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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, and the species of layered, in the reply filed on 06/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 3-5 and 8-21, are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/26/2026.
Claim Status
Claims 1-21 are pending.
Claims 3-5 and 8-21, are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the property” should read “wherein the at least one physicochemical property”, in order to be consistent with the terminology used in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a target molecules” should read “target molecules”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 6 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the aragonite particles” should read “wherein the oolitic aragonite particles”, in order to be consistent with terminology used in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or pre-AIA 2nd ¶
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, 2, 6, and 7, 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation of wherein the oolitic aragonite particles are layered particles and have at least one physicochemical property that is different from unlayered particles, and where it appears that oolitic aragonite particles are inherently layered, it is not clear what the unlayered particles are referring to. Further, the instant specification does not appear to define layered and unlayered. For purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted with the broadest reasonable interpretation as being compared to any unlayered particle, for example, non-oolitic particles.
Claim 1 also recites “wherein at least some of the oolitic aragonite particles are layered particles,” and where it appears that oolitic aragonite particles are inherently layered as evidenced by Calcean, it is unclear how some of the oolitic particles can be layered and others unlayered.
Claims 2, 6, and 7, are rejected for the same reasons for depending upon rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a natural phenomenon without significantly more. The claims, as elected by Applicant, recite oolitic aragonite particles with at least one physicochemical property that is different from unlayered particles. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because as defined by the claim the substances exist in nature. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because Calcean (What is Oolitic Aragonite?, retrieved 2026) discloses oolitic aragonite particles are layered and naturally form in the shallow water of the Bahamas. Where oolitic aragonite particles are inherently layered, have porosity and increased surface area compared to other particles, the layered oolitic aragonite particles would be expected have at least one physicochemical property that is different from an unlayered particle, such as unlayered particles without porosity, etc., thereby affecting surface loadability, etc. Further, as evidenced by Falken et al (US 20170183469 A1, hereinafter “Falken”), oolitic aragonite particles have different physical and chemical properties than other calcium carbonate forms, including non-oolitic calcium carbonates particles, such as surface area (oolitic), brightness, etc.
Therefore, the claimed invention, as elected by Applicants’, appears to be directed to a natural phenomenon of oolitic aragonite particles, which were known to exist in nature such as in the shallow waters of the Bahamas.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oshenite (Product Catalog, 2014, pp 1-8, cited on IDS dated 11/26/2024), as evidenced by Falken et al (US 20170183469 A1, hereinafter “Falken”) and Calcean (What is Oolitic Aragonite?, retrieved 2026).
Oshenite discloses oolitic aragonite was a known renewable resource of naturally precipitate calcium carbonate with very high microporosity and increased surface area compared to mined calcium carbonate (pg 2, 4). Oolitic aragonite is 97-99% pure with extremely low levels of trace elements such as iron and lead (pg 5). As evidenced by Calcean, oolitic aragonite is layered. As evidenced by Falken, although aragonite and calcite have the same chemical formula (CaCO3), each belongs to a different crystal system and each has different physical and chemical properties; differences between these minerals include differences in density, solubility, buffering capacity, Zeta potential, crystal morphology, trace element composition, surface area (oolites), and brightness. (¶ 145).
Regarding claim 1, oolitic aragonite particles are layered, as evidenced above.
Regarding the different physicochemical property of claims 1 and 2, where oolitic aragonite particles are inherently layered, have porosity and increased surface area compared to other particles, the layered oolitic aragonite particles would be expected to have at least one physicochemical property that is different from an unlayered particle, such as unlayered particles without porosity, etc., thereby affecting surface loadability, etc.
Purely arguendo, if Applicants’ intended the limitation to be compared to non-oolitic calcium carbonate particles, where oolitic aragonite particles are layered, have increased porosity and surface area compared to other non-oolitic calcium carbonate forms, it would be reasonably expected that the increased porosity and surface area would have a different surface loadability compared to less porous and lower surface area particles. Additionally, where Falken evidences that different forms of calcium carbonate particles have varying brightness, it would be reasonably expected that the brightness would be different between forms. Further, it appears that the properties of layered vs unlayered particles are inherent to the particles themselves. Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. See MPEP 2112(II) and (III).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 7, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghafar et al (Nanotech, Sci and Applications, 2017, 10, pp. 79-94, hereinafter “Ghafar”), in view of Oshenite (Product Catalog, 2014, pp 1-8, cited on IDS dated 11/26/2024), as evidenced by Calcean (What is Oolitic Aragonite?, retrieved 2026), Dr AFC (Ketoprofen Lysinate, retrieved 2026), and Falken et al (US 20170183469 A1, hereinafter “Falken”).
Ghafar teaches surface functionalization of calcium carbonate aragonite polymorph nanoparticles were known for binding drugs for drug delivery, including the exemplified ketoprofen lysinate (abs, pg 88 1st col 1st ¶, fig 1). As evidenced by Calcean, oolitic aragonite is layered. As evidenced by Dr AFC, ketoprofen lysinate is a small molecule (see class). The nanoparticles were porous (pg 86 1st col 1st ¶). Ghafar teaches aragonite can have various morphologies (pg 80 1st col 3rd ¶). As evidenced by Falken, although aragonite and calcite have the same chemical formula (CaCO3), each belongs to a different crystal system and each has different physical and chemical properties; differences between these minerals include differences in density, solubility, buffering capacity, Zeta potential, crystal morphology, trace element composition, surface area (oolites), and brightness. (¶ 145).
Ghafar does not teach oolitic aragonite, nor wherein the particles are specifically functionalized with a binding molecule or a binding moiety.
Oshenite teaches oolitic aragonite was a known renewable resource of naturally precipitated calcium carbonate with very high microporosity and increased surface area compared to mined calcium carbonate (pg 2, 4). Oolitic aragonite is 97-99% pure with extremely low levels of trace elements such as iron and lead (pg 5). Also disclosed is its ability to act as a carrier material with loading capacity (pg 5).
Regarding the oolitic aragonite particles of claim 1, it would have been obvious to substitute oolitic aragonite particles for the aragonite particles of Ghafar, where oolitic aragonite was a known form of aragonite calcium carbonate having high porosity, high surface area, and purity, and where the particles of Ghafar were taught to be porous. The skilled artisan would have reasonably recognized that the highly porous, increased surface area, and high purity properties of oolitic aragonite would have been expected to be capable of being used for active agent loading, where the high porosity would be expected to provide increased loading sites for an active agent. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding the different physicochemical property of claims 1 and 2, where oolitic aragonite particles are inherently layered, have porosity and increased surface area compared to other particles, the layered oolitic aragonite particles would be expected to have at least one physicochemical property that is different from an unlayered particle, such as unlayered particles without porosity, etc., thereby affecting surface loadability, etc.
Purely arguendo, if Applicants’ intended the limitation to be compared to non-oolitic calcium carbonate particles, where oolitic aragonite particles are layered, have increased porosity and surface area compared to other non-oolitic calcium carbonate forms, it would be reasonably expected that the increased porosity and surface area would have a different surface loadability compared to less porous and lower surface area particles. Additionally, where Falken evidences that different forms of calcium carbonate particles have varying brightness, it would be reasonably expected that the brightness would be different between forms. Further, it appears that the properties of layered vs unlayered particles are inherent to the particles themselves. Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. See MPEP 2112(II) and (III).
Regarding claim 7, the particles made obvious above are functionalized, and where the particles are capable of binding a small molecule, the limitation appears to be met.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghafar et al (Nanotech, Sci and Applications, 2017, 10, pp. 79-94, hereinafter “Ghafar”) and Oshenite (Product Catalog, 2014, pp 1-8, cited on IDS dated 11/26/2024), and further in view of Thapa et al (Sci Reports, 2017, 7, 43299, pp 1-11, hereinafter “Thapa”).
Ghafar is discussed above and further teaches calcium carbonate particles can be surface functionalized to help the delivery of the carrier approaching the target site (pg 81 1st col 2nd ¶).
Ghafar and Oshenite do not appear to teach the particles are functionalized with a binding molecule or binding moiety as instantly claimed.
Thapa teaches it was known to functionalize calcium carbonate based nanoparticles that are loaded with a small molecule drug (rapamycin) with a targeting antibody for targeted delivery (abs, fig 1, intro 2nd ¶).
It would have been obvious to further include a functional binding molecule or binding moiety, such as an antibody, to the oolitic aragonite particles made obvious above, as taught by Thapa, in order to provide the particles with targeted delivery of desired therapeutic agents to a particular target molecule, depending on the particular active agent, treatments, therapy, etc.
Claims 1, 2, and 7, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshenite (Product Catalog, 2014, pp 1-8, cited on IDS dated 11/26/2024), in view of Falken et al (US 20170183469 A1, hereinafter “Falken”), as evidenced by Calcean (What is Oolitic Aragonite?, retrieved 2026).
Oshenite is discussed above and further teaches oolitic aragonite can be used in compositions with bacterial inhibiting properties (pg 6).
The reference does not specifically teach the particles are functionalized to bind a small molecule or protein.
Falken teaches oolitic aragonite particles employed within an overall composition comprising molecules such as plant protein or dried algae biomass which may offer various benefits, such as anti-microbial, anti-fungal, and anti-viral properties (¶ 109). Oolitic aragonite particles have higher intercrystalline porosity that significantly enhances the reactivity of the carbonate sorbent by exposing a much greater surface area (¶ 113).
Given Falken’s teaching of the advantageous benefits of employing proteins with its oolitic aragonite particles, it would have been obvious to modify Oshenite by selecting and employing surface loading/binding of plant proteins and/or dried algae mass to achieve Falken’s benefits of anti-microbial, anti-fungal, and anti-viral properties. See MPEP 2143(I)(G) and 2144.07.
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, 2, 6, and 7, are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 17/694,553 (reference application), hereinafter ‘533, in view of Thapa et al (Sci Reports, 2017, 7, 43299, pp 1-11, hereinafter “Thapa”), as evidenced by Falken et al (US 20170183469 A1, hereinafter “Falken”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘533 disclose a composition comprising oolitic aragonite particles, wherein the oolitic particles are loaded with a molecule and are surface treated. The loaded molecule is a chemotherapeutic molecule or a protein and the oolitic aragonite particles are functionalized to bind the protein.
The claims of ‘533 do not teach wherein the particles are functionalized with a binding molecule or binding moiety for binding of a target molecule specifically.
Thapa and Falken are discussed above.
Where the claims of ‘533 disclose a composition comprising a plurality of oolitic aragonite particles, and where oolitic aragonite particles are layered and would be expected to have a physicochemical property that is different from a unlayered particles or non-oolitic calcium carbonate particles, as discussed above, it appears the limitations are met.
Where the oolitic aragonite particles of ‘533 are functionalized and loaded with a chemotherapy agent or protein, it would have been obvious to functionalize the surface with a binding molecule or binding moiety, in order to provide the particles with targeted drug delivery, for the same reasons discussed above by Thapa.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The following are also rejected for the same reasons in view of Thapa, as evidenced by Falken:
Copending Application no. 19/307,566 (reference application). The claims disclose a composition comprising oolitic aragonite particles and a protein drug molecule, the protein comprises an antibody, wherein the oolitic aragonite particles are functionalized to bind the protein. The oolitic aragonite particles are functionalized to bind a small molecule. The oolitic aragonite particles are layered. The claims of ‘566 do not disclose wherein the particles are functionalized with a binding molecule or a binding moiety for binding of a target molecule. It would have been obvious to modify the particles of ‘566 by functionalizing the particles with a binding moiety or binding molecule in order to provide targeted delivery of the active agent, for the same reasons disused above by Thapa.
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 7, are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/608,812 (reference application), hereinafter ‘812, in view of Ghafar et al (Nanotech, Sci and Applications, 2017, 10, pp. 79-94, hereinafter “Ghafar”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘812 disclose a composition comprising a plurality of oolitic aragonite particles with an average particle size between 1 nm and 100 nm that are loaded with a protein, have a layered structure wherein at least one layer has a physicochemical property different from aragonite, and are functionalized with a binding molecule or binding moiety for specific binding of a target molecule. The different property includes adsorption, hydrophobicity, and pH.
The claims of ‘812 do not specifically disclose the particles are functionalized for loading with a protein.
It would have been obvious to functionalize the oolitic aragonite particles, where functionalizing aragonite particles for drug delivery were known from Ghafar, and for the same reasons discussed above.
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 7, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,419,813 B2, hereinafter ‘813, in view of Thapa et al (Sci Reports, 2017, 7, 43299, pp 1-11, hereinafter “Thapa”), as evidenced by Falken et al (US 20170183469 A1, hereinafter “Falken”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘813 disclose a composition comprising oolitic aragonite particles that are functionalized to bind a protein, wherein the protein is albumin or an antibody, and wherein the particles can be surface treated. The claims of ’813 do not disclose wherein the particles are functionalized with a binding molecule or binding moiety for binding of a target molecule specifically.
Thapa and Falken are discussed above.
Where the claims of ‘813 disclose a composition comprising a plurality of oolitic aragonite particles, and where oolitic aragonite particles are layered and would be expected to have a physicochemical property that is different from a unlayered particles or non-oolitic calcium carbonate particles, as discussed above, it appears the limitations are met.
Where the oolitic aragonite particles of ‘813 are surface treated and are loaded with a protein, it would have been obvious to functionalize the surface with a binding molecule or binding moiety, in order to provide the particles with targeted drug delivery, for the same reasons discussed above by Thapa.
The following are also rejected for the same reasons above in view of Thapa, as evidenced by Falken:
U.S. Patent No. 11,383,988 B2, the claims disclose a composition comprising oolitic aragonite particles loaded with a molecule, are surface treated, and are functionalized to bind a protein. The claims of ‘998 do not disclose functionalizing with a binding molecule or binding moiety. It would have been obvious to modify the claims of ‘988 for the same reasons discussed above by Thapa.
U.S Patent No. 12,514,796 B2, the claims disclose a composition comprising oolitic aragonite particles that are surface modified to deliver a bioactive agent to a target cell or target tissue in a mammal, but does not disclose wherein the particles bind a small molecule or protein specifically, nor wherein the particles are functionalized with a binding molecule or binding moiety for binding of a target molecule. It would have been obvious to functionalize the particles to bind other known active agents suitable for calcium carbonate based particle delivery, such as small molecules as taught by Thapa. Where the claims of ‘796 disclose targeted delivery, it would have been obvious to functionalize the particles with a binding molecule or binding moiety for targeted delivery, as taught by Thapa.
Claims 1 and 2, are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 19/406,581 (reference application), hereinafter ‘581, as evidenced by Falken et al (US 20170183469 A1, hereinafter “Falken”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘581 disclose a composition for increasing calcium concentration in a plant comprising oolitic aragonite particles.
Where the claims of ‘581 disclose a composition comprising a plurality of oolitic aragonite particles, and where oolitic aragonite particles are layered and would be expected to have a physicochemical property that is different from a unlayered particles or non-oolitic calcium carbonate particles, as discussed above, it appears the limitations are met.
The following are also rejected for the same reasons for comprising a composition comprising oolitic aragonite particles:
Copending Application No. 19/449,184
Copending Application No. 19/337,648
Copending Application No. 19/004,856
Copending Application No. 18/897,262
Copending Application No. 19/305,123
Claims 1 and 2, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,533,940 B2, hereinafter ‘940, as evidenced by Falken et al (US 20170183469 A1, hereinafter “Falken”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘940 disclose a beverage composition comprising oolitic aragonite particles.
Where the claims of ‘940 disclose a composition comprising a plurality of oolitic aragonite particles, and where oolitic aragonite particles are layered and would be expected to have a physicochemical property that is different from a unlayered particles or non-oolitic calcium carbonate particles, as discussed above, it appears the limitations are met.
The following are also rejected for the same reasons for comprising a composition comprising oolitic aragonite particles:
U.S. Patent No. 11793224 B2
U.S. Patent No. 12089621 B2
U.S. Patent No. 12310392 B2
U.S. Patent No. 12419336 B2
U.S. Patent No. 11427971 B2
U.S. Patent No. 11566386 B2
U.S. Patent No. 11649593 B2
U.S. Patent No. 12565740 B2
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA A ATKINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0877. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM + Flex.
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.
/JOSHUA A ATKINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/SAHANA S KAUP/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights