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 . Claims 1-22 are pending; claims 12-19 are withdrawn according to election of 11 November 2025; claims 1-11 and 20-22 are examined.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 04 May 2026, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (New)
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.
Claims 1-11 and 20-22 are 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.
The term “directly” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “directly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. At best, page 3, paragraph 4 of the instant Specification discloses silicon particles produced by a direct CVD process without a subsequent milling process, are attractive for use in drug delivery. However, it is unclear what standards are used to determine whether a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process is or is not “direct” such that one of ordinary skill in the art would know whether a silicon bead produced by a CVD process infringes on the claimed invention.
Claims 2-11 and 20-22 are rejected as they depend from claim 1 and do not provide further clarification. It is noted that claims 3 and 4, while reciting not comprising milling the silicon particles and comprising non-etched particles, respectively, do not clarify whether such steps or characteristics define “direct” CVD.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (Maintained and New)
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, 3-5, 7-8, 10, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puebla et al. (EP 2946793 A1, 11/25/2015, IDS reference) (hereinafter Puebla).
(Note: in the previous Office action, claim 8 was mistyped as claim 6. It has been corrected below.)
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 22, Puebla discloses a process of producing silicon particles by means of chemical vapor deposition (CVD) in a reactor ([0101], Ex. 1 [0158]-[0159]), where an anticancer drug may be loaded on these particles ([0171]-[0173]). Puebla further discloses wherein the silica surface may be functionalized with a functional group capable of setting up a bond with an enzymatically metabolizable compound ([0052]). The functional group(s) include those obtained from the reaction of silica groups present on the surface of the particle with a functionalizing agent such as silane, including halosilanes ([0052]). The term “bond” indicates attraction between atoms and includes “strong” bonds and “weak bonds” such as London dispersion forces ([0019]).
Accordingly, Puebla discloses a process of preparing silicone particles comprising at least one drug substance, comprising the steps of preparing silicone particles via chemical vapor deposition ([0158]-[0159]), and loading the silicon articles with at least one drug substance ([0171]-[0173]), wherein the loading includes bonding with weak bonds such as London dispersion forces. Together these would provide a process as instantly claimed. The prior art is not anticipatory insofar as this combination must be selected from various lists/locations in the reference. It would have been obvious, however, to make the combination since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A).
As noted by p. 3, ¶ 4 of the instant Specification, “direct” CVD process include those without a subsequent milling process. Thus it would reasonably appear the CVD process of Puebla meets the claimed limitation of a “direct” CVD process since Puebla does not explicitly disclose wherein the CVD process requires subsequent milling process.
Regarding claims 1 and 20 reciting wherein the drug is in the form of a “free drug substance,” as discussed above, Puebla discloses wherein the bonds include London forces. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have expected the drug to be in the form of a “free drug substance” as instantly claimed.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Puebla does not explicitly disclose wherein the CVD process requires milling the silicon particles or etching the silicon particles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the CVD of Puebla does not comprise milling the silicon particles, or that the silicon particles of Puebla are non-etched silicon particles, respectively, as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 5, since Puebla discloses loading the silicon particles with an anticancer drug, mixing the silicon particles with the anticancer drug would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 8, Puebla further discloses wherein “silicon” refers to element Si ([0037]). Regarding the claimed amounts of elemental silicon (i.e. at least 50% by weight), although Puebla does not explicitly disclose an amount, it would have taken no more than the relative skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at the claimed amount of elemental silicon through routine experimentation depending on the microspheres desired. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 7, Puebla further discloses wherein the silicon particles comprise amorphous silicon ([0158]-[0159]). Regarding the claimed amounts of amorphous silicon (i.e. at least 50% by weight), although Puebla does not explicitly disclose an amount, it would have taken no more than the relative skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at the claimed amount of elemental silicon through routine experimentation depending on the microspheres desired. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant mainly asserts Puebla does not disclose the feature of at least one drug substance being in the form of a free drug substance since Puebla teaches wherein silicon particles possess a silica surface and have bonded thereto either an enzymatically metabolizable compound and/or a targeting moiety. As such, the compound and/or moiety of Puebla are covalently bonded to the particles and thus not in free form.
The Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. A prior art reference is evaluated for all that it reasonably suggests and is not limited to preferred embodiments and working examples. See MPEP 2123. Therefore the teachings of Puebla are not limited to covalently bonded active compounds. In this instant case, Puebla discloses in para. [0019] wherein the term “bond” encompasses strong and weak bonds, including the London dispersion forces. Thus it appears Puebla teaches or at least suggests wherein the active is not required to be only covalently bonded to the silicon particle. As such, Applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive.
Applicant mainly asserts Puebla’s silica particle surface is further functionalized and thus do not read on the instant claims.
The Examiner does not find the Applicant’s assertion to be persuasive. Puebla discloses silica particles made by CVD without further milling or etching, loaded with anticancer medicine via bonds including London dispersion forces, thus meeting the limitations of the silicon particles preparation process as claimed in their current scope. The prior art is not anticipatory insofar as this combination must be selected from various lists/locations in the reference. It would have been obvious, however, to make the combination since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A). Moreover, it is noted that the instant claims employ the open-ended transitional term “comprising,” which would not exclude, arguably, a step of functionalization. As such, Applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive.
Applicant further asserts on p. 8 of the Remarks filed 04 May 2026 that the instantly claimed silicon particles produced directly by a CVD process, i.e., without a subsequent milling or further transformation process, and which are loaded with a drug substance in the form of a free drug substance or a cyclodextrin complex, have the advantageous properties of high drug loading, improved drug release profile, improved stability and/or good safety profile, as demonstrated by Examples 13 and 17-19, which could not have been predicted by Puebla.
The Examiner does not find the Applicant’s assertion to be persuasive. The rationale for obviousness has been detailed in the rejection supra, and the Examiner’s rationale need not be the same as Applicant’s to establish obviousness. See MPEP 2144(IV).
Regarding allegations of unexpected results, Applicant has the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. See MPEP § 716.02(b)(II). Applicant has explained that various statements referenced in the specification support their position, but these cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See MPEP § 716.01(c)(II). Moreover, any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some difference in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. The burden is on applicant to establish that the results are in fact really unexpected and of statistical and practical significance. Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). See also MPEP § 716.02. Applicant does not appear to have discussed same (at least in specific detail) with respect to the putative probative value of the objective data in the working examples referenced (i.e. Examples 13 and 17-19).
Finally, assuming purely arguendo that the unexpectedness of the results has been established, the probative value of the evidence as compared to the invention as claimed must then be determined, i.e., the claims must be “commensurate in scope” with the showing. MPEP § 716.02(d). See also MPEP § 2145. Applicant must explain the “manner in which the specific compositions illustrated are considered to be commensurate in scope with the claimed invention”; see Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992); see also MPEP 716.02, citing same. Examples 13 and 17-19 employ specific process steps in a specific reactor, and even if Applicant were to show unexpected results, they would have been obtained, for example, not with the step of “directly via chemical vapor deposition (CVD)” and “loading with at least one drug substance” (in the form of free drug substance or a cyclodextrin complex) generally, but instead with specific reactor and steps. Note for example, Examples 13 and 17-19 of the instant Specification utilize amorphous cCVD-SP “stable aggregates” formed from specifically centrifuge CVD in a particular reactor (i.e. such as those described in claim 2) through specific process steps (i.e. such as those described on p. 40, last ¶ of the instant Specification), wherein the actives were then dissolved in a solvent, mixed with the SP aggregates, then dried at 50 degrees centigrade for 24 hours. Applicant would need to explain how these specific process steps are “reasonably representative” of the more broadly claimed subject matter of the claims.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puebla et al. (EP 2946793 A1, 11/25/2015, IDS reference) (hereinafter Puebla) in view of Lumen et al. (“Investigation of silicon nanoparticles produced by centrifuge chemical vapor deposition for applications in therapy and diagnostics”, 12/3/2020, IDS reference) (hereinafter Lumen).
(Note: in the previous Office action, claim 8 was mistyped as claim 6. It has been corrected below.)
The disclosure of Puebla has been discussed in detail above, and differs from the instant claim insofar as not explicitly disclosing wherein the silicon particles comprises crystalline silicon.
However, Lumen discloses silicon particles produced by centrifuge chemical vapor deposition (CVD) using elemental silicon (abs), producing amorphous silicon particles that can be further crystallized thermally (p.261, col. 2, ¶ 2, lns. 11-13). Lumen further discloses wherein said process circumvents the limitations of milling (p.264, col. 2, ¶ 2, lns. 3-5).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further crystallized the silicon particles of Puebla since it is a known and effective process suitable for production of silicon particles through chemical vapor deposition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant does not present specific arguments with regard to Puebla and Lumen.
Since the Examiner has discussed Puebla above, this rejection is maintained.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puebla et al. (EP 2946793 A1, 11/25/2015, IDS reference) (hereinafter Puebla) in view of Xu (“Synthesis, characterization and functionalization of silicon nanoparticle based hybrid nanomaterials for photovoltaic and biological applications”, 2014, IDS reference).
The disclosure of Puebla has been discussed in detail supra, and differs from the instant claim insofar as not explicitly disclosing wherein the drug is in the form of a cyclodextrin complex.
However, Xu discloses wherein silicon nanoparticles may be loaded with a drug by mixing with molecules such as cyclodextrin, which can be used in cancer therapy (p.231-239).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formulated the silicon particles of Puebla such that the drug is in the form of a cyclodextrin complex, since it is a known and effective way to deliver cancer therapy drugs loaded onto silicon particles as taught by Xu.
Response to Arguments
Applicant asserts Xu has not carried out further testing on such materials and the therapeutic applications which are suggested in Xu are limited to phototherapy, thus neither Puebla nor Xu suggest the results (i.e. significant improvements in release of the drug substance) of the claimed process.
The Examiner does not find the Applicant’s assertion to be persuasive. It is noted that the alleged features/results (improvements in release of drug substance) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the Specification, limitations from the Specification are not read into the claims. Thus silicon particles that are prepared by any CVD process, without further milling or etching, loaded with a drug that is merely able to be in the form of a cyclodextrin complex are not excluded from the current scope of the claim. Moreover, Puebla discloses in paras. [0024] and [0027] wherein the active compound may include a glucopyranoside, including derivatives thereof. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Puebla does not exclude the inclusion of a glucopyranoside derivative such as cyclodextrin. As such, Applicant’s assertion is not persuasive.
Claims 11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puebla et al. (EP 2946793 A1, 11/25/2015, IDS reference) (hereinafter Puebla) in view of Sailor et al. (US 2021/0000744 A1, priority 03/26/2019) (hereinafter Sailor).
The disclosure of Puebla has been discussed in detail supra, and differs from the instant claim insofar as not explicitly disclosing a claimed drug.
However, Sailor discloses drug delivery formulations comprising a silicon material including particles (abs, [0010]). The silicon particles may include one or more drugs or therapeutic agents including cancer therapeutic agents, postoperative pain therapeutic agents, and polyketide therapeutic agents such as amphotericin B ([0076], [0127]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to included pain therapeutic agents (i.e. analgesics) or amphotericin B (i.e. antifungal) in the silicon particles of Puebla, since it is a known and effective drug suitable for silicon particle drug delivery formulations as taught by Sailor. Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant does not present specific arguments with regard to Puebla and Sailor.
Since the Examiner has discussed Puebla above, this rejection is maintained.
Claims 1-8, 10, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puebla et al. (EP 2946793 A1, 11/25/2015, IDS reference) (hereinafter Puebla) in view of Filtvedt et al. (US 2014/0242783 A1, 08/28/2014, hereinafter Filtvedt).
The disclosure of Puebla has been discussed in detail above. While Puebla is believed to support a finding of anticipation or obviousness, purely arguendo, for the purposes of complete prosecution, and for the purposes of this ground of rejection only, Puebla will be interpreted as though it does not explicitly disclose a “direct” CVD process.
However, Filtvedt discloses a process of producing silicon by chemical vapor deposition (CVD) in a reactor, the reactor comprises a reactor body that can rotate around an axis with the help of a rotation device operatively arranged to the reactor, at least one sidewall that surrounds the reactor body, at least one inlet for reaction gas, at least one outlet for residual gas and at least one heat appliance operatively arranged to the reactor. The reactor is characterized in that during operation for the manufacture of silicon by CVD, the reactor comprises a layer of particles on the inside of at least, one sidewall (abs). Such characteristics provide the advantage that the reactor rotates during operation, forming silicon particles that are easier to remove ([0009]) and the production process can be operated much more continuously, reducing the production cost ([0010]).
Accordingly, regarding claims 1-2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formulated the silicon particles of Puebla in a reactor of Filtvedt since it is a known and effective reactor suitable for performing CVD while providing easier removal of silicon particles and reduced production cost as taught by Filtvedt. As noted by p. 3, ¶ 4 of the instant Specification, “direct” CVD process include those without a subsequent milling process. Thus it would reasonably appear the CVD process of Filtvedt meets the claimed limitation of a “direct” CVD process.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Puebla does not explicitly disclose wherein the CVD process requires milling the silicon particles or etching the silicon particles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the CVD of Puebla does not comprise milling the silicon particles, or that the silicon particles of Puebla are non-etched silicon particles, respectively, as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 5, since Puebla discloses loading the silicon particles with an anticancer drug, mixing the silicon particles with the anticancer drug would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Puebla differs from the instant claim insofar as not explicitly disclosing wherein the silicon particles comprise crystalline silicon. However, Filtvedt further discloses wherein the reactor can form different types of silicon particles by controlling the concentration and pressure of the reaction gas and temperature and speed of rotation of the reactor so that amorphous and/or crystalline silicon product is produced ([0022]). Accordingly, it would have taken no more than the relative skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at the claimed amount of crystalline silicon through routine experimentation depending on the processing temperature and final product desired. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 7, Puebla further discloses wherein the silicon particles comprise amorphous silicon ([0158]-[0159]). Regarding the claimed amounts of amorphous silicon (i.e. at least 50% by weight), although Puebla does not explicitly disclose an amount, it would have taken no more than the relative skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at the claimed amount of elemental silicon through routine experimentation depending on the microspheres desired. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 8, Puebla further discloses wherein “silicon” refers to element Si ([0037]). Regarding the claimed amounts of elemental silicon (i.e. at least 50% by weight), although Puebla does not explicitly disclose an amount, it would have taken no more than the relative skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at the claimed amount of elemental silicon through routine experimentation depending on the microspheres desired. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claims 10 and 22, as discussed above, Puebla discloses wherein an anticancer drug may be loaded onto the silicon particles. Accordingly, Puebla discloses wherein the silicon particles comprise a drug with effect on the immune system as instantly claimed.
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.
Claims 1-11 and 20-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10, 12-18 and 20-22 of copending Application No. 18/556,490 (reference application) in view of Puebla, Lumen, Xu, and Sailor.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending claims encompass same or substantially similar scope as the instant claims (i.e. silicon particles for drug delivery prepared via centrifuge chemical vapor deposition (CVD)).
Moreover, in any case, the various features recited in the instant claims are known in the art. As noted in the current rejections, the teachings of Puebla render obvious claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10, 20, and 22. Furthermore, the combined teachings of Puebla and Lumen render obvious claim 6; the combined teachings of Puebla and Xu render obvious claim 9; the combined teachings of Puebla and Sailor render obvious claims 11 and 21; and the combined teachings of Puebla and Filtvedt render obvious claims 1-8, 10, 20 and 22.
Therefore, as claims 1-10, 12-18, and 20-22 of copending Application No. 18/556,490, Puebla, Lumen, Xu, Sailor and Filtvedt all disclose silicon particles, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the copending application and to include the teachings of Puebla, Lumen, Xu, Sailor and Filtvedt as discussed in the rejections above, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as instantly claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." See MPEP 2144.06(I).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant does not present specific arguments with regard to the copending claims, Puebla, Lumen, Xu, Sailor, and Filtvedt, thus this rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCY TIEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8267. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 AM - 6:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SAHANA KAUP can be reached at (571) 272-6897. 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.
/LUCY M TIEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/SAHANA S KAUP/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights