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 .
Priority
The objection to the priority date is withdrawn.
Applicant claims priority to MX/A/2022/013371 application filed October 24, 2022. The priority date is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 5, 2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is acknowledged by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1-9, filed on July 9, 2026, are pending. Claims 1-9 are rejected.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant amended claim 1 to “glycomacropeptide derived from sweet whey.”
Broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation “glycomacropeptide derived from sweet whey” includes glycomacropeptide derived from sweet whey obtained from colostrum. The fact that colostrum can be used to obtain sweet whey is evidenced by Dallas et al. ((2014). Comprehensive peptidomic and glycomic evaluation reveals that sweet whey permeate from colostrum is a source of milk protein-derived peptides and oligosaccharides. Food research international (Ottawa, Ont.), 63(Pt B), 203–209, see especially pg 204 pgh 3]).
In addition, the new limitation “glycomacropeptide derived from sweet whey” is a product-by-process limitation and is examined according to MPEP 2113:
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) [MPEP 2113].
See response to arguments below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments, see pg 5 pgh 2, filed July 9, 2026, with respect to claim 5 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 5 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 8, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that all the cited references fail to teach a glycomacropeptide derived from sweet whey (a new limitation); and a cosmetically acceptable vehicle.
Applicant asserts that GMP derived from sweet whey is different from the GMP in colostrum taught by Kazimierska, Nakamura, and Dante because the process of making sweet whey is usually done with mature milk [pg 6-pg 7]. Applicant states this is a difference because glycomacropeptide-associated biological responses depend on molecular composition, purification state, glycosylation profile, sialic acid content, concentration, and cellular context, supporting that its activity cannot reasonably be considered universally predictable or directly extrapolatable across distinct biological systems (Playford et al., 2000; Olsen et al., 2023; C6rdoba-Dsvalos et al., 2023) [pg 8 pgh 3]. The degree of glycosylation and the concentration of sialic acid-associated structures are functionally relevant and cannot reasonably be considered interchangeable among different dairy-derived materials [pg 14 pgh 5].
This argument is not found persuasive because the broadest reasonable interpretation of glycomacropeptide derived from sweet whey does not exclude the glycomacropeptide found in colostrum, which the art recognizes can be used to make sweet whey. Furthermore, given that “glycomacropeptide derived from sweet whey” is a product-by-process limitation, the burden is shifted to applicant to show that the glycomacropeptide from colostrum taught by Kazimierska, Nakamura, and Dante is structurally and functionally different from a glycomacropeptide derived from sweet whey derived from colostrum (MPEP 2113).
In response to applicant's argument that there is a difference because glycomacropeptide-associated biological responses depend on molecular composition, purification state, glycosylation profile, sialic acid content, concentration, and cellular context, supporting that its activity cannot reasonably be considered universally predictable or directly extrapolatable across distinct biological systems (Playford et al., 2000; Olsen et al., 2023; C6rdoba-Dsvalos et al., 2023) [pg 8 pgh 3], a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Furthermore, this recitation is not encompassed in the claim’s language. The features upon which applicant relies (i.e., glycomacropeptide-associated biological responses dependent on molecular composition, purification state, glycosylation profile, sialic acid content, concentration, and cellular context) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant also argues that the:
Kazimierska reference does not recognize that GMP alone is good for cosmetic use;
Kazimierska and Kalinowska-Lis do not experimentally demonstrate the effects directly of milk proteins [pg 10];
Nakamura does not establish that naturally occurring colostrum components constitute functionally equivalent materials to purified glycomacropeptide under topical conditions [pg 10], and;
that the above generalized references directed toward milk proteins, whey- derived mixtures, or colostrum preparations do not reasonably predict the specific keratinocyte-associated regulatory activity observed in the present invention [pg 12 pgh 4].
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, 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).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “purified glycomacropeptide,” “GMP alone,” or “for cosmetic use”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
During patent examination, the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005)" [MPEP 2111]. The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 reads on the composition taught by Kazimierska, Nakamura, and Dante.
Regarding claim 2, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the functional equivalence of whole colostrum, colostrum-derived mixtures, purified glycomacropeptide, sialylated glycomacropeptide, and desialylated glycomacropeptide) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specifications of the claim still reads on the composition taught by Kazimierska, Nakamura, and Dante.
Claim 5 states the intended use “wherein said composition promotes cellular regeneration of skin cells.” In response to applicant's argument that the cited references do not experimentally demonstrate that whole colostrum preparations, milk-derived mixtures, whey protein fractions, purified glycomacropeptide, and glycosylated glycomacropeptide produce equivalent regenerative responses at the cellular level [pg 17 pgh 4], a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Kazimierska’s compositions are capable of performing the intended use and Kazimierska explicitly teaches this (see claim 5’s rejection).
Claim 6 states the intended use “diminishes inflammation in human keratinocytes.” In response to applicant's argument that the references do not experimentally demonstrate that whole colostrum preparations, milk-derived mixtures, whey protein fractions, purified glycomacropeptide, and glycosylated glycomacropeptide produce equivalent anti-inflammatory responses at the cellular level [pg 20 pgh 1], a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Kazimierska’s compositions are capable of performing the intended use and Kazimierska explicitly teaches this (see claim 6’s rejection).
Regarding claim 7, applicant submits that the cited references do not establish inherency because the alleged biological activity is neither inevitable nor experimentally demonstrated for the specific claimed composition, method, and cellular system [pg 22 pgh 3]. This argument is unpersuasive because Kazimierska demonstrates that the topical application of an emulsion with 20% horse colostrum to treat moderate atopic dermatitis resulted in a reduction in erythema and pruritus and had softening, moisturizing, soothing, and anti-inflammatory effects [Table 4]. Fermented horse colostrum also had the same effects for atopic dermatitis (atopy and psoriasis) [Table 4]. A method of treating skin inflammation using the claimed composition is taught by Kazimierska and the limitation to experimentally demonstrate a biological activity is not embodied by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Regarding claim 8, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., whole colostrum preparations, milk-derived mixtures, whey protein fractions, purified glycomacropeptide, glycosylated glycomacropeptide, and the specifically claimed glycosylated glycomacropeptide-containing composition produce equivalent biological effects or equivalent therapeutic outcomes across the broad range of cutaneous conditions [pg 25 pgh 3].) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). This argument is not persuasive because the claim uses open-ended language and colostrum comprises of glycomacropeptide, pantothenic acid, and sialic acid.
Regarding claim 9, applicant submits that cited references do not establish inherency because the alleged regenerative activity is neither inevitable nor experimentally demonstrated for the specific claimed composition, method, and cellular system [pg 28 pgh 3]. This argument is not persuasive because under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device [MPEP 2112.02]. Namely, the topical compositions taught by Kazimierska to promote skin cell regeneration (detailed in claim 5’s rejection) anticipate the process of doing so.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., rationale upon generalized extrapolations between complex colostrum mixtures, distinct whey-derived preparations, purified glycosylated glycomacropeptide, unrelated epithelial systems, and biologically distinct cellular contexts without direct experimental evidence supporting equivalence between such systems [pg 31 pgh 2]) are embodied by the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant's arguments filed July 8, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazimierska et al (Kazimierska, K., & Kalinowska-Lis, U. (2021). Milk Proteins-Their Biological Activities and Use in Cosmetics and Dermatology. Molecules (Basel, Switzerland), 26(11), 3253.) in view of Chadwick et al. (Chadwick, M. R., & Murphy-Rose, B. (2019). Pantothenic Acid for Skin: Benefits and How to Use. Byrdie) and Rubin (Rubin SH. The comparative stability of pantothenic acid and panthenol. J Am Pharm Assoc Am Pharm Assoc. 1948 Dec;37(12):502-4.), as evidenced by Nakamura et al. (Nakamura, T., Kawase, H., Kimura, K., Watanabe, Y., Ohtani, M., Arai, I., & Urashima, T. (2003). Concentrations of sialyloligosaccharides in bovine colostrum and milk during the prepartum and early lactation. Journal of dairy science, 86(4), 1315–1320), and Dande et al (Dande, Nivedita Deepak; Nande, Prajakta Jayant. Nutritional Composition of Bovine Colostrum: Palatability Evaluation of Food Products Prepared Using Bovine Colostrum. International Journal of Nutrition, Pharmacology, Neurological Diseases 10(1):p 8-13, Jan–Mar 2020).
Kazimierska et al. teaches that milk and colostrum have many uses in cosmetics and dermatology due to its natural origin and non-toxicity:
Milk products are widely used in the treatment of dermatological diseases for promoting the healing of chronic wounds, hastening tissue regeneration, and the treatment of acne vulgaris or plaque psoriasis. They are also increasingly regarded as active ingredients that can improve the condition of the skin by reducing the number of acne lesions and blackheads, regulating sebum secretion, ameliorating inflammatory changes as well as bestowing a range of moisturizing, protective, toning, smoothing, anti-irritation, whitening, soothing, and antiaging effects [Abstract].
The κ-casein in colostrum releases glycomacropeptides, which has antibacterial activity [Fig 1].
GMP has been found to inactivate microbial toxins of Escherichia coli and Vibrio cholerae, inhibit the adhesion of cariogenic Streptococcus mutans and Streptococcus sobrinus, and hemagglutination by four strains of influenza virus in in vitro tests. It also modulates immune system responses, promotes the growth of Bifidobacteria, suppresses gastric hormone activities, and regulates blood circulation through antihypertensive and antithrombotic activity [Section 2.1.2].
Kazimierska et al. goes on to provide examples of milk and colostrum-based products in cosmetics and dermatology that would motivate an artisan of ordinary skill to incorporate colostrum in a cosmetically acceptable vehicle. For example, an emulsion with 20% horse colostrum when used for moderate atopic dermatitis resulted in a reduction in erythema and pruritus and had softening, moisturizing, soothing, and anti-inflammatory effects [Table 4]. Kazimierska does not teach that a colostrum cosmetic composition inherently has sialic acid and pantothenic acid. Colostrum inherently comprises GMP, sialic acid and pantothenic acid as evidence by Nakamura and Dande. Nakamura et al. teaches that there is an average of 1.70 g/L of sialic acid in colostrum [Results section]. Dande et al teaches there is 150 μg of pantothenic acid per 100 mg [Results and Conclusions section]. The difference between the compositions of Kazimierska et al. and the instant invention is the colostrum inherently comprise pantothenic acid and not panthenol as claimed.
Chadwick explains panthenol is the provitamin or precursor for vitamin B5, also known as pantothenic acid [section What is Pantothenol?]. When panthenol is applied topically, it is quickly converted to pantothenic acid. Chadwick teaches there is no difference in making a topical composition with panthenol versus pantothenic acid because the composition when applied becomes one comprising of pantothenic acid Chadwick does not elaborate on the motivation to use pantothenol in place of pantothenic acid.
Rubin teaches that panthenol displays the vitamin activity, qualitatively and quantitatively, of pantothenic acid [Abstract]. Under certain conditions of dosage, the physiological availability of panthenol is superior to that of pantothenic acid and is more stable in acid solutions at pH 3 to 5.
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the artisan of ordinary skill to substitute panthenol for pantothenic acid in the compositions of Kazimierska because Rubin teaches panthenol is more stable. This constitutes a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results because Chadwick teaches there is no difference in making a topical composition with panthenol versus pantothenic acid because the composition when applied becomes one comprising of pantothenic acid [MPEP 2143].
Regarding claim 2, colostrum inherently has GMP linked to sialic acid as evidenced by Wongkuna et al. (Wongkuna, S., Prasoodanan P K, V., Holmberg, S. M., Bjørnshave, A., & Schroeder, B. O. (2025). Milk-derived casein glycomacropeptide improves colonic mucus function under Western-style diet feeding in a sialylation-dependent manner. Food research international (Ottawa, Ont.), 221(Pt 1), 117206.).
Wongkuna et al. teaches that the casein glycomacropeptide that is a part of κ-casein “features O-linked glycans composed of mucin-type sugars, including N-acetylgalactosamine (GalNAc), galactose (Gal), and sialic acid” [Introduction pgh 6].
Regarding claim 5, Kazimierska states: “Milk products are widely used in the treatment of dermatological diseases for promoting the healing of chronic wounds, hastening tissue regeneration…” [Abstract]. Also, of the topical applications using colostrum, cream containing 30% horse colostrum resulted in complete skin regeneration [Table 4]. Since an artisan of ordinary skill knows that skin is a tissue and tissues are made out of cells, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date to use colostrum topically to promote the regeneration of cells.
Regarding claim 6, the Kazimierska demonstrates that the topical application of an emulsion with 20% horse colostrum to treat moderate atopic dermatitis resulted in a reduction in erythema and pruritus and had softening, moisturizing, soothing, and anti-inflammatory effects [Table 4]. Fermented horse colostrum also had the same effects for atopic dermatitis (atopy and psoriasis) [Table 4]. Thus, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date to use colostrum topically to diminish inflammation in human skin cells because Kazimierska teaches colostrum’s efficacy to do so.
Regarding claim 7, Kazimierska et al, in view of Chadwick et al and Rubin teach the topical composition comprising of glycomacropeptide, sialic acid, and panthenol, as previously discussed in claim 1’s rejection. According to the MPEP, under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device [See MPEP 2112.02]. Namely, the topical compositions taught by Kazimierska to treat skin inflammation (detailed in claim 6’s rejection) anticipate the process of doing so. Therefore, it is prima facie obvious to claim the method of using the topical composition taught by Kazimierska et al, Chadwick et al, and Rubin.
Regarding claim 8, the topical compositions listed in Kazimierska incorporating colostrum treat wounds, psoriasis, contact skin lesions (worded by applicant as contact dermatitis), acne, and post sun exposure [Table 4]. It would have been obvious for the applicant to apply the taught composition to the listed conditions because Kazimierska gives a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 9, Kazimierska et al, in view of Chadwick et al and Rubin teach the topical composition comprising of glycomacropeptide, sialic acid, and panthenol, as previously discussed in claim 1’s rejection. According to the MPEP, under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device [See MPEP 2112.02]. Namely, the topical compositions taught by Kazimierska to promote skin cell regeneration (detailed in claim 5’s rejection) anticipate the process of doing so. Therefore, it is prima facie obvious to claim the method of using the topical composition taught by Kazimierska et al, Chadwick et al, and Rubin.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazimierska et al in view of Chadwick et al and Rubin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Gallegos-Alcalá et al. (Gallegos-Alcalá P, Jiménez M, Cervantes-García D, Córdova-Dávalos LE, Gonzalez-Curiel I, Salinas E. Glycomacropeptide Protects against Inflammation and Oxidative Stress, and Promotes Wound Healing in an Atopic Dermatitis Model of Human Keratinocytes. Foods. 2023 May 9;12(10):1932.) as evidenced by Nakamura, Dande and Schneider et al. (Schneider, F., & Wehrend, A. (2019). Qualitätsbeurteilung von bovinen und equinen Kolostrum – Eine Übersicht [Quality Assessment of Bovine and Equine Colostrum - An Overview]. Schweizer Archiv fur Tierheilkunde, 161(5), 287–297.)
As previously discussed, Kazimierska discusses how colostrum can be used topically to treat atopic dermatitis and other skin conditions [Table 4 and section 3.2]. Kazimierska also states:
Irrespective of the composition, cosmetic formulations based on a combination of horse colostrum and horse milk demonstrate a number of skin benefits, including antiaging, moisturizing, protective, tensio-distensive, tonic, smoothing, anti-irritant, emollient, bleaching, decongestant, and sebostatic activities [Section 3.3]
Kazimierska makes obvious to one of ordinary skill that colostrum is a cosmetic formulation is beneficial to the skin. Kazimierska, Nakamura and Dande are used to determine the weight per volume of each component in bovine colostrum when used in a cosmetic formulation. Schneider et al. teaches the density of bovine colostrum (1047 g/mL) [Overview]; this is used to find the mass per volume of pantothenic acid from Dande et al. The weight percentages for sialic acid and panthenol are within the applicant’s ranges.
Component
Mass per volume
Equiv. w/v (%)
Source
Glycomacropeptide
2.5 g/L
0.25
Kazimierska [Table 2]
Sialic acid
1.7 g/L
0.17
Nakamura [Results]
Panthenol
1.57 g/L
0.157
Dande [Results and Conclusions section]
It is prima facie obvious where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art [see MPEP 2144.05]. Kazimierska et al., Chadwick et al, and Rubin do not teach why a greater w/v of glycomacropeptide can be used for a topical treatment.
Gallegos-Alcalá et al. aim to evaluate the effect of GMP on the inflammatory, oxidative, proliferative, and migratory responses of HaCaT keratinocytes [Abstract]. They found that GMP protected keratinocytes from death and apoptosis in a dose dependent manner from 6.3 to 25 mg/mL (Section 3.2; Fig 2A). GMP also protected keratinocytes from oxidative damage by 70.5% and 61.6% when cells were GMP-treated at 6.3 and 25 mg/mL [Section 3.3; Fig 3C]. These concentrations showed efficacy of reduction atopic inflammatory responses [Section 3.4] and modifying gene expression related to itch and neurogenic inflammation, by 6.3 and 25 mg/mL GMP inducing levels of cGRP mRNA 1.42- and 3.14-fold higher [Section 3.5]. The equivalent weight per volume percentages of 6.3 and 25 mg/mL are 0.63 and 2.5% w/v- encompassed by the present range. Therefore, Gallegos-Alcalá et al. provides sufficient motivation to increase the amount of glycomacropeptide of the compositions suggested by Kazimierska, Chadwick, and Rubin to that of the present range because there is a reasonable expectation of success that such a composition would be effective at treating keratinocytes with conditions related to oxidative damage and inflammation.
Claims 3 and 4 can also be rejected in further view of Leahy et al. (WO2005037248A1: Published 2005), if the foreign priority date is established. Leahy et al. disclose a glycomacropeptide containing preparation to act in the vicinity of the surface to promote the healing of wounds and treatment of skin lesions and disorders [Abstract 0018]. The glycomacropeptide is covalently attached to sialic acid, which comprises of about 7-8% of the glycomacropeptide [0029]. Leahy does not claim the glycomacropeptide in terms of weight per volume so the specifications are used to reasonably approximate the weight per volume. Leahy provides an example of the use of GMP for the treatment of wounds [0104]. One embodiment has 1 g of GMP (A) and the other has 2 g (B) for every 100 g. The density of water, known to one of ordinary skill, is used to reasonably approximate the weight per volume percentage of the embodiments because most of the formulation comprises of water (97.21 g for (A) and 96.21 for (B)). This translates to a weight percentage of about 1-2% w/v. Leahy also claims the topical preparation in an ointment, cream, gel, lotion, spray and solid [claim 6].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill would find it obvious to improve upon using colostrum (a base device), as taught by Kazimierska et al, by adding more glycomacropeptide in a cosmetically acceptable vehicle, as taught by Leahy et al. because it is predictable to add an improvement from a comparable invention to a base product. Making a topical composition comprising of more glycomacropeptide is an improvement because Leahy teaches that such a composition can promote the healing of wounds and treatment of skin lesions.
Regarding claim 4, of the colostrum-based products in cosmetics and dermatology Kazimierska presents, colostrum is incorporated in ointments, creams, emulsions, gels, and cosmetic formulations [Table 4]. Also, Leahy’s formulation is claimed to be in the form of an ointment, cream, gel, lotion, spray or solid [claim6]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to make a composition with the present claimed ranges using colostrum in a cosmetically acceptable vehicle with a reasonable expectation of success for topical application because Kazimierska and Leahy provide sufficient suggestion of such.
Conclusion
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SACHI JAUHARI whose telephone number is (571)272-3769. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-4.
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, Lianko Garyu can be reached at (571) 270-7367. 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.
/SACHI JAUHARI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1654
/CHRISTINA M MARCHETTI BRADLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1654
Prosecution Insights