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 .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed May 21, 2026. Claims 79-98 are pending in the application. Claims 94-98 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention. Claims 79-93 will presently be examined to the extent they read on the elected subject matter of record.
Status of the Claims
The objection of claims 80 and 82 for the following informalities: 1) extra spaces is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment to the claims to delete the spaces.
The rejection of claims 79-93 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112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment of the claims.
The rejection of claims 79-93 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment of the claims.
The rejection of claims 79-90 and 92-93 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Krieken et al. (US 2010/013612) in view of Khaled et al. (US 2007/0243237) is maintained.
The rejection of claim 91 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Krieken et al. (US 2010/013612) in view of Khaled et al. (US 2007/0243237) as applied to claims 79-90 and 92-93 above, and further in view of Stark et al. (WO 2015/034359) is maintained.
Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from the previous Office Action are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections presently being applied to the instant application.
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 84 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 84 recites the limitation "the metallic copper" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The use of the article “the” before “metallic copper” indicates that “a metallic copper” was claimed claim 79 from which it depends. Claim 79 recites “a copper based fungicide”, “copper cations”. There is no reference to “a metallic copper”. Therefore, there is lack of antecedent basis.
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.
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.
Claims 79-90 and 92-93 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Krieken et al. (US 2010/013612) in view of Khaled et al. (US 2007/0243237). van der Krieken et al. cited by Applicant on the IDS dated 6/1/2023.
Applicant’s Invention
Applicant claims a copper cation controlled release composition comprising a negatively charged polyelectrolyte and a copper based fungicide as a source of copper cations, wherein the composition comprises a macromolecular complex of the copper-based fungicide in solid particulate form and the negatively charged polyelectrolyte, wherein the macromolecular complex is a non-covalent interaction of the copper cations of the copper-based compound and the negatively charged polyelectrolyte, wherein the copper cations of the copper-based fungicide and the negatively charged polyelectrolyte form a solid particulate macromolecular complex by electrostatic interaction, to control the release rate of the copper cations from the copper-based fungicide, wherein particles comprising the solid particulate macromolecular complex are characterized by a particle size distribution D90 value is less than or equal to 10 microns, wherein the composition is characterized by a pH between about 5 and 7.5 in water, wherein the weight ratio between the negatively charged polyelectrolyte and the copper cation is between is between 1:1 and 1:10, and wherein if the composition further comprises a polycation, the polycation is part of a polyelectrolyte complex comprising the negatively charged polyelectrolyte and the polycation.
Determination of the scope of the content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Regarding claim 79, van der Krieken et al. teach a composition comprising a soluble combination comprising at least one lignosulfonate, at least one metal salt, and at least one phosphorous compound, wherein the composition excludes a solubilizing amount of a chelator. The pH of the composition about 5.0, about 5.1… about 5.2… about 7.0 (page 12, paragraph 153).
Regarding claims 79, 80, and 81, van der Krieken et al. teach in Table 2 percentage of copper ions complexed to lignosulfonate at different pH and at different amount of Cu per 100 gram of lignosulfonate (page 9, Table 2).
Regarding claim 79, van der Krieken et al. teach ions are mainly present as solid copper(II) phosphite particles. Thus, it will be highly desirable to prevent Cu(II) and other metal ions from precipitating with phosphite ions in aqueous fungicidal compositions comprising Cu(II) ions and/or other metal ions and phosphite ions (page 9, paragraph 132).
Regarding claims 79, 80 and 81, van der Krieken et al. teach the ratio of metal(s), as ion(s) of the metal salt(s) to lignosulfonate (in weight) in the composition is at least about 1:5 (w/w); about 1:10 (w/w) (page 10, paragraph 143).
Regarding claims 80 and 81, van der Krieken et al. teach metal salts may include, but not be limited to, copper hydroxide, copper oxychloride, copper sulfates (page 10, paragraph 141).
Regarding claim 81, van der Krieken et al. teach in example 4 solutions were prepared of: (a) 6 mM copper sulphate (CuSO45H2O), (b) 6 mM zinc sulphate (ZnSO4H2O), (c) 6 g/l sodium lignosulfonate. The pH is 5.5 (page 15, paragraph 197).
Regarding claim 82, van der Krieken et al. does not teach a polycation, which reads on section a., wherein the composition is substantially free or free of a polycation.
Regarding claims 83, 87 and 88, section a., van der Krieken et al. teach the composition is a solution. An example of a solution useful in preparing the compositions of the instant invention is one in which the solvent is water (page 12, paragraph 156).
Regarding claim 84, section a., van der Krieken et al. teach the concentration metal(s), as ion(s) of the metal salt(s) in the present invention typically range from 0.25% to 5%, by weight. In some particular instances, the concentration of metal(s), as ion(s) of the metal salt(s) in the present invention may be greater than 5%, (page 10, paragraph 141).
Regarding claim 84, section b, van der Krieken et al. teach the concentration of lignosulfonate is at least about 15% (page 10, paragraph 143).
Regarding claim 85, van der Krieken et al. teach in Table 6 preparation of spray mixtures. Composition 1 comprises oil, which is a water immiscible organic phase (page 15, Table 6).
Regarding claim 87, van der Krieken et al. teach the composition may optionally comprise additional components. In particular said composition may comprise one or more ionic or non-ionic surfactants, for instance as spreader, wetting agent, dispersant, or emulsifier (page 12, paragraph 157).
Regarding claim 89, van der Krieken et al. teach in Example 2 the components of the composition were put together and subsequently mixed with demineralized water to a total volume of 1 liter immediately resulting in a clear solution of pH 5.5 (page 14, paragraph 194).
Regarding claim 90, van der Krieken et al. teach the pesticidal compounds are used as a combination of at least one carvacrol pesticidal compound and at least one thymol pesticidal compound (page 13, paragraph 179).
Regarding claim 92, van der Krieken et al. teach spray formulations include water-soluble powders…water-dispersible powders, and oil solutions (page 13, paragraph 183) and granular formulations (page 14, paragraph 188).
Regarding claim 93, van der Krieken et al. teach sprays were prepared by mixing the products in banana spray oil (Banole) and emulsifier (Triton X100) for Composition 1. Each product was applied in dosage of 201/spray/hectare, using a knapsack manual sprayer and a knapsack engine mist blower (page 15, paragraph 199).
van der Krieken et al. teach in an ideal situation the active ingredients before and during application are at least present as dissolved molecules or as part of dissolved molecular complexes, whereas after application the active ingredients remain relatively immobile over the long term (page 7, paragraph 119).
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
van der Krieken et al. do not specifically disclose a controlled release composition, the composition comprises a macromolecular complex of the copper-based fungicide in solid particulate form and negatively charged polyelectrolyte, the complex of copper has a particle size distribution such that the D90 value is less than or equal to 10 microns, as claimed in claim 79, the composition further comprises any of the formulations claimed in claim 86 or the percentage of water, as claimed in claim 89. It is for this reason Khaled et al. is added as a secondary reference.
Khaled et al. teach the antimicrobial thin film coating is a polyelectrolyte complex film applied to a substrate, with the polyelectrolyte complex material having biocidal properties (page 1, paragraph 11).
Khaled et al. teach the positively charged polyelectrolytes and the negatively charged polyelectrolytes arrange themselves into a polyelectrolyte complex due to the electrostatic attraction between particles, allowing for the formation of a thin film with optimal coverage of the substrate (page 1, paragraph 13).
Khaled et al. teach the polyelectrolytes may be synthetically modified naturally occurring macromolecules, such as modified celluloses and lignins (page 2, paragraph 32).
Regarding claim 79, Khaled et al. teach the molecular weight of a synthetic polyelectrolyte molecule is typically on the order of between 100 and 10,000,000 grams/mole and, in the preferred embodiment, is approximately between 10,000 and 1,000,000 grams/mole (page 3, paragraph 33).
Regarding claim 79, Khaled et al. teach examples of negatively charged polyelectrolytes include sulfonated lignin (page 3, paragraph 35).
Finding a prima facie obviousness
Rationale and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of van der Krieken et al. and Khaled et al. and compose a composition that comprises a macromolecular complex of copper-based fungicide and a negatively charged polyelectrolyte. van der Krieken et al. teach a composition comprising a soluble combination comprising at least one lignosulfonate, at least one metal salt, and at least one phosphorous compound, wherein the composition excludes a solubilizing amount of a chelator. The pH of the composition about 5.0, about 5.1… about 5.2… about 7.0. van der Krieken et al. teach in Table 2 percentage of copper ions complexed to lignosulfonate at different pH and at different amount of Cu per 100 gram of lignosulfonate. Khaled et al. teach that sulfonated lignin are negatively charged polyelectrolytes. Khaled et al. teach the positively charged polyelectrolytes and the negatively charged polyelectrolytes arrange themselves into a polyelectrolyte complex due to the electrostatic attraction between particles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that components of compositions are inseparable from their properties. Therefore, the lignosulfonate taught by van der Krieken et al. is a negatively charged polyelectrolyte, as taught by Khaled et al. This is further evidenced by Applicant’s admission in claim 81. As such, following the prior art teaching that if the same composition, lignosulfonate and copper sulfate is taught in the prior art, one that is complexed and has the claimed pH and weight ratios, the skilled artisan would expect to obtain a result that necessarily flows with the intended purpose and properties, i.e., a macromolecular complex with electrostatic interaction, without evidence to the contrary.
Regarding the limitation of controlled release of the copper-based fungicide, van der Krieken et al. teach in an ideal situation the active ingredients before and during application are at least present as dissolved molecules or as part of dissolved molecular complexes, whereas after application the active ingredients remain relatively immobile over the long term. Based on this teaching it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan that the complex of copper sulfate and lignosulfonate would provide the controlled release by remaining immobile over the long term, without evidence to the contrary.
Regarding the limitation of the complex of copper having a particle size distribution such that the D90 value is less than or equal to 10 microns, as claimed in claim 79, one of ordinary skill in the art would have used experimentation to determine the optimal particle size of the copper component. van der Krieken et al. teach ions are mainly present as solid copper(II) phosphite particles and it will be highly desirable to prevent Cu(II) and other metal ions from precipitating with phosphite ions in aqueous fungicidal compositions comprising Cu(II) ions and/or other metal ions and phosphite ions. The adjustment of particular conventional working conditions (e.g., determining result effective particle sizes beneficially taught by the cited references, especially within the broad ranges instantly claimed) is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan. Accordingly, this type of modification would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan and no more than an effort to optimize results.
Regarding the limitation of the composition further comprises any of the formulations claimed in claim 86, van der Krieken et al. teach the pesticidal compounds of the present invention are used as a combination of at least one carvacrol pesticidal compound and at least one thymol pesticidal compound. van der Krieken et al. teach various agriculturally acceptable carriers, including water. Since van der Krieken et al. teach many formulation techniques, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to formulate at least one additional pesticidal compound, such a thymol, with water as a carrier, with a reasonable expectation of success, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or technical grasp. Note: MPEP 2141 [R-6] KSR International CO. v. Teleflex lnc. 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007).
Regarding the percentage of water, as claimed in claim 89, van der Krieken et al. teach the composition is a solution. An example of a solution useful in preparing the compositions of the instant invention is one in which the solvent is water. van der Krieken et al. teach in Example 2 the components of the composition were put together and subsequently mixed with demineralized water to a total volume of 1 liter immediately resulting in a clear solution of pH 5.5. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to experiment with the amount of water to use in the composition, including 40-80% to formulate the optimal composition to control fungi. The adjustment of particular conventional working conditions (e.g., determining result effective amounts of the ingredients beneficially taught by the cited references, especially within the broad ranges instantly claimed) is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan. Accordingly, this type of modification would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan and no more than an effort to optimize results.
Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claim 91 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Krieken et al. (US 2010/013612) in view of Khaled et al. (US 2007/0243237) as applied to claims 79-90 and 92-93 above, and further in view of Stark et al. (WO 2015/034359). van der Krieken et al. and Stark et al. cited by Applicant on the IDS dated 6/1/2023.
Applicant’s Invention
Applicant claims a copper cation controlled release composition comprising a negatively charged polyelectrolyte and a copper based fungicide as a source of copper cations, wherein the composition comprises a macromolecular complex of the copper-based fungicide in solid particulate form and the negatively charged polyelectrolyte, wherein the macromolecular complex is a non-covalent interaction of the copper cations of the copper-based compound and the negatively charged polyelectrolyte, wherein the copper cations of the copper-based fungicide and the negatively charged polyelectrolyte form a solid particulate macromolecular complex by electrostatic interaction, to control the release rate of the copper cations from the copper-based fungicide, wherein particles comprising the solid particulate macromolecular complex are characterized by a particle size distribution D90 value is less than or equal to 10 microns, wherein the composition is characterized by a pH between about 5 and 7.5 in water, wherein the weight ratio between the negatively charged polyelectrolyte and the copper cation is between is between 1:1 and 1:10, and wherein if the composition further comprises a polycation, the polycation is part of a polyelectrolyte complex comprising the negatively charged polyelectrolyte and the polycation.
Determination of the scope of the content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
The teachings of van der Krieken et al. and Khaled et al. with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection are hereby incorporated and are therefore applied in the instant rejection as discussed above.
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
van der Krieken et al. and Khaled et al. do not specifically disclose the composition comprises a dispersant combination. It is for this reason Stark et al. is added as a secondary reference.
Stark et al. teach a complex of at least one antimicrobial compound and a polyelectrolyte complex of a polyanion and a polycation (Abstract).
Regarding claim 91, Stark et al. teach a dispersing or wetting agent known to a skilled person such as, for example, ethoxylated tristyrenephenol phosphate, for example polyethoxylated fosforic acid , and/or a wetting agent such as di-octylsuccinate, polyoxyethylene/polypropylene and tri-stearyl sulphonate/phosphate, is preferably present (page 35, lines 1-6).
Finding a prima facie obviousness
Rationale and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of van der Krieken et al., Khaled et al., and Stark et al. and add a dispersant combination to the formulations. van der Krieken et al. teach a composition comprising a soluble combination comprising at least one lignosulfonate, at least one metal salt, and at least one phosphorous compound, wherein the composition excludes a solubilizing amount of a chelator. van der Krieken et al. teach the compositions comprise lignosulfonate and copper salts. van der Krieken et al. teach the composition may optionally comprise additional components, including wetting agent, dispersant, or emulsifier. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add known dispersant combinations to the complexes taught by van der Krieken, as modified by Khaled et al., based on the teachings of Stark et al. Stark et al. teach a complex of at least one antimicrobial compound and a polyelectrolyte complex of a polyanion and a polycation. Stark et al. teach a dispersing or wetting agent known to a skilled person such as, for example, ethoxylated tristyrenephenol phosphate, for example polyethoxylated fosforic acid , and/or a wetting agent such as di-octylsuccinate, polyoxyethylene/polypropylene and tri-stearyl sulphonate/phosphate, is preferably present. As such, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to use the dispersants used in similar compositions in the compositions taught by van der Krieken, as modified by Khaled et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or technical grasp. Note: MPEP 2141 [R-6] KSR International CO. v. Teleflex lnc. 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007).
Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues there is no motivation to arrive at the claimed composition which comprises a macromolecular complex wherein the weight ratio between the negatively charged polyelectrolyte and copper cation is between 1:1 and 1:10. Applicant argues that van der Krieken et al. taught a composition comprising a soluble combination comprising at least one lignosulfonate, at least one metal salt, and at least one phosphorous compound, wherein the composition excludes a solubilizing amount of a chelator. Applicant argues that van der Krieken disclosed the optimal weight ratio of metals and ions to lignosulfonate to prevent the formation of precipitates ranges from about 1:5 w/w to about 1:10000 w/w. Applicant argues in the claimed composition comprising the macromolecular complex, wherein the weight ratio between the negatively charged polyelectrolyte and the copper cation is between 1:1 and 1:10 provides controlled release of copper cations. In response to Applicant’s argument, the examiner maintains that van der Krieken et al. teach a composition comprising a soluble combination comprising at least one lignosulfonate, at least one metal salt, and at least one phosphorous compound, wherein the composition excludes a solubilizing amount of a chelator. The pH of the composition about 5.0, about 5.1… about 5.2… about 7.0. van der Krieken et al. teach the ratio of metal(s), as ion(s) of the metal salt(s) to lignosulfonate (in weight) in the composition is at least about 1:5 (w/w); about 1:10 (w/w). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use optimization and experimentation to determine the amount of copper cations and negatively charged polyelectrolyte in the composition, including a 1:1 ratio, with a reasonable expectation of success. Khaled et al. teach that sulfonated lignin are negatively charged polyelectrolytes. Khaled et al. teach the positively charged polyelectrolytes and the negatively charged polyelectrolytes arrange themselves into a polyelectrolyte complex due to the electrostatic attraction between particles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that components of compositions are inseparable from their properties. Therefore, the lignosulfonate taught by van der Krieken et al. is a negatively charged polyelectrolyte, as taught by Khaled et al. This is further evidenced by Applicant’s admission in claim 81. As such, following the prior art teaching that if the same composition, lignosulfonate and copper sulfate is taught in the prior art, one that is complexed and has the claimed pH and weight ratios, the skilled artisan would expect to obtain a result that necessarily flows with the intended purpose and properties, i.e., a macromolecular complex with electrostatic interaction, without evidence to the contrary.
Applicant argues the claimed compositions exhibit superior fungicidal efficacy as a result of the controlled release rate of copper cations. Applicant argues in Example 2 compares compositions that comprise the macromolecular complex as claimed in claim 1 wherein the weight ratio between the negatively charged polyelectrolyte and the copper cation is between 1:1 and 1:10 to commercially available products, which is a copper oxychloride based fungicide. Applicant argues the results provided in Table 7 shows that the EC50 values of the copper compositions were 10 to 100-fold lower than that of the commercial product. In response to Applicant’s argument, evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with that of the claimed subject matter. The compositions appear to demonstrate better fungicidal activity when compared to the commercial product, Difere. However, the data is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. For example, the compositions in Tables 3 and 4 comprise Bordeaux mix (copper cation) at 345 g/L or 28.8% w/w and CaLS (Starlig-Ca) (negatively charged polyelectrolyte) at 28 g/L or 2.3% w/w. The weight ratio of the negatively charged polyelectrolyte to copper cation of 1:12, this is outside the weight ratio, currently claimed. However, if the chitosan, a polycation, is added to the calculation forming a polyelectrolyte complex of chitosan at 5.6 g/L or 0.5% w/w and CaLS (Starlig-C) (negatively charged polyelectrolyte) at 28 g/L or 2.3% w/w, the weight ratio of the negatively charged polyelectrolyte complex to copper cation is 1:10, which is within the weight ratio claimed. Tables 5 and 6 comprise Bordeaux mix (copper cation) at 345 g/L or 28.8% w/w and CaLS (Starlig-Ca) (negatively charged polyelectrolyte) at 28 g/L or 2.3% w/w. The weight ratio of the negatively charged polyelectrolyte to copper cation of 1:12, this is outside the weight ratio, currently claimed. Also, it cannot be determined if the weight ratio of less than 1:10, closer to 1:1 will provide the same purported superior fungicidal activity.
Bordeaux mix used in the compositions comprises one species of a copper cation, which is copper sulfate and quicklime. It cannot be determined if one species of copper cations when combined with any and all negatively charged polyelectrolytes, will provide the same purported superior activity. Likewise, CaLS (Starlig-Ca) is one species of a negatively charged polyelectrolyte. It cannot be determined if CaLS (Starlig-Ca) when combined with any and all copper cations will provide the same purported superior activity. Tables 3 and 4 comprise a polyelectrolyte complex comprising CaLS (Starlig-C) and chitosan. It cannot be determined if the one polyelectrolyte complex tested will provide the same purported superior properties, if different mixtures of negatively charged polyelectrolytes and polycations, known and unknown when combined with any known and unknown copper cation. Applicant has not established nonobvious evidence that is commensurate in scope with that of the claimed subject matter.
Conclusion
No claims are 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 Andriae M Holt whose telephone number is (571)272-9328. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 am-4:30 pm 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, Ali Soroush can be reached at 571-272-9925. 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.
/ANDRIAE M HOLT/Examiner, Art Unit 1614
/ALI SOROUSH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1614
Prosecution Insights