DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/24/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
The response filed 06/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-19 are pending.
Applicant elected Group 1, claims 1-9 without traverse of in the reply filed on 12/01/2025.
Applicant elected the species oleuropein and condition (iii) increasing antioxidant capacity, reducing oxidative stress and/or enhancing mitochondrial function without traverse of in the reply filed on 12/01/2025.
Claims 3, 5 and 10-12 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species/invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/01/2025.
Claims 13-19 are new.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 6-9 and 13-19 are treated on the merits in this action.
The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application. Rejections not reiterated herein have been withdrawn.
Withdrawn
The rejection of claims 1-2, and 6-9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mehansho, US 20180042287 has been withdrawn due to amendment. Mehansho does not expressly teach administering for at least one week.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rey, Animals, 2021 has been withdrawn due to amendment. Rey does not expressly teach the composition is in a form selected from the group consisting of a solid powder, a powdered stick, a capsule and a solution.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-2, 6-7, 9 and 13-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehansho, US 20180042287 in view of De Groote, US 20120009276:
Applicant has argued De Groote is entirely directed to compositions comprising zinc and/or a hydroxyl radical scavenger, which can be/include oleuropein. Applicant argues the claimed composition comprises a combination of oleuropein and/or a metabolite thereof (oleuropein as the elected species) and magnesium. Applicant argues there is no teaching or suggestion in De Groote (or Mehansho) that the time required for administering a composition comprising zinc and/or oleuropein can somehow suggest the time required for administering a composition comprising oleuropein and magnesium.
These arguments are unpersuasive. The teachings of De Groote are not limited to compositions which contain only zinc and oleuropein. De Groote teaches the compositions may further comprise additional ingredients such as magnesium (De Groote, e.g., claim 20). The composition of the claimed method does not exclude zinc. Zinc is a recognized antioxidant (De Groote, e.g., 0008). Claim 6 states the composition further comprising additional compounds, e.g., antioxidants, minerals, trace elements. Zinc is encompassed by the limitations of claim 6. Mehansho also teaches the compositions further comprising antioxidants, micronutrients, trace elements (Mehansho, e.g., 0118). The skilled artisan would recognize zinc from De Groote as an additional antioxidant known and used in compositions comprising, inter alia, magnesium and oleuropein for use in methods of managing oxidative stress. Both references teach methods for treating, inter alia, subjects in need of treatment for oxidative stress. Since Mehansho teaches practicing the method for, e.g., managing oxidative stress (Mehansho, e.g., Abstract, 0114, 0056-0059, and 0122-0123), the skilled artisan would have been motivated to practice the method over known time frames for managing oxidative stress, e.g., months, years, or as long as required, suggested by De Groote.
Regarding the double patenting rejections:
Applicant respectfully notes that this stage in examination is premature for terminal disclaimers because the instant claims are not identified as otherwise allowable, and thus the final version of these claims is not yet known. Furthermore, the claims of the co-pending applications may also be amended during examination. As a result, at a later stage of examination, the claims of the co-pending applications may no longer be alleged to be the same as the present application. At such time when the present claims are otherwise allowable, Applicant will reconsider any remaining double patenting rejections. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the double patenting rejections be withdrawn or held in abeyance until the claims are otherwise allowable in the present application.
The double patenting rejections of record are maintained at this time.
Rejections Addressing Applicant’s Amendment
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 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 7 includes the limitation that the composition is selected from the group consisting of food compositions, dietary supplements, nutritional compositions, oral nutritional supplement, medical food, nutraceuticals, beverages, ready to drink (RTD), RTD concentrate, powdered nutritional products to be reconstituted in water or milk before consumption, food additives, food for special medical purpose (FSMP) medicaments, drinks, pet foods, and combinations thereof.
Claim 1 already defines the form of the composition using an exclusive group, i.e., the composition is in a form selected from the group consisting of a solid powder, a powdered stick, a capsule and a solution.
It is not clear how the skilled artisan would interpret the combination of exclusive lists imposed by claim 7. It is important that a person of ordinary skill in the art be able to interpret the metes and bounds of the claims so as to understand how to avoid infringement of the patent that ultimately issues from the application being examined.
The skilled artisan cannot determine which form the composition is required to be in to meet the limitations of claim 7 since both claim 1 and claim 7 recite distinct lists of exclusive forms.
Clarification is required.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 7 includes the limitation that the composition is selected from the group consisting of food compositions, dietary supplements, nutritional compositions, oral nutritional supplement, medical food, nutraceuticals, beverages, ready to drink (RTD), RTD concentrate, powdered nutritional products to be reconstituted in water or milk before consumption, food additives, food for special medical purpose (FSMP) medicaments, drinks, pet foods, and combinations thereof.
Claim 1 already defines the form of the composition using an exclusive group, i.e., the composition is in a form selected from the group consisting of a solid powder, a powdered stick, a capsule and a solution.
Claim 7 does not appear to include all of the limitations that claim 1 imposes on the form of the composition. For example, not all food compositions are necessarily a solid powder, a powdered stick, a capsule or a solution.
Claim 7 also does not appear to further limit the forms recited in claim 1. The BRI of the forms listed in claim 7 is broader than the BRI of the forms listed in claim 1. For example, to the extent that the skilled artisan may interpret, e.g., nutraceuticals, to include the form of tablets, claim 7 does not further limit the forms listed in claim 1. The skilled artisan cannot understand what further limitation is required of a powder to be considered, e.g., a nutraceutical.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 of this title, 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, 6-7, 9 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehansho, US 20180042287 in view of De Groote, US 20120009276.
Mehansho teaches compositions comprising magnesium and oleuropein (Mehansho, e.g., 0065, Table 1). Mehansho teaches administering the composition to subjects in need of activating adenosine monophosphate activated protein kinase (AMPK) and signaling pathway stemming therefrom, and in need of reducing oxidative damage and oxidative stress by agents which inhibit the activity of pro-oxidants including reactive oxygen species (Mehansho, e.g., 0056-0059, 0065 and 0072 and 0073). The composition contains antioxidants (Mehansho, e.g., 0105 oleuropein antioxidant activity restrains oxidative stress and stimulates AMPK activity), and the composition enhances production of endogenous antioxidants (Mehansho, e.g., 0073). Thus, Mehansho teaches practicing the method for increasing antioxidant capacity, reducing oxidative stress, and/or enhancing mitochondrial function as per the elected species. Applicable to claim 2: the composition activates AMPK which is expressed in the kidney, liver and skeletal muscle (Mehansho, e.g., 0029-0030). Applicable to claim 6: Mehansho teaches the composition further comprising vitamins and minerals (Mehansho, e.g., claim 14). Applicable to claims 7-9: Mehansho teaches the composition in the form of powders, drink mixes, capsule, and beverages, e.g., liquid solution (Mehansho, e.g., 0020 and claim 17). Mehansho teaches the composition as a food product, food composition, dietary supplement, nutritional supplement, wherein the composition optionally contains proteins, carbohydrates, fats, vitamins, minerals (Mehansho, e.g., 0016-0023). Applicable to claim 13: the subject may be a human (Mehansho, e.g., abstract, claim 1). Applicable to claim 15: the subject may be a dog or a cat (Mehansho, e.g., 0002, 0014, and 0121). Applicable to claims 18 and 19: Mehansho exemplifies compositions for treating subjects in need of activating adenosine monophosphate activated protein kinase (AMPK) and signaling pathway stemming therefrom, and in need of reducing oxidative damage and oxidative stress comprising oleuropein and magnesium in amounts in the claimed ranges for daily oral administration, e.g., 200 mg magnesium and 100 mg oleuropein (Mehansho, e.g., 0065, table 1).
The teachings of Mehansho enumerated above teach a method according to claim 1, wherein compositions comprising magnesium and oleuropein (Mehansho, e.g., 0065, table 1) are administered by oral route daily, and wherein the composition is in the form of a powder, capsule, or solution (Mehansho, e.g., 0016-0017, 0020-0024, 0125, claim 18, claim 9).
Mehansho does not expressly teach administering daily for at least one week.
However, De Groote teaches methods for treating oxidative stress (De Groote, e.g., 0004 and 0023), wherein the method is practiced by administering as long as required, e.g., weeks, months or years, to see an improvement in oxidative stress (De Groote, e.g., 0073).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to practice a method for treating oxidative stress and antioxidant supplementation comprising administering a composition comprising oleuropein and magnesium as understood from Mehansho by administering the composition daily through an oral route and administering the composition for as long as required to see an improvement in oxidative stress parameters as suggested by De Groote. The skilled artisan would have optimized Mehansho’s method by adjusting the duration of administration within the time frames suggested by De Groote to manage oxidative stress as desired by Mehansho with a reasonable expectation of success.
Applicable to claim 14: subjects may be elderly (De Groote, e.g., 0041). De Groote also teaches oxidative stress is increased in middle aged and elderly people (De Groote, e.g., 0008), e.g., women aged 40-48 years (De Groote, e.g., 0006). The claimed at least 45 years reads on middle-aged and elderly people and De Groote identifies at least one patient population which overlaps with the claimed age.
Applicable to claims 16 and 17: De Groote teaches doses of compositions for treating oxidative stress may be administered as long as required, e.g., days, weeks, months, or years to see an improvement in oxidative stress parameters. The claimed range overlaps with months or years as suggested by De Groote. Since Mehansho teaches practicing the method for, e.g., managing oxidative stress (Mehansho, e.g., Abstract, 0114, 0056-0059, and 0122-0123), the skilled artisan would have been motivated to practice the method over known time frames, e.g., months, years, or as long as required for managing oxidative stress as suggested by De Groote.
Accordingly, the subject matter of claims 1-2, 6-7, 9 and 13-19 would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention, absent evidence to the contrary.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 9 and 13-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-13 of US 18866398 in view of Mehansho, US 20180042287 and De Groote, US 20120009276.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The reference claims teach methods for increasing antioxidant capacity, reducing oxidative stress and/or enhancing mitochondrial function, comprising administering to the individual a composition comprising a combination of oleuropein and/or a metabolite thereof in a therapeutically effective amount. The method comprises administering compositions daily for at least one week (claim 5). The composition may be in the form of a solid powder, a powdered stick, a capsule and a solution (claim 10).
The reference claims do not expressly teach wherein the composition comprises magnesium. However, this defect is cured by the teachings of Mehansho enumerated above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to modify the method of the reference claims by including an effective amount of magnesium with a reasonable expectation of success. Since Mehansho teaches magnesium reduces oxidative stress in combination with oleuropein, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to include magnesium in the composition of the reference claim’s method with a reasonable expectation of success.
The additional teachings of Mehansho addressing limitations of the dependent claims enumerated above apply here.
The reference claims do not expressly teach wherein the human is at least 45 years old. However, the teachings of De Groote cure this deficiency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to practice a method suggested by the reference claims as modified according to Mehansho by administering the composition to individuals who are middle aged, elderly, or aged in the range of 40-48 as identified in De Groote with a reasonable expectation of success. Since De Groote identifies individuals who are middle aged, elderly, or aged in the range of 40-48 are in need of treatment to manage oxidative stress, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to practice a method for managing oxidative stress suggested by the reference claims as modified according to Mehansho on subjects identified in De Groote as known to be in need of treatment for managing oxidative stress with a reasonable expectation of success.
Accordingly, the subject matter of claims 1-2, 6-7, 9 and 13-19 would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention, absent evidence to the contrary.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 9 and 13-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-12 of US 18547932 in view of Mehansho, US 20180042287 and De Groote, US 20120009276.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The reference claims teach methods for increasing antioxidant capacity, reducing oxidative stress and/or enhancing mitochondrial function, comprising administering to the individual a composition comprising a combination of oleuropein and/or a metabolite thereof in a therapeutically effective amount. The method comprises administering compositions daily for at least one week (claim 4). The composition may be in the form of a solid powder, a powdered stick, a capsule and a solution (claim 8).
The reference claims do not expressly teach wherein the composition comprises magnesium. However, this defect is cured by the teachings of Mehansho enumerated above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to modify the method of the reference claims by including an effective amount of magnesium with a reasonable expectation of success. Since Mehansho teaches magnesium reduces oxidative stress in combination with oleuropein, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to include magnesium in the composition of the reference claim’s method with a reasonable expectation of success.
The additional teachings of Mehansho addressing limitations of the dependent claims enumerated above apply here.
The reference claims do not expressly teach wherein the human is at least 45 years old. However, the teachings of De Groote cure this deficiency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to practice a method suggested by the reference claims as modified according to Mehansho by administering the composition to individuals who are middle aged, elderly, or aged in the range of 40-48 as identified in De Groote with a reasonable expectation of success. Since De Groote identifies individuals who are middle aged, elderly, or aged in the range of 40-48 are in need of treatment to manage oxidative stress, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to practice a method for managing oxidative stress suggested by the reference claims as modified according to Mehansho on subjects identified in De Groote as known to be in need of treatment for managing oxidative stress with a reasonable expectation of success.
Accordingly, the subject matter of claims 1-2, 6-7, 9 and 13-19 would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention, absent evidence to the contrary.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 9 and 13-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-11 of US 18253428 in view of Mehansho, US 20180042287 and De Groote, US 20120009276.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The reference claims teach methods for increasing antioxidant capacity, reducing oxidative stress and/or enhancing mitochondrial function, comprising administering to the individual a composition comprising a combination of oleuropein and/or a metabolite thereof in a therapeutically effective amount. The method comprises administering compositions daily for at least one week (claim 4). The composition may be in the form of a solid powder, a powdered stick, a capsule and a solution (claim 8).
The reference claims do not expressly teach wherein the composition comprises magnesium. However, this defect is cured by the teachings of Mehansho enumerated above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to modify the method of the reference claims by including an effective amount of magnesium with a reasonable expectation of success. Since Mehansho teaches magnesium reduces oxidative stress in combination with oleuropein, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to include magnesium in the composition of the reference claim’s method with a reasonable expectation of success.
The additional teachings of Mehansho addressing limitations of the dependent claims enumerated above apply here.
The reference claims do not expressly teach wherein the human is at least 45 years old. However, the teachings of De Groote cure this deficiency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to practice a method suggested by the reference claims as modified according to Mehansho by administering the composition to individuals who are middle aged, elderly, or aged in the range of 40-48 as identified in De Groote with a reasonable expectation of success. Since De Groote identifies individuals who are middle aged, elderly, or aged in the range of 40-48 are in need of treatment to manage oxidative stress, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to practice a method for managing oxidative stress suggested by the reference claims as modified according to Mehansho on subjects identified in De Groote as known to be in need of treatment for managing oxidative stress with a reasonable expectation of success.
Accordingly, the subject matter of claims 1-2, 6-7, 9 and 13-19 would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention, absent evidence to the contrary.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 9 and 13-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-13 of US 18253419 in view of Mehansho, US 20180042287 and De Groote, US 20120009276.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The reference claims teach methods for increasing antioxidant capacity, reducing oxidative stress and/or enhancing mitochondrial function, comprising administering to the individual a composition comprising a combination of oleuropein and/or a metabolite thereof and quercetin and/or a derivative, in a therapeutically effective amount. The method comprises administering compositions daily for at least one week (claim 4). The composition may be in the form of a solid powder, a powdered stick, a capsule and a solution (claim 9).
The reference claims do not expressly teach wherein the composition comprises magnesium. However, this defect is cured by the teachings of Mehansho enumerated above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to modify the method of the reference claims by including an effective amount of magnesium with a reasonable expectation of success. Since Mehansho teaches magnesium reduces oxidative stress in combination with oleuropein, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to include magnesium in the composition of the reference claim’s method with a reasonable expectation of success.
The additional teachings of Mehansho addressing limitations of the dependent claims enumerated above apply here.
The reference claims do not expressly teach wherein the human is at least 45 years old. However, the teachings of De Groote cure this deficiency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to practice a method suggested by the reference claims as modified according to Mehansho by administering the composition to individuals who are middle aged, elderly, or aged in the range of 40-48 as identified in De Groote with a reasonable expectation of success. Since De Groote identifies individuals who are middle aged, elderly, or aged in the range of 40-48 are in need of treatment to manage oxidative stress, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to practice a method for managing oxidative stress suggested by the reference claims as modified according to Mehansho on subjects identified in De Groote as known to be in need of treatment for managing oxidative stress with a reasonable expectation of success.
Accordingly, the subject matter of claims 1-2, 6-7, 9 and 13-19 would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention, absent evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 WILLIAM A CRAIGO whose telephone number is (571)270-1347. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9am - 6pm, PDT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert A WAX can be reached on 571-272-0623. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM CRAIGO/Examiner, Art Unit 1615
/SUSAN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Prosecution Insights