcapsule composition is from 1-15% by weight and the concentration of the polysaccharide in the microcapsule composition is from 0.01-0.65% by weight ([0064]). Yan ‘726 teaches concentration of the crosslinking agent in the microcapsule composition is from about 0.2% to about 2.0% by weight ([0068]). Yan indicated that one skilled in the art can routinely determine the desired amount of protein, polysaccharide, and crosslinking agent in any given case by simple experimentation ([0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the weight amounts of protein, polysaccharide (carboxymethyl cellulose), and crosslinking agent in the microcapsule of Yan ‘080 to weight ratios as claimed in claims 14 and 18, and produce the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation of success because Yan ‘726 provide guidance for optimizing the concentration of the protein in the microcapsule composition to from 1-15% by weight, the concentration of the polysaccharide in the microcapsule composition to be from 0.01-0.65% by weight, and the concentration of the crosslinking agent in the microcapsule composition to be from about 0.2% to about 2.0% by weight (Yan ‘726: [0064] and [0068]). The weight amounts of protein, polysaccharide, and crosslinking agent as taught by Yan ‘726 overlap or fall within the claimed weight ratios as recited in claims 14 and 18. Thus, it is noted that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” and even when the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have similar properties, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F2d 775. 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Absent some demonstration of unexpected results from the claimed parameters, the optimization of weigh ratio of carboxymethylcellulose to protein and weight ratio of interfacial enabler to protein in a microcapsule would have been obvious before the effective filing date of applicant's invention. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP §2144.05 (I)-(II).
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 Applicant’s invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks filed 11/28/2025 with respect to claim(s) 1, 5-14, 16-20, 30, and 32-34 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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 DOAN THI-THUC PHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3288. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 EST Monday-Friday.
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 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.
/DOAN T PHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613