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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-12 and species: a) shell forming component - cetyl alcohol, b) another substance - sorbitol, c) cannabinoid component - cannabidiol (CBD), d) solvent -dichloromethane, and e) medical condition - arthritis, in the reply filed on 04/23/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). The restriction/election is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Upon further search and consideration the species b) another substance is broadened to include: calcium carbonate, sodium carbonate, calcium phosphate, dicalcium phosphate, calcium sulfate, calcium hydrogen phosphate, sodium phosphate lactose, sucrose, cellulose, microcrystalline cellulose, mannitol, sorbitol, inositol, sodium chloride, dry starch, cornstarch, and powdered sugar.
Upon further search and consideration the species c) cannabinoid component is broadened to include: delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), cannabidiol, cannabinol, and cannabigerol.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/11/2025 is being considered by the examiner.. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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.
Claim 2 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.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For the purpose of moving prosecution forward, Examiner broadly interprets this component to not be a required limitation of the claim.
Claim 4 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.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "e.g." which the examiner interprets to be the abbreviation for “for example” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For the purpose of moving prosecution forward, Examiner broadly interprets these components to not be a required limitation of the claim.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 10 and 12 utilize the phrase “in particular” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For the purpose of moving prosecution forward, Examiner broadly interprets these components to not be a required limitation of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White et al. (US 2017/0151339, published 01 Jun 2017, hereafter White) in view of Kaufman et al. (WO 2016/144376, published 15 September 2016, listed in IDS filed 11 July 2022, hereafter Kaufman) as evidenced by PubChem (U.S. National Library of Medicine. (n.d.-a). Dichloromethane. National Center for Biotechnology Information. PubChem Compound Database. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Dichloromethane, published 5/22/2020, via wayback machine, hereafter Pubchem).
White teaches particles such as nanoparticles and microparticles comprising conjugates of an active agent such as a therapeutic, prophylactic or diagnostic agent attached to a targeting moiety (abstract; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). White teaches that the particles are useful for treating diseases that are susceptible to the active agent such as treating cancer or infectious disease ([0007], [0599]; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). White teaches that the particles may be solid lipid particles ([0265], [0311]; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). White teaches that the lipids may be neutral, anionic or cationic at physiologic pH and the lipid particle is made from one or more biocompatible lipids ([0311]; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). White teaches a method of making particles that includes combining a conjugate and a base component in an organic solution to form a first organic phase and combining the first organic phase with a first aqueous solution to form a second phase and emulsifying the second phase to form an emulsion phase and then recovering particles ([0535]; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). White teaches that methods of making lipid particles such as solid lipid particles are known in the art and include techniques such as solvent diffusion methods ([0574]; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). White teaches that the solvent emulsification-diffusion method includes first dissolving the lipid in an organic phase and using an aqueous phase to induce lipid coacervation ([0587]; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). White teaches that the organic phase may be methylene chloride ([0536]; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 8-10). As evidenced by Pubchem, the solubility of dichloromethane (methylene chloride) is 13,200 mg/L (13.2 g/L) at 25 °C (page 1, synonyms and page 7, section 3.2.6 solubility; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 8-10). Methylene chloride thus necessarily meets the solvent solubility requirements of claims 1 and 10. White teaches targeting specific proteins with the particles such as cannabinoid receptors 1 and 2 ([0227 page 37]; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 8-10). Further, White teaches the addition of pharmaceutically acceptable excipients to include but are not limited to, inert diluents, dispersing and/or granulating agents, surface active agents and/or emulsifiers, disintegrating agents, binding agents, preservatives, buffering agents, lubricating agents, and/or oils ([0383]; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 2-3). White further teaches exemplary diluents include, but are not limited to, calcium carbonate, sodium carbonate, calcium phosphate, dicalcium phosphate, calcium sulfate, calcium hydrogen phosphate, sodium phosphate lactose, sucrose, cellulose, microcrystalline cellulose, kaolin, mannitol, sorbitol, inositol, sodium chloride, dry starch, cornstarch, powdered sugar, etc., and/or combinations thereof ([0383]; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 2-4).
White does not teach cetyl alcohol as the lipid component in the instant claim 11 or cannabic components such as cannabindiol as the active agents. These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Kaufman.
Kaufman teaches lipid nanoparticle compositions of cannabinoids (title). Kaufman teaches the nanoparticles encapsulating cannabinoids with biocompatible biodegradable essential phospholipids and lipids that are FDA approved and safe as nanoparticles ([00116]). Kaufman teaches that the cannabinoids are used to treat various diseases such as cancer ([0043]). Kaufman teaches that cannabis-based medications exert their effects mainly through activation of cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2 ([0002]). Kaufman teaches that the lipid nanoparticles encapsulate cannabinoids ([0019], [0033]). Kaufman teaches that the lipid nanoparticles comprise at least one of the phytocannabinoids found in cannabis such as delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), cannabidiol, cannabinol and cannabigerol ([00145]). As the particles only require “at least one of the phytocannabinoids” it is thus obvious to include a single cannabinoid such as THC or a combination of cannabinoids including THC, rendering obvious the delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabinoids, to include cannabidiol of claim 6. Kaufman teaches that the lipid nanoparticles may be formed through processes such as solvent displacement or emulsification-solvent diffusion ([00207]). Further, Kaufman teaches an intraoral delivery which comprises both THC and cannabidiol (CBD) ([0014]). Kaufman teaches that non-bilayer lipids may be used in place of phospholipids for the nanoparticles and teaches the use of cetyl alcohol as a lipid for forming the lipid particles ([00189]). Regarding the ratio of the cannabis component to shell-forming component as in claim 12, Kaufman teaches that the weight ratio of cannabinoid to the structural phospholipid and lipids is from about 3:1 to about 1:2 ([00177]), rendering obvious the ratios of the instant claims.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a method of forming solid lipid particles comprising cetyl alcohol encapsulating cannabinoids such as THC, cannabidiol, cannabinol and cannabigerol where the particles were formed through an emulsification diffusion method where the cetyl alcohol and cannabinoid active component are prepared in methylene chloride and introduced to an aqueous component where the lipids coacervate to form particles. The formation of solid lipid particles is obvious from the teachings of White and the emulsification diffusion method renders obvious the forming particles through solvent migration between the solvent and aqueous medium as recited in the instant claims. Lipid particles are likewise known from Kaufman and the inclusion of cannabinoids and cetyl alcohol as the lipid component for forming the particles is taught by Kaufman. As Kaufman teaches an emulsification solvent diffusion method to form particles similar to White, one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in forming the lipid particles with cetyl alcohol as it is a lipid known to be suitable for forming such particles, as is taught by Kaufman. Further, one would be motivated to use cetyl alcohol as the encapsulating lipid as Kaufman teaches FDA approved and safe lipids for forming particles and it would be desirable to use a safe lipid for administering to patients. It further would have been obvious to include cannabinoids such as THC, cannabidiol, cannabinol and cannabigerol in the method of producing particles as such cannabinoids are known for inclusion of particles and are known for treating various conditions such as cancer, as taught by Kaufman. The particles of White are taught to include active that may be used for conditions such as cancer, providing motivation to include cannabinoids in the particles for their association with treating cancer and one would have a reasonable expectation of success as cannabinoids have been demonstrated to be able to be encapsulated in lipid particles.
Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White et al. (US 2017/0151339, published 01 Jun 2017, hereafter White) in view of Kaufman et al. (WO 2016/144376, published 15 September 2016, listed in IDS filed 11 July 2022, hereafter Kaufman), and in view of FDA (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Size, shape, and other physical attributes of generic tablets and capsules. (n.d.-b). https://www.fda.gov/files/drugs/published/Size--Shape--and-Other-Physical-Attributes-of-Generic-Tablets-and-Capsules.pdf, published June 2015, hereafter FDA), and as evidenced by PubChem (U.S. National Library of Medicine. (n.d.-a). Dichloromethane. National Center for Biotechnology Information. PubChem Compound Database. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Dichloromethane, published 5/22/2020, via wayback machine, hereafter Pubchem).
As outlined above, White in view of Kaufman as evidenced by Pubchem teaches the process of instant claim 1.
White further teaches the term “sufficient” and “effective”, as used interchangeably herein, refer to an amount (e.g., mass, volume, dosage, concentration, and/or time period) needed to achieve one or more desired result(s) and further teaches “therapeutically effective amount” is at least the minimum concentration required to effect a measurable improvement or prevention of at least one symptom or a particular condition or disorder, to effect a measurable enhancement of life expectancy, or to generally improve patient quality of life ([0065]). White teaches solid dosage forms of tablets, dragees, capsules, pills, and granules can be prepared with coatings and shells such as enteric coatings and other coatings well known in the pharmaceutical formulating art ([0524]).
However, White and Kaufman fails to teach the volume of the tablet or pill as in instant claim 5.
FDA teaches while generic formulations of these drug products are required to be both pharmaceutically and therapeutically equivalent to a reference listed drug (RLD), we are concerned that differences in physical characteristics (e.g., size and shape of the tablet or capsule) may affect patient 24 compliance and acceptability of medication regimens or could lead to medication errors (page 1, paragraph 3). FDA teaches those who experience difficulty swallowing medications, less than a quarter discuss the problem with a health care professional, 8 percent admit to skipping a dose of prescribed medication, and 4 percent have discontinued therapy because the tablets and/or capsules were difficult to swallow (page 2, paragraph 4). FDA further teaches individuals who find it difficult to 63 swallow tablets and capsules frequently cite the size as the main reason for the difficulty in 64 swallowing (page 2, paragraph 4). FDA teaches for comparable ease of swallowing as well as patient acceptance and compliance with treatment regimens, the agency recommends that generic oral tablets and capsules intended to be swallowed intact should be of a similar size to the corresponding RLD (page 4, last paragraph). FDA teaches the RLD is less than 17mm in its largest dimension (which calculates to a volume of less than 4.9cm3) and teaches the generic product should be no larger than the volume of the RLD (page 5, first paragraph).
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would modify a process of preparing a cannabinoid particle to include the particle in a pill/tablet as outlined by White and Kaufman by addition of the tablet or pill being less than 4.9cm3 as outlined by FDA under TSM, see MPEP 2143(G). As outlined by FDA, swallowing difficulties is a common issue due to the large size of tablets or pills and a volume of less than 4.9cm3 would help prevent this issue which would motivate someone skilled in the art to advantageously combine the tablet of FDA with the process of White in view of Kaufman as it would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White et al. (US 2017/0151339, published 01 Jun 2017) in view of Kaufman et al. (WO 2016/144376, published 15 September 2016, listed in IDS filed 11 July 2022) as evidenced PubChem (U.S. National Library of Medicine. (n.d.-a). Dichloromethane. National Center for Biotechnology Information. PubChem Compound Database. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Dichloromethane, published 5/22/2020, via wayback machine, hereafter Pubchem). as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 8-12 above and further in view of Jones (Pharma, P., Hempmed, & Hempmed Pharma. (2019, November 25). Full-spectrum cannabis extracts vs CBD isolate. Hempmed Pharma. https://hempmedpharma.com/full-spectrum-cannabis-extracts-vs-cbd-isolate/, hereafter Jones).
The teachings of White and Kaufman are described supra. Kaufman teaches the nanoparticles may comprise the full range of phytocannabinoids and phytochemicals found in cannabis extract ([00146]) but White and Kaufman do not specifically teach that the cannabis component comprises a whole-plant cannabis extract as in claim 7. This deficiency is made up for in the teachings of Jones.
Jones teaches that cannabis contains over 100 active cannabinoids and terpenes which have anti-inflammatory properties and increase the efficacy of cannabinoids (page 1 paragraph 4). Jones teaches the two most common forms of extracted CBD are full-spectrum (whole-plant extract) and pure CBD isolates (page 2, paragraph 2). Jones teaches that whole plant extracts contain THC and that when present together that CBD and its cannabinoid colleagues as well as terpenes produce what is known as an entourage effect which is a synergistic relationship between cannabinoids and terpenes that has been shown to increase the healing properties of each (page 2, paragraph 5).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a whole plant cannabis extract as the cannabinoid in the particles formed in the method rendered obvious over White and Kaufman. The inclusion of cannabinoids is obvious and it is further known that the particles may contain a full range of phytocannabinoids and phytochemicals, as taught by Kaufman, rendering it obvious to include many cannabinoid related compound. The many types of cannabinoids and terpenes present in a whole plant cannabis extract provides an entourage effect which is a synergistic relationship that increases healing properties, as taught by Jones. Thus, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use a whole-plant cannabis extract in the particles for the synergistic relationship and increased healing properties.
Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references.
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 and 6-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 and 20-21 of copending Application No. 17/792,088 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
17/792,088 claims a process for preparing cannabinoid-containing particles comprising (a) providing a solution wherein the following components are dissolved in a solvent that has a water solubility in the range of 2-100 g/L at 25oC: (a1) a cannabis component comprising delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, and (a2) a shell forming component comprising one or more compounds selected from the group of C10-C30 fatty alcohols, C10-C30 fatty acids and esters of C10-C30 fatty alcohols and C10-C30 fatty acids (claim 1; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 6). Claim 1 of 17/792,088 further claims the process comprising (b) generating droplets of the solution in an aqueous medium to thereby from solid cannabinoid-containing particles and a shell of the shell-forming component which encapsulates the cannabis component (according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). 17/792,088 claims the wherein at least 99 wt.% of the cannabis component consists of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and one or more cannabinoids selected from the group consisting of cannabidiol, cannabinol and cannabigerol (claim 2; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 6). 17/792,088 claims the at least 99 wt.% of the cannabis component consists of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (claim 3; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 6). Claim 4 of 17/792,088 claims the cannabis component comprises a whole-plant cannabis extract (according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 7). Claim 5 of 17/792,088 claims the solvent is selected from the group of benzyl alcohol, 1-butanol, n-butyl acetate, gamma butyrolacton, chloroform, 1,2-dichloroethane, diethylene glycol, diethyl ether, diethoxyethane, diisopropyl ether, dimethyl sulfoxide, ethyl acetate, methyl t-butyl ether, methylene chloride, N-methyl-2-pyrrolidinone, nitromethane, 1-pentanol, 2- pentanol, 3-pentanol, 3-pentanone, benzaldehyde, prenol, o-cresol, m-cresol, and p-cresol (according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 8-10). Claim 6 of 17/792,088 claims the solvent is benzyl alcohol or methylene chloride (according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 8-10). Claim 7 of 17/792,088 claims the solvent has a solubility in water that is in the range of 8-80 g/L at 25 *C (according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 8-10). Claim 8 of 17/792,088 claims the shell- forming component comprises cetyl alcohol and/or cetyl palmitate (according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 11). Claim 9 of 17/792,088 claims the weight ratio of cannabis component to shell-forming component in the solution is in the range of 0.25 :0.75 to 0.95 :0.05 (according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 12). Claim 20 of 17/792,088 claims the solvent has a solubility in water that is in the range of 10-40 g/L at 25 *C (according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 8-10). Lastly, claim 21 of 17/792,088 claims the weight ratio of the cannabis component to the shell-forming component in the solution is in the range of 0.55 :0.45 to 0.75 :0.25 (according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 8-10).
17/792,088 does not teach with sufficient specificity to anticipate and so the claims are obvious. It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to rearrange the teachings of 17/792,088 with a reasonable expectation of success to obtain the process of the instant claims.
A reference is analyzed using its broadest teachings. MPEP 2123 [R-5]. “[W]hen a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious”. KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S,Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007)(quoting Sakraida v. A.G. Pro, 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976). “[W]hen the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious”, the relevant question is “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” (Id.). Addressing the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court noted that the analysis under 35 USC 103 “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007). The Court emphasized that “[a] person of ordinary skill is… a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 1742. A person of ordinary skill in the art who is not an automaton is capable of producing the process of the instant claims with predictable results. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA NICOLE ISNOR whose telephone number is (703)756-5561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 5:30am-3pm PST.
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, Bethany Barham can be reached at (571) 272-6175. 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.
/BETHANY P BARHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1611
/A.N.I./ Examiner, Art Unit 1611
Prosecution Insights