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. DETAILED ACTION 2. Claims 1 – 20 are pending in this application. Applicant’s preliminary amendment, filed June 14, 2023, is entered, wherein claims 12 – 20 are new. Priority 3. This application is a domestic application, filed June 14, 2023, which claims benefit of foreign priority document JP2022-097340, filed June 16, 2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action . 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application is only pertinent when interference arises. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/14/2023, 06/19/2023, and 11/02/2023 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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: i . Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary . Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim s 1 – 7, 12 – 15, and 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curtis-Fisk et al. (WO2015/047762A1) . a. Regarding claims 1 – 7 , 12 – 15, and 17 – 20, Curtis-Fisk et al. teach a composition comprising a tonicity-adjusting agent, an aqueous liquid diluent, and 0.1 to 6 weight percent of a cellulose ether (Abstract). The preferred cellulose ether is hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC) (page 4, lines 19 – 20) . The cellulose ether utilized in the composition has a viscosity of from 2.4 to 1000 mPa∙s measured as a 2 weight-% solution in water at 20 ⁰C (page 6, lines 15 – 18) and it has a MS of 0.05 to 0.35 (page 5, line 25) and a DS of from 1.6 to 2.5 (page 5, line 18). The molar fraction of the 26-Me-3-HA, which is the HPMC type with two hydroxy groups in the 2- and 6-positions of the anhydroglucose unit are substituted with methyl groups and the 3-position is substituted with hydroxyalkyl is 0.0211 with an MS of 0.23 (page 16, lines 18 – 20; page 20, Table 3). The composition may additionally comprise an organic liquid diluent (page 8, lines 31 – 32), wherein an organic liquid diluent as used means an organic solvent (page 9, line 9). The organic liquid diluent is preferably pharmaceutically acceptable, such as ethanol (page 9, lines 16 – 17) and at least 55 percent of the weight of the liquid diluent is water (page 10, lines 15 – 18) . The composition may further comprises a preferred physiologically active agent (page 10, line 31). It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HPMC as taught by Curtis-Fisk et al. to achieve the claimed HPMC with a ratio (MF at 3-position/MS) of 0.12 or more because Curtis-Fisk et al. teach that the MF of one HPMC is 0.0211 and the MS of the HPMC may be 0.05 to 0.35. One would have performed routine experimentation to discover the best MF and MS for the optimal HPMC characteristics. Therefore, one of the ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the HPMC as taught by Curtis-Fisk et al. to achieve the claimed HPMC with a MF/MS ratio of 0.12 or more, as such modifications involve routine optimization of known parameters within the disclosed ranges to achieve desirable polymer properties. Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curtis-Fisk et al. (WO2015/047762A1) as applied to claim s 1 – 7, 12 – 15, and 17 – 20 above, and further in view of Obara (CRC Press, 2008, Chapter 10, page 279 – 322, Reference included with PTO-892) . b. Regarding claims 8 and 16, Curtis-Fisk et al. teach the limitations discussed above. Curtis-Fisk et al. further teach that HPMC has been found to be very useful in a variety of application, such as film formation (page 3, lines 28 – 30). However, Curtis-Fisk et al. do not teach a method for producing a preparation, wherein the method comprising a step of coating a core comprising an active ingredient with the liquid composition. Obara teaches that HPMC forms transparent, tough, and flexible films from aqueous solutions (page 288, para. 2). Obara explicitly teaches that the required viscosity of a solution for aqueous film coating is commonly less than 100 mPa∙s (page 283, para. 2). Obara discloses the stability of aspirin/ascorbic acid tablets coated with HPMC in aqueous system (page 289, Table 7). It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the film formation application of HPMC as taught by Curtis-Fisk et al. into coating a core comprising an active ingredient in view of Obara because both Curtis-Fisk et al. and Obara teach that HPMC may be used in film formation and Obara explicitly teaches that the required viscosity of a solution for aqueous film coating is less than 100 mPa∙s . One would have been motivated to apply the HPMC with the viscosity less than 100 mPa∙s as taught by Curtis-Fisk et al. for aqueous film coating because Obara teaches that the required viscosity of a solution for aqueous film coating is less than 100 mPa∙s and Curtis-Fisk et al. teach the HPMC that has the viscosity within the same range. Therefore, one of the ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the film formation application of HPMC as taught by Curtis-Fisk et al. into coating a core comprising an active ingredient in view of Obara because it is known in the art that HPMC with the viscosity of less than 100 mPa∙s is commonly used for aqueous film coating. Claims 9 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curtis-Fisk et al. (WO2015/047762A1) as applied to claim s 1 – 7, 12 – 15, and 17 – 20 above, and further in view of Asrar (Clemson OPEN, 2012, Reference included with PTO-892) . c . Regarding claims 9 – 10, Curtis-Fisk et al. teach the limitations discussed above. Curtis-Fisk et al. further teach that HPMC has been found to be very useful in a variety of application, such as film formation (page 3, lines 28 – 30). However, Curtis-Fisk et al. do not teach a method for producing a film . Asrar teaches the preparation of films using HPMC. Pure HPMC solution is formed using 12 g of HPMC in the form of a white powder. After 24 hr , a clear HPMC solution is formed. Pure HPMC solution is used to make put HPMC films (page 29, para. 1). Approximately 45 mL of the prepared HPMC is casted using a customized film caster at 20 mm/sec onto a BYTAC ® coated 157 mm x 356 mm glass plate. Cast films are then placed in a drying oven for 4 hours and the placed in 50% RH and 25 ⁰C for an additional 8 hours. After a total of 12 hours drying , the films are peeled from the glass plates (page 30, para. 3; page 31, para. 1). It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the film formation application of HPMC as taught by Curtis-Fisk et al. with the method of producing a film in view of Asrar because both Curtis-Fisk et al. and Asrar teach that HPMC may be used in film formation and Asrar explicitly teaches the steps of film casting. One would have been motivated to combine the film formation application of HPMC as taught by Curtis-Fisk et al. with the method of producing a film in view of Asrar because Asrar teaches that the steps of casting film using HPMC. Therefore, one of the ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to combine the film formation application of HPMC as taught by Curtis-Fisk et al. with the method of producing a film in view of Asrar because the method of film formation is already known in the art. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curtis-Fisk et al. (WO2015/047762A1) as applied to claim s 1 – 7, 12 – 15, and 17 – 20 above, and further in view of Yu et al. (Journal of Food Science, 2020, Reference included with PTO-892) d. Regarding claim 11, Curtis-Fisk et al. teach the limitations discussed above. Curtis-Fisk et al. further teach that HPMC has been found to be very useful in a variety of application (page 3, lines 28 – 29). However, Curtis-Fisk et al. do not teach a method for producing a solid dispersion. Yu et al. teach curcumin solid dispersions that are prepared by using HPMC to enhance water solubility of curcumin (Abstract). When curcumin is completely dissolved, it is mixed with the HPMC solution. After this all ethanol in the mixed solution is removed by using a rotary evaporator. The prepared solutions are spray dried (page 3867, Left Col., para. 4). Further, HPMC has the advantage of inhibiting curcumin crystallization and enhancing its membrane permeability by lowering the order level of the phospholipid bilayer (page 3867, Left Col., para .1). It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the HPMC as taught by Curtis-Fisk et al. to form a curcumin-HPMC solid dispersion in view of Yu et al. because Curtis-Fisk et al. teach the HPMC has a variety of application and Yu et al. teach that HPMC may be used in solid dispersion formation and Yu et al. explicitly teaches the steps of said formation . One would have been motivated to combine the HPMC as taught by Curtis-Fisk et al. with the method of forming a solid dispersion in view of Yu et al. because Curtis-Fisk et al. teach that HPMC is a very versatile material and Yu et al. teaches that the steps of forming a solid dispersion using HPMC. Therefore, one of the ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to combine the HPMC as taught by Curtis-Fisk et al. to form a curcumin-HPMC solid dispersion in view of Yu et al. because the method of forming a solid dispersion is already known in the art. 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 . Claim s 1 – 8 and 12 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 6 and 8 – 13 of copending Application No. 18/334,456 in view of Obara (CRC Press, 2008, Chapter 10, page 279 – 322, Reference included with PTO-892). a. Regarding claims 1 – 8 and 12 – 20 , ‘456 teaches a hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose (HPMC) having a MS of hydroxypropyoxy groups of from 0.1 to 0.5; a ratio (MF at 3-position/MS) of 0.12 or more, as calculated by dividing a molar fraction of anhydroglucose units in which only a hydroxy group at the 3-position carbon is substituted with a hydroxyprop y oxy group and none of hydroxy groups at the 2-position and 6-position carbons is substituted with a hydroxypropyoxy group by the MS of hydroxypropyoxy groups; and a viscosity at 20 ⁰C of more than 50 mPa∙s and not more than 15000 mPa∙s , as determined in a 2% by mass aqueous solution (claim 1). The HPMC has a degree of substitution (DS) of methoxy groups of from 1.0 to 2.0 (claim 2). The HPMC has a molar fraction of 0.027 or more (claim 3). ‘456 teaches a liquid composition comprising the HPMC and an organic solvent (claim s 4 , 8, and 11 ). The liquid composition has a content of HPMC more than 0% by mass and not more than 20% by mass (claims 5, 9, and 12). The organic solvent is miscible with water and the liquid composition further comprises water (claims 6, 10, and 13). However, ‘456 does not teach a HPMC having a viscosity at 20 ⁰C of from 1.0 to 50 mPa∙s . Obara teaches that HPMC forms transparent, tough, and flexible films from aqueous solutions (page 288, para. 2). Obara explicitly teaches that the required viscosity of a solution for aqueous film coating is commonly less than 100 mPa∙s . (page 283, para. 2). Obara discloses the various physical properties of HPMC with labeled viscosity lower than or equal to 50 mPa∙s (page 287, Tables 4 – 5). Obara discloses the stability of aspirin/ascorbic acid tablets coated with HPMC in aqueous system (page 289, Table 7). It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HPMC as taught by ‘456 to a HPMC with the claimed viscosity in view of Obara because Obara teaches that the HPMC with less than 100 mPa∙s provides a film forming property. One would have been motivated to modify the HPMC as taught by ‘456 to a HPMC with the claimed viscosity in view of Obara because of the film forming property. Such modification will yield a HPMC with improved characteristics. Therefore, one of the ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the HPMC as taught by ‘456 to a HPMC with the claimed viscosity in view of Obara because Obara teaches the specific range of viscosity for HPMC that is used for film formation. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Conclusion No claim is found to be allowable. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT HOI YAN LEE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-0265 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Thursday 7:30 - 17:30 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT SCARLETT GOON can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-5241 . 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. /H.Y.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1693 /SCARLETT Y GOON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner Art Unit 1693