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 .
All previous objections and rejections not reiterated herein were overcome by claim amendments, filed June 23rd, 2026, that have been fully considered and found persuasive. As such all objections and rejections not reiterated herein have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1 – 2, 6, and 10 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Paten No. US 7579362 B2 to Feuerbach et. al. (Feuerbach’362; cited on the IDS dated April 20th, 2023) in view of Stein et. al. ((2008), Social Anxiety Disorder, Lancet, 371, 1115 – 1125; cited in the office action dated March 24th, 2026).
Regarding claims 1 – 2, 6, and 10 – 16, Feuerbach’362 teach novel 1-aza-bicycloalkyl derivatives, their use as pharmaceuticals and to compositions comprising them. See column lines 9 – 12. Feuerbach’362 teach compounds of formula I of structure
PNG
media_image1.png
148
264
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where X = -CH2-; Y =
PNG
media_image2.png
114
206
media_image2.png
Greyscale
; and R = an unsubstituted C6 aryl. See column 1 lines 12 – 48. Moreover, Feuerbach’362 teach that on account of the asymmetrical carbon atom(s) present in the compounds of formula I and their salts, the compounds may exist in optically active form or in form of mixtures of optical isomers, e.g. in form of racemic mixtures. See column 2 lines 27 – 31. As such, Feuerbach’362 teach that all optical isomers and their mixtures including the racemic mixtures are part of the present invention. See column 2 lines 31 – 33. Furthermore, Feuerbach’362 teach that the agents of the invention disclosed are α7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) agonists. See column 2 lines 56 – 57. Additionally, Feuerbach’362 teach that agents of this disclosure are useful for the prevention and treatment of psychotic disorders such anxiety and panic disorders. See column 7 lines 18 – 20 and line 30. See claims 1, 6, and 15. Feuerbach’362 teach that for the treatment of the above disorders the appropriate dosage of the agents will vary depending upon the host, the mode of administration and the nature or severity of the condition being treated as well as the particular potency of the agent. See column 7 lines 35 – 40. Specifically, Feuerbach’362 teach example 58 or (R)-3-(6-p-Tolyl-pyridin-3-yloxy)-1-aza-bicyclo[2.2.2]octane and an exemplified compounds of formula I. See column 15 lines 11 – 15. See claims 1, 6, and 15. Furthermore, Feuerbach’362 teach that the agents of the invention, which include example 58, may be administered as a single active agent for the treatment of the disorders mentioned here which include anxiety and panic disorders. See column 7 lines 64 – 67. See claims 1, 6, and 15.
Now while the prior art of Feuerbach’362 teach the use of compounds of the disclosure in methods for treating anxiety and panic disorders; Feuerbach’362 fails to specifically teach a method for treating or preventing public speaking anxiety (claims 1 and 15) or a method of treating social anxiety disorder (SAD) (claim 6).
Nevertheless, Stein et. al. teach that anxiety disorders are the most pervasive class of mental disorders, with a 12-month prevalence in the community of about 18% (page 1115 column 1 paragraph 1). Furthermore, Stein et. al. teach that social anxiety disorder (also known as social phobia) is classified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV (DSM-IV; panel 1) and in the International Classification of Diseases 10 (ICD-10; panel 2) as a phobic (anxiety) disorder, alongside agoraphobia and specific phobias (from which it was first distinguished only 40 years ago4) (page 1115 column 1 paragraph 1). Additionally, Stein et. al. teach that individuals with social anxiety disorder invariably experience intense emotional or physical symptoms, or both (eg, fear, heart racing (claims 11 – 12), sweating, trembling, trouble concentrating (claims 13 – 14))(page 1115 column 1 paragraph 2).
Also, Stein et. al. teach that although people with generalized social anxiety disorder (claim 6) can fear and avoid specific performance situations such as public speaking (claims 1 – 2, 10, and 15), their social fears and avoidance extend far beyond that relatively common sphere of concern (page 1115 column 2 paragraph 1). Thus, Stein et. al. teach that the genus of anxiety disorders includes the species of social anxiety disorders. Furthermore, Stein et. al. teach that anxiety around public speaking is one fear that someone with social anxiety experiences. Moreover, Stein et. al. teach that in seminal trials comparing drug treatment versus cognitive behavioral therapy in social anxiety disorder suggested that drugs can have faster effects, but the effects of cognitive behavioral therapy might last longer (page 1120 column 1 paragraph 2). Still, Stein et. al. teach that the choice to begin one modality rather than another, or to use combined treatment, therefore often relies on clinical judgment about individual patients (eg, drug treatment might be advisable in a patient who was too anxious or depressed to begin psychotherapy or did not complete psychotherapy homework) (page 1120 column 1 paragraph 2).
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 15, recitation for a method of treatment of an individual suffering from public speaking anxiety as taught above in the prior art of Stein et. al. the fear of public speaking is one of the anxieties that are present for an individual that suffers from SAD. Hence given that the relative skill of one of ordinary skill in the pharmaceutical arts is relatively high it would have been with in the purview of such artisan to treat the public speaking anxiety through treating SAD since the prior art of Stein et. al, suggest overlap between these two anxieties. Furthermore, in regard to the limitation that the (R)-3-(6-p-Tolyl-pyridin-3-yloxy)-1-aza-bicyclo[2.2.2]octane is administered as a monotherapy; as taught by Feuerbach’362, the alpha 7 receptor agonist can be administrated in a separate dosage form separately from the secondary therapy.
Moreover, regarding claim 15, recitation for preventing a manifestation of one or more symptoms of public speaking anxiety in an individual comprising administering the (R)-3-(6-p-Tolyl-pyridin-3-yloxy)-1-aza-bicyclo[2.2.2]octane; as stated above, Feuerbach’362 teach that for the treatment of the above disorders the appropriate dosage of the agents will vary depending upon the host, the mode of administration and the nature or severity of the condition being treated as well as the particular potency of the agent. See column 7 lines 35 – 40. Furthermore, the prior art of Stein et. al. teach that the choice to begin one modality rather than another, or to use combined treatment, therefore often relies on clinical judgment about individual patients (eg, drug treatment might be advisable in a patient who was too anxious or depressed to begin psychotherapy or did not complete psychotherapy homework) (page 1120 column 1 paragraph 2). Thus, taking both the prior art teachings and given that the relative skill of one of ordinary skill in the pharmaceutical arts is relatively high it would have been obvious to administer (R)-3-(6-p-Tolyl-pyridin-3-yloxy)-1-aza-bicyclo[2.2.2]octane prior to public speaking to prevent the anxiety and the physical/cognitive effects.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Feuerbach’362, that is to use agonist (R)-3-(6-p-Tolyl-pyridin-3-yloxy)-1-aza-bicyclo[2.2.2]octane as a monotherapy that is administered in a sperate dosage form to treat anxiety in view of Stein et. al., that is to treat or prevent public speaking anxiety and treat social anxiety disorder. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve the mental health of individual suffering from these anxieties. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because in seminal trials comparing drug treatment versus cognitive behavioral therapy in social anxiety disorder suggested that drugs can have faster effects.
Claims 4, 8, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. US 7579362 B2 to Feuerbach et. al. (Feuerbach’362; cited on the IDS dated April 20th, 2023) and Stein et. al. ((2008), Social Anxiety Disorder, Lancet, 371, 1115 – 1125; cited in the office action dated March 24th, 2026) as applied to claims 1 – 2, 6, and 10 – 16 above, and further in view of Fuentes-Rodriguez et. al. ((2018), Exploring the role of the DSM-5 performance-only specifier in adolescents with social anxiety disorder, Psychiatry Research, 270, 1033 – 1038; cited in the office action dated March 24th, 2026).
The teachings of Feuerbach’362 and Stein et. al. as they relate to claims 1, 6, and 15, from which claims 4, 8, and 19 depend, are given previously in this office action and are fully incorporated here.
However, the prior art of Feuerbach’362 and Stein et. al. fail to teach a method wherein the individual suffers from SAD-performance only (SAD-PO) (claims 4, 8, and 19).
Nevertheless, Fuentes-Rodriguez et. al. teach that social anxiety disorder (SAD) is characterized by “marked fear or anxiety about one or more social situations in which the individual is exposed to possible scrutiny by others” (page 1033 column 1 paragraph 1). Moreover, Fuentes-Rodriguez et. al. teach that based on the limited supporting evidence for the generalized subtype and data substantiating that social anxiety symptomatology appears to fall along a continuum of severity, the DSM-5 Anxiety, Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum, Posttraumatic, and Dissociative Disorders Work Group suggested the usefulness of a specifier (page 1033 column 1 paragraph 1). Furthermore, Fuentes-Rodriguez et. al. teach that as a result, the DSM-5 added the performance-only specifier to characterize individuals whose anxiety is limited to speaking or performing in public, emphasizing a narrower range of the condition in a subgroup of persons (page 1033 column 1 paragraph 1).
Fuentes-Rodriguez et. al. teach that there is ongoing debate as to whether “performance only” specifiers may represent a discrete entity, distinct from those with broader social fears, or if specifiers are likely to evidence milder social anxiety symptomatology, in line with a dimensional conceptualization of social anxiety disorder (page 1036 column 2 paragraph 5). Furthermore, Fuentes-Rodriguez et. al. teach that the present study examined whether performance-only specifier adolescents exhibited differences in terms of gender, age of onset, comorbidity rates, social anxiety, depression and well-being scores compared to the group that included adolescents with performance anxiety only and adolescents with interaction anxiety (full spectrum of SAD), and adolescents free of any diagnosis (healthy controls)(page 1036 column 2 paragraph 6).
Thus Fuentes-Rodriguez et. al. teach that the performance-only specifier may correspond to a mild form of social anxiety disorder (page 1037 column 1 paragraph 2). Specifically, Fuentes-Rodriguez et. al. teach that the limited impact on the depressive measure, behavioral social anxiety subscales, and health-related quality of life dimensions calls into question the clinical usefulness of the SAD specifier, namely the performance-only specifier, has low prevalence and that it merely reflects an indicator of severity and not a different diagnostic entity (page 1037 column 1 paragraph 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Feuerbach’362, that is to use (R)-3-(6-p-Tolyl-pyridin-3-yloxy)-1-aza-bicyclo[2.2.2]octane as a monotherapy that is administered in a sperate dosage form to treat anxiety in view of Stein et. al., that is to treat or prevent public speaking anxiety and treat social anxiety disorder, in further view of Fuentes-Rodriguez et. al., to treat SAD-performance only. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve the mental health of individual suffering from these anxieties. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because SAD-performance only was found to correspond to a mild form of social anxiety disorder. Moreover, as taught above there was no significant difference between SAD and SAD-performance only in regard to the depressive measure, behavioral social anxiety subscales, and health-related quality of life dimensions for adolescent patients.
Claims 21 – 22, 24 – 25, and 70 – 71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. US 7579362 B2 to Feuerbach et. al. (Feuerbach’362; cited on the IDS dated April 20th, 2023) and Stein et. al. ((2008), Social Anxiety Disorder, Lancet, 371, 1115 – 1125; cited in the office action dated March 24th, 2026) as applied to claims 1 – 2, 6, and 10 – 16 above, and further in view of European Patent Application EP 2742940 A1 to Trinius (herein after Trinius’940; cited on the IDS dated April 20th, 2023).
The teachings of Feuerbach’362 and Stein et. al. as they relate to claims 1, 6, and 15, from which claims 21 – 22, 24 – 25, and 70 – 71 depend, are given previously in this office action and are fully incorporated here.
However, the prior art of Feuerbach’362 and Stein et. al. fail to teach a method wherein the dose is from about 0.007 mg/kg to about 10 mg/kg (claim 21); wherein the dose is about 0.5 mg, about 2 mg, about 2.5 mg, about 10 mg, about 15 mg, about 75 mg, about 100 mg, about 200 mg, or about 700 mg (claims 22, and 70 – 71); wherein the compound is (R)-3-(6-p-tolyl-pyridin-3-yloxy)-1-aza-bicyclo[2.2.2]octane in mono-fumarate acid addition salt form (claim 24); and wherein the compound is orally administered in a solid immediate release form comprising the compound and one or more pharmaceutically acceptable excipients (claims 25, and 70 – 71).
Nevertheless, Trinius’940 teach an administration unit comprising a fumarate (claim 24), maleate, chloride, phosphate, succinate or malonate salt of (R)-3-(6-(4-methylphenyl)-pyridin-3-yloxy)-1-aza-bicyclo[2.2.2]octane (abstract). Trinius’940 teach in embodiment 1 the mono-fumarate salt of (R)-3-{6-(4-methylphenyl)-pyridin-3-yloxy)-1-aza-bicyclo[2.2.2]octane in crystalline form may be produced from isopropyl alcohol when one equivalent fumaric acid (claim 24) is used (page 6 paragraph 0012 lines 37 – 41). Moreover, Trinius’940 teach that the abbreviation {drug1 a}= fumarate salt of (R)-3-(6-(4-methylphenyl)-pyridin-3-yloxy)-1-aza-bicyclo[2.2.2]octane (page 4 paragraph 0009 line 48).
Additionally, Trinius’940 teach a preferred embodiment for the administration of a therapeutically effective amount of {drug1a} as 50 mg to 100 mg (claims 22, and 70 – 71) (page 52 paragraph 0072 lines 33 – 35) and 5 mg/kg body weight to 10 mg/kg body weight (claim 21)(page 60 paragraph 0151 line 5). Furthermore, Trinius’940 teach a preferred embodiment for oral administration (page 56 paragraph 0099 lines 13 – 14), selected from the group consisting of tablets, capsules, effervescent tablets, orodispersible tablets, dragees, sachets, drops, suspensions, and powders (page 56 paragraph 0100 lines 15 – 16). Moreover, Trinius’940 teach a preferred embodiment wherein the formulation provides immediate release of {drug1} which encompasses {drug1a} (page 55 paragraph 0094 line 49). Likewise, Trinius’940 teach a preferred embodiment wherein the administration unit comprises one or more excipients independently selected from the group consisting of antiadherents, binders, disintegrants, fillers, diluents, flavors, colors, lubricants, glidants, sorbents, surfactants, preservatives and sweeteners (page 58 paragraph 0132 lines 41 – 43). Thus Trinius’940 suggest the administration of {drug1a} as in a solid dosage form that can immediately release the medication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Feuerbach’362, that is to use (R)-3-(6-p-Tolyl-pyridin-3-yloxy)-1-aza-bicyclo[2.2.2]octane as a monotherapy that is administered in a sperate dosage form to treat anxiety in view of Stein et. al., that is to treat or prevent public speaking anxiety and treat social anxiety disorder, in further view of Trinius’940, that is to administer the (R)-3-(6-p-Tolyl-pyridin-3-yloxy)-1-aza-bicyclo[2.2.2]octane at the dosages and in the dosage form as recited above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve the mental health of individual suffering from these anxieties. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because in seminal trials comparing drug treatment versus cognitive behavioral therapy in social anxiety disorder suggested that drugs can have faster effects.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s claim amendments filed June 23rd, 2026, with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1 – 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 – 17, 19, 21 – 22, 24 – 25, and 70 – 71 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US Patent No. US 7579362 B2 to Feuerbach et. al. (Feuerbach’362; cited on the IDS dated April 20th, 2023).
Applicant’s argues that the prior art reference of Kalkman’294 does not teach the administration of (R)-3-(6-p-Tolyl-pyridin-3-yloxy)-1-aza-bicyclo[2.2.2]octane as a monotherapy for the treat the public speaking anxiety of a symptom thereof. Additionally, the applicant argues that the prior art references of Stein et. al., and/or Trinius’940 fail to cure the deficiencies of Kalkman’294. See applicant’s remarks page 6 – 10.
The prior art rejection has been amended to address the new limitation for the administration of as a monotherapy. As recited above, Feuerbach’362 teach that agents of this disclosure are useful for the prevention and treatment of psychotic disorders such anxiety and panic disorders. And, specifically, Feuerbach’362 teach example 58 or (R)-3-(6-p-Tolyl-pyridin-3-yloxy)-1-aza-bicyclo[2.2.2]octane and an exemplified compound of formula I. See column 15 lines 11 – 15. Furthermore, Feuerbach’362 teach that agents of this disclosure may be administered as a single active agent for the treatment of the disorders mentioned here which include anxiety and panic disorders. See column 7 lines 64 – 67. Thuse the prior art of Feuerbach’362 in combination with Stein et. al., and/or Trinius’940 renders obvious the method of the examined 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 1 – 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 – 17, 19, 21 – 22, 24 – 25, and 70 – 71 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 3, and 5 – 20 of copending Application No. 18/527638 to Polymeropoulos et. al. (reference application; herein after Polymeropoulos’638).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both copending Polymeropoulos’638 and the instant application direct to the scope of methods of treating an individual suffering from or susceptible to acute anxiety wherein the cause is social anxiety disorder (SAD), SAD-performance only (SADPO), public speaking anxiety (PSA) independent of SAD diagnosis, public speaking anxiety as a presenting symptom of social anxiety disorder (SAD), public speaking anxiety as a presenting symptom of SAD-performance only (SAD-PO), performance anxiety, procedural anxiety, and an acute phobia comprising the administration of (R)-3-(6-p-tolylpyridin-3-yloxy)-1-aza-bicyclo[2.2.2]octane (reference claim 1; instant claims 1, 6, and 15).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11 – 19, filed June 23rd, 2026, with respect to nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection of instant claims 1 – 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 – 17, 19, 21 – 22, 24 – 25, and 70 – 71 over claims 1 – 2, and 6 – 8 of U.S. Patent No. US 9828642 B2 to Feuerbach et. al. (herein after Feuerbach’642); and claims 4 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. US Patent No. US 11359241 B2 to Feuerbach et. al. (herein after Feuerbach’241) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The NSDP rejections of instant claims 1 – 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 – 17, 19, 21 – 22, 24 – 25, and 70 – 71 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed June 23rd, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that since the allowable subject matter has not yet been identified in either of the copending applications the applicant request the provisional NSDP rejection be held in abeyance. See Applicant’s remarks page 11.
The examiner contends that a complete response to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection is either a reply by applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims, or the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321 in the pending application(s) with a reply to the Office action (see MPEP § 1490 for a discussion of terminal disclaimers). Such a response is required even when the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is provisional. See MPEP 804.
Additionally, the examiner contends that the filing a terminal disclaimer or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance. Only compliance with objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. Replies with an omission should be treated as provided in MPEP § 714.03.
Conclusion
Claims 1 – 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 – 17, 19, 21 – 22, 24 – 25, and 70 – 71 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 DAWANNA S WHITE whose telephone number is (703)756-4687. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 5:00 pm [EST] M - Th.
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, Kortney Klinkel can be reached at 571-270-5239. 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.
/DAWANNA SHAR-DAY WHITE/Examiner, Art Unit 1627
/JULIET C SWITZER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1682
Prosecution Insights