DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/16/2026 has been entered.
Status of Application
The response filed 06/16/2026 has been received, entered and carefully considered. The response affects the instant application accordingly:
Claim 1 had been amended.
Claim 34 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-10, 12-13, 15-16, 18, 21-23, 27-29, 35-36 are pending.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-10, 12-13, 15-16, 18, 21-23, 27-29, 35-36 are present for examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
All grounds not addressed in the action are withdrawn or moot as a result of amendment.
New grounds of rejection are set forth in the current office action as a result of amendment.
Current Grounds of Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1, 5, 9-10, 12-13, 15-16, 18, 21-23, 27-29, 36 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.
The claims recited a copper-containing agent for the treatment of corneal astigmatism but does not provide adequate written description for what copper-containing compounds would be copper-containing agents that are useful for the treatment of corneal astigmatism. There is no structure/function relationship described in the specification for the copper-containing agents are useful for treating corneal astigmatism. The claims as written embrace any compound active that contains copper including compounds yet to be discovered as seen by Horn et al. (abstract, [13, 17], last claim) which discloses copper compounds as amebicides including for treatment for keratitis in the eye which is a copper-containing agent after the filing date of the instant claims wherein Applicant is not in possession of all copper-containing agent for the eye and there is not a formula or a structure/function relationship described to ascertain which compounds Applicant is in possession of for the claimed invention. There are no structural identifying characteristics for the group of copper-containing agent compounds are not disclosed. The only clear written description for the copper-containing agent is for the copper salts of claim 2. Therefore, the claimed invention is not supported by adequate written description.
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 9 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 9 is dependent from claim 7 which is a cancelled claim wherein it is unclear what it is dependent from and it does not allow one to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim as written. For purposes of examination, the claim is treated to be dependent from claim 1.
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 1-2, 4-5, 9-10, 13, 15-16, 18, 21-23, 27-28, 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burr et al. (WO 2021/007578).
Rejection:
Burr et al. teaches treating eye conditions like astigmatism, keratoconus, myopia, and combinations thereof with the administration of a composition comprising a copper-containing agent like copper carbonate, copper chloride, copper fluoride, copper nitrate, copper perchlorate, copper iodide, and the exemplified cooper sulfate in a carrier (Example 2, crosslinker, Page 8 line 24-34, Page 14 line 18-26). The copper-containing agent can be administered alone or with a secondary therapeutic agent, and the copper containing agent is exemplified alone for administration (no additional therapeutic active required, the Page 7 line 25-30, page 11 line 14-15, Page 14 line 16-17, Page 14 line 18-26, examples 1-4).
The composition forms comprising the crosslinking copper-containing agent include injections and sustained release forms and eyedrops with a drop volume from about 5µl to about 50µl (Page 4 line 26-30, Page 7 line 25-Page 8 line 6, Page 20 line 4-7, Page 15 line 8-16, Page 18 line 23-29). The copper-containing agent can be from about 0.00001%-about 15%wt. including from about 0.01--about 0.1% and the exemplified amount of 0.15mg/ml (falling within the claimed ranges, Page 10 lines 8-11 and 20-21, Page 20 line 26-Page 21 line 5, about 0.1mg/ml-about 1.0mg/ml=0.001-0.1%wt, Example 3).
The treatment can be administered once/day, 2x/day, 4x/day; for a duration for about 6 months to chronic treatment like 5 years until a desired outcome is achieved (Page 18 line 20-22, Page 20 line 26-32). The composition included a carrier comprising solubilizing agent, tonicity agent to have a tonicity such as about 270 to 330mOsm/L, pH adjuster to have a pH like about 5.-about 7.8, thickener, polymer or polymer matrix, preservative, water, and combinations thereof (Page 15 line 17-Page 13, see full document specifically areas cited).
Burr et al. does not expressly exemplify treating the astigmatism with the copper-containing agents, but does expressly teach treating these eye conditions like astigmatism with the administration of a therapeutic amount of copper-containing agent (crosslinker/therapeutic) wherein it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the express teachings of the Burr et al. with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments:
Applicant’s argument centers on the assertion that Burr is unavailable as prior art under 102(b)(1)(A) as Ambati is a common/joint inventor in the instant application and in the prior art of Burr et al. which was published within a year of the filing date of the provisional application of the instant invention (102(a)(1) publication date). This is fully considered but not persuasive. Burr et al. qualifies under 102(a)(1) and under 102(a)(2), and Applicant has not properly invoked the 102(b)(1)(A) exemption to overcome the under 102(a)(1) date as there is not an appropriate affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(a) (attribution, see MPEP 717.01(a)(1)) or 1.130(b) (prior public disclosure). Burr et al. remains qualified prior art.
Accordingly, the rejection stands.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burr et al. (WO 2021/007578) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-11, 13, 15-16, 18, 21-23, 27-28, 35-36 above, in view of Dr. H (astigmatism-A quick review of refractive errors).
Rejection:
The teachings of Burr et al. are addressed above.
Burr et al. does not expressly teach the type of astigmatism but does address treatment of astigmatism with copper-containing agents (crosslinker) in addition to keratoconus.
Dr. H teaches that astigmatism is an irregular curvature of the front part of the eye (cornea/lens) and the curvature is like a football (oval) with light at two different points (focal astigmatism), as when the corneal is normal it is spherical and has the same roundness all over like a basketball with one light point (normal). There are different types including regular astigmatism like bow-tie, and irregular astigmatism which can be from keratoconus (section - A quick review of refractive errors).
Wherein it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to treat regular bow tie astigmatism and irregular astigmatism (all astigmatism is structurally oval shaped with two light points (focal astigmatism)) as suggested by Dr. H and produce the claimed invention; as Burr et al. teaches treating astigmatism and it is prima facie obvious to treat the various types of astigmatism with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments:
Applicant's arguments are to Burr which are addressed above.
Accordingly, the rejection stands.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-10, 12-13, 15-16, 18, 21-23, 27-28, 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coroneo (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2015/0164791) in view of Ambati et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2019/0083529).
Rejection:
Coroneo teaches treating refractive errors like astigmatism and myopia by moulding corneal tissue by softening the cornea with a matrix metalloproteinase enzyme activator, shaping the cornea with a contact lens, applying a corneal hardening agent like crosslinker/oxidative hardener such as copper sulfate to retain the desired shape after lens removal (abstract, claims 1-2, 6, [14-22], does not recite the presence of keratoconus for the astigmatism). The corneal hardener like copper sulfate can be administered topically such as eyedrops, by contact lens, intraocularly, sustained release vehicles (claim 14-16, [30-32, 79, 82-83]). The corneal hardener such as copper sulfate is in a composition comprising one or more carriers/excipients including water, buffers, tonicity agents (i.e. isotonicity agents), polymers, solubilizing agents (claims 26-27, [42-43, 64, 77, 81], separate composition from initial corneal softener where the copper is the sole therapeutic active). The dose can be determined by one of skill in the art through routine experimentation and tested for its ability to produce corneal hardening [58]. A sufficient number of eye drops are applied topically to administer a desired concentration to the cornea ([79], see full document specifically areas cited).
While Coroneo does not exemplify treating astigmatism with copper sulfate, Coroneo does expressly teach treating refractive errors like astigmatism by moulding the cornea by softening the cornea, shaping the cornea with a lens and then hardening the cornea with a hardening agent like the claimed copper sulfate wherein it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to exemplify the teachings of Coroneo and produce the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success.
Coroneo does not expressly recite the amount of copper sulfate (corneal hardening agent/crosslinker/oxidative hardener) in the composition but does recite that the amount/dose can be determined by one of skill in the art through routine experimentation. Coroneo also does not recite the corneal hardening agent/crosslinker to be copper perchlorate but does teach the inclusion of corneal hardening agent/crosslinkers for the method.
Ambati et al. teaches that crosslinking agents (corneal hardener/crosslinker) such as copper sulfate and copper perchlorate, are known to be useful in ophthalmic compositions from about 0.000005 to about 5% including about 0.001 to about 0.1%wt., in forms like topical eyedrops with a drop volume from about 5µl to about 50µl and applied 1-4x/day for about 1 to chronic treatment like 36 months (abstract, [36, 43-45, 48, 69-71]) and useful for corneal conditions like keratoconus which presents with irregular astigmatism [3], and increases corneal tissue strength biomechanical weakness of the cornea (hardens the cornea [37-38]). Copper-containing compositions are known to be a pH from about 5.8 to about 7.8 and tonicity level of about 270 to about 330mOsm/L ([49, 54-55], claims 1-4, 6, 8-9, 12, 16-18, 20).
Wherein it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the copper sulfate from about 0.001-about 0.1% in an ophthalmic composition at the recited pH and tonicity level for the treatment duration as suggested by Ambati et al. and produce the claimed invention (falling within the instant claimed values i.e. about 0.01mg/ml-about 1.0mg/ml=0.001-0.1g/100ml=0.001-0.1%); as Coroneo teaches the use of copper sulfate in an ophthalmic composition with various carriers/excipients like buffers/pH adjuster and tonicity agents, and it is prima facie obvious to incorporate the copper sulfate at it’s known ophthlamically useful concentration, pH, and tonicity level with a reasonable expectation of success. While the prior art does not expressly teach the exact claimed values for the instant dependent claim (instant claim 9, about 0.1mg/ml-about 0.2mg/ml=about 0.01-about 0.02%wt.) it is embraced by the prior art range and Coroneo teaches that the amount/dose of the copper sulfate can be determined by one of skill in the art through routine experimentation wherein it would be prima facie obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize within the taught range and arrive at the claimed values as a means of attaining the desired therapeutic profile with a reasonable expectation of success absent evidence of criticality. It is also prima facie obvious use the copper sulfate at its known regimen (i.e. 1-4x/day like 2x/day) for as long as needed to attain the desired therapeutic profile absent evidence of criticality; and to treat the astigmatism wherever it presents itself such as the irregular astigmatism with keratoconus with a reasonable expectation of success. Simple substitution of one known crosslinker/corneal hardening agent for another such as copper perchlorate for copper sulfate is prima facie obvious with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments:
Applicant's arguments are centered on the assertion that Coroneo does not teach a copper containing agent as the sole therapeutic active agent to treat corneal astigmatism but is a multi-step corneal molding procedure where the corneal tissue is first softened with a MMP enzyme activator, then mechanically shaped with a contact lens, and then treated with a corneal hardening agent used as the disclosed copper sulfate to retain the mechanically induced shape after lens removal; that Ambati does not teach or suggest the recited copper concentration to treat corneal astigmatism as the sole therapeutic active as Ambati discloses copper concentrations for keratoconus or corneal biomechanical weakness where while keratoconus may present with irregular astigmatism it does not establish one to expect copper alone to treat corneal astigmatism as claimed; and impermissible picking and choosing to arrive at treating corneal astigmatism with only a copper-containing agent.
This is fully considered but not persuasive.
The assertion that Coroneo is a multi-step treatment for conditions like astigmatism and does not teach the instant claimed method of treating corneal astigmatism with a copper containing agent as the sole therapeutic active agent is not persuasive as that is not the breath claimed. Applicant’s arguments are as if the instant claims were to a method of treating corneal astigmatism consisting of administered a composition comprising about 0.01mg/ml-about 2.5mg/ml of a copper containing agent as a sole therapeutic active agent to an eye of a subject in need thereof; but that is not the breath claimed. The instant claims are to a method of treating corneal astigmatism comprising administered a composition comprising about 0.01mg/ml-about 2.5mg/ml of a copper containing agent as a sole therapeutic active agent to an eye of a subject in need thereof; wherein the instant claims are open the additional steps and compositions/components as long as the composition containing the copper-containing agent is about 0.01mg/ml-about 2.5mg/ml and is the sole therapeutic active in that composition. Therein Coroneo is not precluded as the instant claims allow for the multi-step corneal molding procedure where the corneal tissue is first softened with a MMP enzyme activator, then mechanically shaped with a contact lens, and then treated with a corneal hardening agent used as the disclosed copper sulfate to retain the mechanically induced shape after lens removal (a composition containing the copper-containing agent as the sole therapeutic active for that step of corneal hardening application).
The assertion Ambati does not teach or suggest the recited copper concentration to treat corneal astigmatism is not persuasive as it is to the reference individually, and one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As for the assertion of impermissible picking and choosing to arrive at treating corneal astigmatism with only a copper-containing agent as the therapeutic active, this again is not the breath as instantly claimed. Applicant’s arguments are again as if the instant claims were to a method of treating corneal astigmatism consisting of administered a composition comprising about 0.01mg/ml-about 2.5mg/ml of a copper containing agent as a sole therapeutic active agent to an eye of a subject in need thereof; but that is not the breath claimed. The instant claims are to a method of treating corneal astigmatism comprising administered a composition comprising about 0.01mg/ml-about 2.5mg/ml of a copper containing agent as a sole therapeutic active agent to an eye of a subject in need thereof; wherein the instant claims are open the additional steps and compositions/components as long as the composition containing the copper-containing agent is about 0.01mg/ml-about 2.5mg/ml and is the sole therapeutic active in that composition; which is met by the prior art rejection above.
Accordingly, the rejection stands.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coroneo (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2015/0164791) in view of Ambati et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2019/0083529) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-10, 12-13, 15-16, 18, 21-23, 27-28, 35-36 above, further in view of Dr. H (astigmatism-A quick review of refractive errors).
Rejection:
The teachings of Coroneo in view of Ambati et al. are addressed above.
Coroneo in view of Ambati et al. does not expressly teach the type of astigmatism but does address treatment of astigmatism with corneal hardeners like copper sulfate (crosslinker/corneal hardener/oxidative hardener).
Dr. H teaches that astigmatism is an irregular curvature of the front part of the eye (cornea/lens) and the curvature is like a football (oval) with light at two different points (focal astigmatism), as when the corneal is normal it is spherical and has the same roundness all over like a basketball with one light point (normal). There are different types including regular astigmatism like bow-tie, and irregular astigmatism which can be from keratoconus (section - A quick review of refractive errors).
Wherein it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to treat regular bow tie astigmatism and irregular astigmatism (all astigmatism is structurally oval shaped with two light points (focal astigmatism)) as suggested by Dr. H and produce the claimed invention; as Coroneo in view of Ambati teaches treating astigmatism and it is prima facie obvious to treat the various types of astigmatism with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments:
Applicant's arguments are directed to Coroneo in view of Ambati which are addressed above.
Accordingly, the rejection stands.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-10, 12-13, 15-16, 18, 21-23, 27-28, 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coroneo (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2015/0164791) in view of Burr et al. (WO 2019/136358).
Rejection:
Coroneo teaches treating refractive errors like astigmatism and myopia by moulding corneal tissue by softening the cornea with a matrix metalloproteinase enzyme activator, shaping the cornea with a contact lens, applying a corneal hardening agent like crosslinker/oxidative hardener such as copper sulfate to retain the desired shape after lens removal (abstract, claims 1-2, 6, [14-22], does not recite the presence of keratoconus for the astigmatism). The corneal hardener like copper sulfate can be administered topically such as eyedrops, by contact lens, intraocularly, sustained release vehicles (claim 14-16, [30-32, 79, 82-83]). The corneal hardener such as copper sulfate is in a composition comprising one or more carriers/excipients including water, buffers, tonicity agents (i.e. isotonicity agents), polymers, solubilizing agents (claims 26-27, [42-43, 64, 77, 81], separate composition from initial corneal softener). The dose can be determined by one of skill in the art through routine experimentation and tested for its ability to produce corneal hardening [58]. A sufficient number of eye drops are applied topically to administer a desired concentration to the cornea ([79], see full document specifically areas cited).
While Coroneo does not exemplify treating astigmatism with copper sulfate, Coroneo does expressly teach treating refractive errors like astigmatism by moulding the cornea by softening the cornea, shaping the cornea with a lens and then hardening the cornea with a hardening agent like the claimed copper sulfate wherein it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to exemplify the teachings of Coroneo and produce the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success.
Coroneo does not expressly recite the amount of copper sulfate (corneal hardening agent/crosslinker/oxidative hardener) in the composition but does recite that the amount/dose can be determined by one of skill in the art through routine experimentation. Coroneo also does not recite the corneal hardening agent/crosslinker to be copper perchlorate but does teach the inclusion of corneal hardening agent/crosslinkers like copper sulfate for the method.
Burr et al. teaches that copper-containing agents (crosslinkers/hardening agents) like copper sulfate and copper perchlorate (Page 8 line 1-8) are known to be useful in ophthalmic compositions from about 0.00001-about 15% including about 0.001-about 0.01%wt. and about 0.01-about 0.1%wt. (claim 26 and 28, Page 10 line 25 and 30-33), with tonicity from about 350mOsm/L-about 450mOsm/L(Page 13 line 23-24) and a pH of about 5.8-about 7.8 (Page 13 line 32-Page 14 line 2). The copper compositions are useful for the eye (i.e. a refractive error like myopia, claims 22 and 28). The composition can be in forms like topical eyedrops with a drop volume from about 5µl to about 100µl (claim 35, Page 8 line 8-11) and applied 1x-4x/day inducing 2x/day for about 6 months to chronic treatment like 5 year or other suitable periods until a desired outcome is achieved (claims 54 and 58, Page 15 line 26-31, Page 18 line 1-8).
Wherein it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the copper sulfate from about 0.001-about 0.1% in an ophthalmic composition at the recited pH and tonicity level for the treatment duration as suggested by Burr et al. and produce the claimed invention; as Coroneo teaches the use of copper sulfate in an ophthalmic composition with various carriers/excipients like buffers/pH adjuster and tonicity agents – and that the amount/dose of the corneal hardener like copper sulfate can be determined by one of skill in the art through routine experimentation; wherein it is prima facie obvious to incorporate the corneal hardener like copper sulfate in its known ophthlamically useful pH, tonicity level, and concentration such as about 0.001-about 0.01% or about 0.01-about 0.1%wt. (falling within the instant claimed values, about 0.01mg/ml-about 2.5mg/ml=0.001-0.25g/100ml=0.001-0.25%) with a reasonable expectation of success absent evidence of criticality. It is also obvious to incorporate copper perchlorate as simple substitution of one known crosslinker/corneal hardener for another is prima facie obvious with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments:
Applicant's arguments are to Coroneo which are addressed above. Additionally, Applicant’s arguments to Burr are to Burr (WO 2021) which is not the reference of record as Burr et al. (WO 2019) is outside the grace period and not subject to the exceptions.
Accordingly, the rejection stands.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coroneo (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2015/0164791) in view of Burr et al. (WO 2019/136358) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-10, 12-13, 15-16, 18, 21-23, 27-28, 35-36 above, further in view of Dr. H (astigmatism-A quick review of refractive errors).
Rejection:
The teachings of Coroneo in view of Burr et al. are addressed above.
Coroneo in view of Burr et al. does not expressly teach the type of astigmatism but does address treatment of astigmatism with corneal hardeners like copper sulfate (crosslinker/corneal hardener/oxidative hardener).
Dr. H teaches that astigmatism is an irregular curvature of the front part of the eye (cornea/lens) and the curvature is like a football (oval) with light at two different points (focal astigmatism), as when the corneal is normal it is spherical and has the same roundness all over like a basketball with one light point (normal). There are different types including regular astigmatism like bow-tie, and irregular astigmatism which can be from keratoconus (section - A quick review of refractive errors).
Wherein it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to treat regular bow tie astigmatism and irregular astigmatism (all astigmatism is structurally oval shaped with two light points (focal astigmatism)) as suggested by Dr. H and produce the claimed invention; as Burr et al. teaches treating astigmatism and it is prima facie obvious to treat the various types of astigmatism with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments:
Applicant's arguments are directed to Coroneo in view of Burr (2019) which are addressed above.
Accordingly, the rejection stands.
Conclusion
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-10, 12-13, 15-16, 18, 21-23, 27-29, 35-36 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIGI GEORGIANA HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-9073. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00-5:00pm.
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.
/GIGI G HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613
Prosecution Insights