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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group (I) with the addition osteoarthritis as the elected subject suffering from a disease species and the inflammation or pain species, knees, and solution as the dosage form in the reply filed on 11/03/2025 is acknowledged and maintained.
Priority
This application is the U.S. national stage application, under 35 U.S.C. § 371, of
International Patent Application No. PCT/CN2021/098323, filed on June 4, 2021, which claims the benefit and priority of International Patent Application No. PCT/CN2020/094560, filed on June 5, 2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/04/2026 and 05/28/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Acknowledgement is made of the receipt and entry of the amendment to the claims filed on May 14, 2026. Claims 4-6, 14-16, 18, 21-30 are pending. Claims 1-3, 7-13, 17, and 19-20 are canceled. Claims 4-6, 14-16, 18, 21-30 are examined in accordance to the elected species.
Action Summary
Claims 14-16, and 21-27, and 30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are withdrawn in light of the claim amendment.
Claims 4-6, 14-16,18 and 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, are withdrawn in light of the claim amendment.
Claims 4-6, 14-16, 18, and 22-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al (US9,872,846 B2) are withdrawn in light of the incorporation of a knee, ankle, elbow, wrist, shoulder, hip, finger, toe, neck spine, back spine, and tissue, and a combination of two or more thereof, which was the subjected matter of claims 19-21 into claim 4.
Claim 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al (US9,872,846 B2) as applied to claims 4-6, 14-16, 18, and 22-30 in view of Argoff et al (Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2011 Sep 20; 7:393–399.), are withdrawn as the limitation of claim 21 is now included in claim 4 and claim 21 becomes part of the rejection of new rejection.
Claims 4-6, 14-16, 18, and 21--30 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,872,846 B2 in view of Yu et al (US9,872,846 B2) and Argoff et al (Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2011 Sep 20; 7:393–399.), are maintained, but modified and revisited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 depends from claim 4 and further recites that the compound is “topically administered to one or more surfaces of the site.” However, claim 4 already recites topical administration “to one or more sites to the subject.” Because topical administration to a site necessarily occurs at a surface of the site, it is unclear what additional limitation is imposed by the phrase “to one or more surfaces of the site.”
Additionally, it is unclear whether claim 21 merely restates the limitation of claim 4 or is intended to further limit the claimed method in some presently undefined manner. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 21 are not reasonably certain to one of ordinary skill in the art, and claim 21 is indefinite.
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 4-6, 14-16, 18, and 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al (US9,872,846 B2) in view of Argoff et al (Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2011 Sep 20; 7:393–399).
Yu teaches a method for treating an ibuprofen-treatable condition in a subject in need thereof comprising:
transdermally administering to the subject a pharmaceutical composition,
wherein the ibuprofen-treatable condition is selected from fever, pain, and inflammation; and
wherein the pharmaceutical composition comprises a therapeutically effective amount of at least one compound of Structure 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
317
853
media_image1.png
Greyscale
or stereoisomers thereof. (See claim 10) Moreover, Yu teaches the condition treatable by Ibuprofen is rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis and the composition is formulated as a solution, suspension, spray, lotion, emulsion or a gel, and the subject is a human subject. (See claims 2-6.) The compound is
PNG
media_image2.png
251
846
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. (See claim 10.) This compound is the same as the compound claimed. Yu teaches a typical pharmaceutical composition for intravenous administration would be from about 0.01 mg, up to about 5 g, per subject per day may be used. (See lines 34-39 of column 76.) 0.01 to 5 g amount to 10 mg to 5000 mg. Yu also teaches the pharmaceutically acceptable carrier is an aqueous carrier, e.g. buffered saline and the like. In certain embodiments, the pharmaceutically acceptable carrier is a polar solvent, e.g. acetone and alcohol. (See lines 14-17 of column 76.) Yu teaches topical application of 1 ml of a 20% suspension of 2-(ρ-isobutylphenyl) propionic acid (IBPP) or 20% solution of diethylaminoethyl 2-(ρ-isobutylphenyl) propionate.AcOH (DEAE-IBPP) to the backs of hairless mice. (See Figure 2C.) For a ml volume solution and 10 mg of the compound, a 10 mg/ml can be obtained. For a 1 mL of 20% solution containing ethanol. Density of ethanol is 0.789 g/ml. So, a 1 ml sample of a 20% solution can contain 0.2 ml solute and approx. 0.8 mg of solvent. Mass of solute = 0.2 ml X 0.789 g/ml = 0.1578 g.
Converting grams to micrograms (µg): 0.1578 g X 1, 000, 000 µg/g = 157.800 µg
Determining the concentration in µg/ml: 157.800 µg / 1 ml = 157.800 µg/ml. Yu teaches 20% aqueous acetone solution was used. (See line 4 of column 144.) Furthermore, Yu teaches the penetration rate of the prodrug compounds such as diethylaminoethyl 2-(p-isobutylphenyl) propionate, ACOH contains 50 µg/cm2. (See Table 2 of column 117-118.) Yu teaches thee pharmaceutical compositions can be administered in a variety of unit dosage forms depending upon the method of administration. (See lines 29-30 of column 76.) Daily administration encompasses once every 24 hours and 1 day. Lastly, Yu teaches the HPP or the active ingredient can be administered systematically (e.g. orally or parenterally). The HPP or the active agent (e.g., drug or metabolite) of the HPP may enter the general circulation with a faster rate than the parent agent and gain faster access to the action site a condition. (See lines 42-47 of column 87,) The lowest detectable penetration across the skin the rat is 1 µg/cm2 for the parent drug. However, a higher apparent flux values for the HPPs. (See lines 56-67 of column 116.)
Yu does not specifically teach the knees as the elected administration site. Additionally, Yu does not expressly teach the claim concentration range recited in claim 24.
Argoff teaches topical NSAIDs have shown efficacy and safety in knee (DSG, D-DMSO) and hand (DSG) osteoarthritis. topical NSAIDs can ease medication administration and help address barriers to pain management in older patients with osteoarthritis, such as taking multiple medications and inability to swallow, and are a valuable option for long-term care providers. (See Abstract.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method taught by Yu by including any area or surface of the knees to treat osteoarthritis. One would have been motivated to do so, because Argoff teaches topical NSAIDs have shown efficacy and safety in knee (DSG, D-DMSO) and hand (DSG) osteoarthritis and the compound of claim 10 of Yu is a prodrug of ibuprofen and NDSAID. One would have reasonably expected success because Yu already demonstrates successful transdermal administration of the identical ibuprofen prodrug and teaches treatment of ibuprofen-responsive pain and inflammatory conditions. Argoff further teaches that topical NSAIDs are effective and safe in knee osteoarthritis. Therefore, applying the topically administered ibuprofen prodrug of Yu to the knee or other affected sties merely represents the predictable use of a known pharmaceutical composition according to the established function to treat localized pain and inflammation.
With respect to claim 24, Yu teaches topical application of 1 mL of a 20% solution of diethylaminoethyl 2-(p-isobutylphenyl) propionate AcOH (DEAE-IBPP) in isopropanol to the backs of hairless mice (Fig 2c; col. 123, lines 41-45). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood a 20% solution to corresponds to approximately 20 g of active ingredient per 100 ml of formulation, i.e., about 200 mg/mL. Thus, Yu teaches a concentration encompassed by the presently claimed range of about 10 mg/mL to about 200 mg/mL.
Alternatively, even if Yu were not considered to expressly disclose the entire claimed concentration range, Yu teaches the identical compound, topical administration thereof, and the broad dosage ranges. Selection and optimization of solution concentrations to provide a desired dose and administration volume constitute routine optimization of result-effective variables within the ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ concentration range with a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, Argoff teaches that topical NDSAIDs provide effective and safe treatment for osteoarthritis and are particularly advantageous in long-term care patients. In view of Yu’s teaching of the identical topically administered ibuprofen prodrug and Argoff’s teaching regarding the clinical utility of topical NSAIDs for osteoarthritis, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select and optimize the concentration of Yu’s formulation, including concentrations within the claimed range of about 10 mg/ml to about 200 mg/ml, to provide a therapeutic effective amount to the affected joint including the knee while maintaining convenient administration volume and a reasonable expectation of success.
Acknowledgement is made of the receipt and entry of Applicant’s arguments/remarks filed on May 14, 2026. Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the different NSAIDs possess different physiochemical properties and that the teachings relating to diclofenac-sodium in Argoff et al. should not be regarded as a teaching or suggestion, or motivation for topical administration of 2-diethylamino) ethyl 2-(4-isobutylphenyl) propionate. However, the rejection does not rely on Argoff et al. to teach the claimed compound, the topical route of administration, the dosage forms, or treatment of pain and inflammation. These teachings are provided by Yu et al., which discloses the identical ibuprofen prodrug presently claimed and demonstrates successful transdermal administration thereof.
Argoff is relied upon only for its teaching that topical NSAIDs are effective and safe in osteoarthritis, particularly knee osteoarthritis, and provide advantages including ease of administration and reduced systemic burden. Thus, the rejection does not propose replacing the ibuprofen prodrug of Yu with diclofenac sodium, but merely applying the known topical ibuprofen prodrug of Yu to a known site of osteoarthritis in view of the known clinical benefit of topical NSAIDs taught by Argoff.
Applicant further argues that differences among NSAIDs affect properties such as lipid-water partition coefficient, permeability, release characteristics, and metabolic stability, allegedly producing a reasonable expectation of success. This argument is not persuasive because Yu itself demonstrates successful topical administration and skin penetration of the identical ibuprofen prodrug presently claimed. Therefore, any alleged uncertainty concerning topical delivery properties is contracted by the teaching of Yu. Applicant has not provided persuasive evidence showing that the compound disclosed by Yu would fail to treat osteoarthritis when applied to the knee or other affected site. Rather, Yu teaches treatment of ibuprofen-responsive pain and inflammatory conditions, while Argoff teaches that topical NDSAIDs are effective and safe in knee osteoarthritis. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected the topically administered ibuprofen prodrug of Yu to provide analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects when applied to the knee or other affected site.
Applicant additionally argues that Yu does not disclose the particular sites and site-specific dosage recited in the claim. However, Yu teaches dosage amounts ranging from about 0.01 mg to about 5 g per subject per day, which encompasses the claimed dosage. Optimization of the amount administered to a particular site and optimization of formulation concentration constitute route-experimentation involving result-effective variables and would have been within the ordinary skill in the art.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 nons-tatutory 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 4-6, 14-16, 18, and 21-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,872,846 B2 in view of Yu et al (US9,872,846 B2) and Argoff et al (Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2011 Sep 20; 7:393–399.). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The U.S. patent claims teach a method for treating an ibuprofen-treatable condition in a subject in need thereof comprising:
transdermally administering to the subject a pharmaceutical composition,
wherein the ibuprofen-treatable condition is selected from fever, pain, and inflammation; and
wherein the pharmaceutical composition comprises a therapeutically effective amount of at least one compound of Structure 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
317
853
media_image1.png
Greyscale
or stereoisomers thereof. (See claim 10) Moreover, the U.S. patent claims teach the condition treatable by Ibuprofen is rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis and the composition is formulated as a solution, suspension, spray, lotion, emulsion or a gel, and the subject is a human subject. (See claims 2-6.) The compound is
PNG
media_image2.png
251
846
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. (See claim 10.) This compound is the same as the compound claimed.
The U.S. patent claims do not teach the amount of the compound claimed in mg per day per site and in µg/cm2. The U.S. patent claims do not teach the knees as one or more surfaces of the administration site.
Yu teaches a method for treating an ibuprofen-treatable condition in a subject in need thereof comprising:
transdermally administering to the subject a pharmaceutical composition,
wherein the ibuprofen-treatable condition is selected from fever, pain, and inflammation; and
wherein the pharmaceutical composition comprises a therapeutically effective amount of at least one compound of Structure 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
317
853
media_image1.png
Greyscale
or stereoisomers thereof. (See claim 10) Moreover, Yu teaches the condition treatable by Ibuprofen is rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis and the composition is formulated as a solution, suspension, spray, lotion, emulsion or a gel, and the subject is a human subject. (See claims 2-6.) The compound is
PNG
media_image2.png
251
846
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. (See claim 10.) This compound is the same as the compound claimed. Yu teaches a typical pharmaceutical composition for intravenous administration would be from about 0.01 mg, up to about 5 g, per subject per day may be used. (See lines 34-39 of column 76.) 0.01 to 5 g amount to 10 mg to 5000 mg. Yu also teaches the pharmaceutically acceptable carrier is an aqueous carrier, e.g. buffered saline and the like. In certain embodiments, the pharmaceutically acceptable carrier is a polar solvent, e.g. acetone and alcohol. (See lines 14-17 of column 76.) Yu teaches topical application of 1 ml of a 20% suspension of 2-(ρ-isobutylphenyl) propionic acid (IBPP) or 20% solution of diethylaminoethyl 2-(ρ-isobutylphenyl) propionate.AcOH (DEAE-IBPP) to the backs of hairless mice. (See Figure 2C.) For a ml volume solution and 10 mg of the compound, a 10 mg/ml can be obtained. For a 1 mL of 20% solution containing ethanol. Density of ethanol is 0.789 g/ml. So, a 1 ml sample of a 20% solution can contain 0.2 ml solute and approx. 0.8 mg of solvent. Mass of solute = 0.2 ml X 0.789 g/ml = 0.1578 g.
Converting grams to micrograms (µg): 0.1578 g X 1, 000, 000 µg/g = 157.800 µg
Determining the concentration in µg/ml: 157.800 µg / 1 ml = 157.800 µg/ml. Yu teaches 20% aqueous acetone solution was used. (See line 4 of column 144.) Furthermore, Yu teaches the penetration rate of the prodrug compounds such as diethylaminoethyl 2-(p-isobutylphenyl) propionate, ACOH contains 50 µg/cm2. (See Table 2 of column 117-118.) Yu teaches thee pharmaceutical compositions can be administered in a variety of unit dosage forms depending upon the method of administration. (See lines 29-30 of column 76.) Daily administration encompasses once every 24 hours and 1 day. Lastly, Yu teaches the HPP or the active ingredient can be administered systematically (e.g. orally or parenterally). The HPP or the active agent (e.g., drug or metabolite) of the HPP may enter the general circulation with a faster rate than the parent agent and gain faster access to the action site a condition. (See lines 42-47 of column 87,) The lowest detectable penetration across the skin the rat is 1 µg/cm2 for the parent drug. However, a higher apparent flux values for the HPPs. (See lines 56-67 of column 116.)
Argoff teaches topical NSAIDs have shown efficacy and safety in knee (DSG, D-DMSO) and hand (DSG) osteoarthritis. topical NSAIDs can ease medication administration and help address barriers to pain management in older patients with osteoarthritis, such as taking multiple medications and inability to swallow, and are a valuable option for long-term care providers. (See Abstract.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method taught by the U.S. patent claims and Yu by including any area or surface of the knees to treat osteoarthritis. One would have been motivated to do so, because Argoff teaches topical NSAIDs have shown efficacy and safety in knee (DSG, D-DMSO) and hand (DSG) osteoarthritis and the compound of claim 10 of U.S. patent claims and Yu, which is a prodrug of ibuprofen and NDSAID. One would have reasonably expected success because the U.S. patent claims and Yu already demonstrate successful transdermal administration of the identical ibuprofen prodrug and teaches treatment of ibuprofen-responsive pain and inflammatory conditions. Argoff further teaches that topical NSAIDs are effective and safe in knee osteoarthritis. Therefore, applying the topically administered ibuprofen prodrug of the U.S. patent claims and Yu to the knee or other affected sties merely represents the predictable use of a known pharmaceutical composition according to the established function to treat localized pain and inflammation.
With respect to claim 24, Yu teaches topical application of 1 mL of a 20% solution of diethylaminoethyl 2-(p-isobutylphenyl) propionate AcOH (DEAE-IBPP) in isopropanol to the backs of hairless mice (Fig 2c; col. 123, lines 41-45). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood a 20% solution to corresponds to approximately 20 g of active ingredient per 100 ml of formulation, i.e., about 200 mg/mL. Thus, Yu teaches a concentration encompassed by the presently claimed range of about 10 mg/mL to about 200 mg/mL.
Alternatively, even if Yu were not considered to expressly disclose the entire claimed concentration range, Yu teaches the identical compound, topical administration thereof, and the broad dosage ranges. Selection and optimization of solution concentrations to provide a desired dose and administration volume constitute routine optimization of result-effective variables within the ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ concentration range with a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, Argoff teaches that topical NDSAIDs provide effective and safe treatment for osteoarthritis and are particularly advantageous in long-term care patients. In view of Yu’s and the U.S. patent claims’ teaching of the identical topically administered ibuprofen prodrug and Argoff’s teaching regarding the clinical utility of topical NSAIDs for osteoarthritis, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select and optimize the concentration of Yu’s and the U.S. patent claims’ formulations, including concentrations within the claimed range of about 10 mg/ml to about 200 mg/ml, to provide a therapeutic effective amount to the affected joint including the knee while maintaining convenient administration volume and a reasonable expectation of success.
Applicant’s arguments directed to the non-statutory obviousness type double patenting rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant merely incorporates by reference the argument presented against the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. As discussed above with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the rejection does not rely upon Argoff et al. to teach the claimed compound, topical administration, dosage forms, or treatment of pain and inflammation. Rather, Yu et al. teach the identical ibuprofen prodrug and its successful topical administration, while Argoff et al. are relied upon for the known efficacy and safety of topical NSAIDs in osteoarthritis, particularly knee osteoarthritis.
Applicant has not identified reversible error in the conclusion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the topically administered ibuprofen prodrug taught by Yu et al to knee or other affected site in view of the teachings of Argoff et al. concerning the known benefit of topical NSAIDs for osteoarthritis. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments directed to the non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection are unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Claims 4-6, 14-16, 18, and 21-30 are not 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 JEAN P CORNET whose telephone number is (571)270-7669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 7.00am-5.30pm.
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, Amy L Clark can be reached at 571-272-1310. 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.
/JEAN P CORNET/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1628
Prosecution Insights