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 .
Examiner’s Note
The status identifier for claim 11 should be provided as “Currently amended” as opposed to “Currently mended”. See MPEP 714 c and 37 CFR 1.121(c).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, drawn to composite embolic agents, in the reply filed on 03/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s further election without traverse of the species of active metal present in the microspheres and metals and combinations thereof as set forth in claim 6 in the reply filed on 04/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-10, 12-14, 23-25, 27-30, and 32-70 are cancelled.
Claims 15-16, 31, and 71 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/20/2026.
Claims 3, 5, and 7-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/24/2026.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 11, 17-22, and 26 are under current examination.
Priority
This application is a national stage entry of PCT/CN2022/129772, filed 11/04/2022. Foreign priority has been claimed to CN202111342067.X, filed 11/12/2021, CN202210384584.1, filed 04/13/2022, and CN202210469169.6, filed 04/30/2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/10/2024, 02/21/2025, 07/04/2025, and 03/24/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is more than 150 words in length and contains the implied phrase “The present invention relates to”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The use of the term lipiodol, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: it is suggested that “the active metal…comprise one or more of…” should read “the active metal…comprises one or more of…”.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: for consistency in the claim language, it is suggested that “microspheres” in line 3 (two appearances) should be recited as the singular “microsphere”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 11, 17-22, and 26 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 regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 22 contain the trademark/trade name lipiodol. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe ethiodized oil (also known as iodized oil) and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 1 further recites a “lipiodol-based composite embolic agent”. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised as to what characteristics an embolic agent must possess to be considered “lipiodol-based”. For purposes of examination and applying prior art, the Examiner interprets that an embolic agent comprising lipiodol satisfy the limitation of “lipiodol-based”.
Claims 2, 4, 6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 1 and failure to cure the deficiencies noted above.
Claim 6 recites “the active metal has a metal activity greater than that of hydrogen, and comprise one or more of magnesium, aluminum, zinc, gallium, iron, manganese, and tin”. This is indefinite because hydrogen is not a metal, and it is unclear what activity scale is being used to determine that the active metal has a metal activity greater than that of hydrogen. For purposes of examination and applying prior art, the Examiner interprets that an embolic agent comprising microspheres that comprise one or more of magnesium, aluminum, zinc, gallium, iron, manganese, and tin meets the limitation of the claim.
Claim 11 recites (emphasis added) “the active metal microspheres have a particle size of…and the nano-hydride materials have a particle size of…”. Claim 1, from which claim 11 depends, recites active metal microspheres or nano-hydride materials. It is unclear if claim 11 requires the presence of both active metal microspheres and nano-hydride materials or not. For purposes of examination and applying prior art, the Examiner interprets that, consistent with claim 1, claim 11 requires only one of active metal microspheres or nano-hydride materials with the respective recited particle sizes.
Claim 17 recites the limitations “the active metal microspheres has a metal activity greater than that of hydrogen” and “the active metal microsphere is prepared from an active metal, which has a metal activity greater than that of hydrogen and which is selected from magnesium, aluminum, zinc, gallium, iron, manganese, and tin”. This is indefinite because hydrogen is not a metal, and it is unclear what activity scale is being used to determine that the active metal has a metal activity greater than that of hydrogen. For purposes of examination and applying prior art, the Examiner interprets that an embolic agent comprising a microsphere that comprises at least one of magnesium, aluminum, zinc, gallium, iron, manganese, and tin meets these limitations of the claim.
Claims 18 and 26 depend from cancelled claim 12, and claims 19-22 depend from cancelled claim 13 and are thus incomplete, rendering the metes and bounds of the claims uncertain. See MPEP 608.01(n) V which states, “If the base claim has been canceled, a claim which is directly or indirectly dependent thereon should be rejected as incomplete”. For purposes of examination and applying prior art, claims 18 and 26 are interpreted as dependent on instant claim 17, and claims 19-22, which recite “the dispersant” are interpreted as dependent on instant claim 18, which recites “a dispersant”.
Claim 26 recites, “the active metal microsphere is shaped as a sphere, a porous structure, or an urchin-like or polyhedral structure”. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised by what shapes are encompassed by the term “urchin-like”. It is further unclear how a “microsphere” can be shaped as a structure other than a sphere.
Claim Interpretation
The claim interpretations in regards to issues of indefiniteness are set forth above.
Further, regarding instant claim 4, the limitation “the active metal microspheres are prepared by a gas atomization powdering method, in which an active metal ingot is heated and molten, and then atomized and cooled to obtain the active metal microspheres” is a product-by-process limitation. Per MPEP 2113, "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). Here, absent evidence to the contrary, the process of preparing active metal microspheres recited in claim 4 does not structurally limit the active metal microspheres claimed in instant claim 1.
Similarly, claim 17 recites the product-by-process limitation “the active metal microsphere is prepared from an active metal, which has a metal activity greater than that of hydrogen and which is selected from at least one of magnesium, aluminum, zinc, gallium, iron, manganese, and tin”. Here, the Examiner interprets that the process structurally limits the active metal microsphere to comprising at least one of magnesium, aluminum, zinc, gallium, iron, manganese, and tin.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 17-18 and 20-22 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (CN 1380106 A, published November 20, 2002; included on IDS submitted 05/10/2024), as evidenced by Monroe Engineering (“An Introduction to Stainless Steel and How It’s Made”, February 4th, 2021, https://monroeengineering.com/blog/an-introduction-to-stainless-steel-and-how-its-made/) and by FDA (“LIPIODOL® (Ethiodized Oil) Injection”, March 2014, https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2014/009190s021lbl.pdf).
As noted above, claims 18 and 26 are interpreted as dependent on instant claim 17, and claims 20-22, which recite “the dispersant” are interpreted as dependent on instant claim 18, which recites “a dispersant”. Herein, the Examiner refers to the translation of Zhang submitted by Applicant with the IDS submitted 05/10/2024.
Regarding instant claim 17, Zhang discloses a suspension for tumor vascular interventional embolization containing strong ferromagnetic microspheres (see entire document, particularly claim 1) which are stainless steel or alloy ferromagnetic materials such as iron-aluminum alloys (active metal microspheres) (claim 2). As evidenced by Monroe Engineering, stainless steel is a group of alloys consisting primarily of iron mixed with lesser amounts of carbon and chromium (pg. 1, “The Basics of Stainless Steel”), and thus comprises iron. The diameter of the microspheres is between 20 to 30 micrometers or 5 to 15 micrometers (claim 5). Zhang exemplifies spherical stainless steel microparticles having a diameter of 5 to 15 micrometers (pg. 4, final paragraph).
Regarding instant claim 18, Zhang exemplifies spherical stainless steel microparticles in a suspension of lipiodol, a dispersant (pg. 4, final paragraph; see also claim 5).
Regarding instant claims 20-22, as noted above, Zhang exemplifies a dispersant of lipiodol (recited in instant claim 22). As evidenced by FDA, lipiodol is a brand name of ethiodized oil (pg. 1, title and “Description”) and contains iodine organically combined with ethyl esters of fatty acids of poppyseed oil (pg. 1, “Description”); the lipiodol of Zhang is thus interpreted as meeting the limitations of an organic phase (instant claim 20) and an oil phase (instant claim 21).
Regarding instant claim 26, noted above, Zhang discloses microspheres, interpreted to be shaped as a sphere.
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.
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, 4, 6, 11, 17-22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 1380106 A, published November 20, 2002; included on IDS submitted 05/10/2024), as evidenced by Monroe Engineering (“An Introduction to Stainless Steel and How It’s Made”, February 4th, 2021, https://monroeengineering.com/blog/an-introduction-to-stainless-steel-and-how-its-made/) and by FDA (“LIPIODOL® (Ethiodized Oil) Injection”, March 2014, https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2014/009190s021lbl.pdf).
As noted above, claims 18 and 26 are interpreted as dependent on instant claim 17, and claims 19-22, which recite “the dispersant” are interpreted as dependent on instant claim 18, which recites “a dispersant”. Herein, the Examiner refers to the translation of Zhang submitted by Applicant with the IDS submitted 05/10/2024.
Regarding instant claims 1 and 4, Zhang teaches a suspension for tumor vascular interventional embolization containing strong ferromagnetic microspheres (see entire document, particularly claim 1) which are stainless steel or alloy ferromagnetic materials such as nickel-copper alloys and iron-aluminum alloys (active metal microspheres) (claim 2). The solvent is taught to be an iodine-containing contrast agent such as lipiodol (claim 5). Zhang exemplifies spherical stainless steel microparticles in a suspension of lipiodol at a concentration ratio of 1:10 (pg. 4, final paragraph), and further teaches that microspheres and solvent can be mixed at different ratios depending on the treatment intensity (claim 4 and pg. 3, paragraph 3).
Regarding instant claim 2, Zhang teaches that the diameter of the microspheres is between 20 to 30 micrometers or 5 to 15 micrometers (claim 5), overlapping the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”.
Regarding instant claim 6, as noted above, Zhang teaches a suspension for tumor vascular interventional embolization containing strong ferromagnetic microspheres which are stainless steel or alloy ferromagnetic materials such as iron-aluminum alloys. As evidenced by Monroe Engineering, stainless steel is a group of alloys consisting primarily of iron mixed with lesser amounts of carbon and chromium (pg. 1, “The Basics of Stainless Steel”), and thus comprises iron.
Regarding instant claim 11, as noted above Zhang teaches that the diameter of the microspheres is between 20 to 30 micrometers (claim 5).
Regarding instant claim 17, as noted above, Zhang teaches a suspension for tumor vascular interventional embolization containing strong ferromagnetic microspheres (see entire document, particularly claim 1) which are stainless steel or alloy ferromagnetic materials such as iron-aluminum alloys (active metal microspheres) (claim 2). As evidenced by Monroe Engineering, stainless steel is a group of alloys consisting primarily of iron mixed with lesser amounts of carbon and chromium (pg. 1, “The Basics of Stainless Steel”), and thus comprises iron. The diameter of the microspheres is between 20 to 30 micrometers or 5 to 15 micrometers (claim 5). Zhang exemplifies spherical stainless steel microparticles having a diameter of 5 to 15 micrometers (pg. 4, final paragraph).
Regarding instant claim 18, Zhang exemplifies spherical stainless steel microparticles in a suspension of lipiodol, a dispersant (pg. 4, final paragraph; see also claim 5).
Regarding instant claim 19, Zhang exemplifies spherical stainless steel microparticles in a suspension of lipiodol at a concentration ratio of 1:10 (pg. 4, final paragraph), and further teaches that microspheres and solvent can be mixed at different ratios depending on the treatment intensity (claim 4 and pg. 3, paragraph 3).
Regarding instant claims 20-22, as noted above, Zhang exemplifies a dispersant of lipiodol (recited in instant claim 22). As evidenced by FDA, lipiodol is a brand name of ethiodized oil (pg. 1, title and “Description”) and contains iodine organically combined with ethyl esters of fatty acids of poppyseed oil (pg. 1, “Description”); the lipiodol of Zhang is thus interpreted as meeting the limitations of an organic phase (instant claim 20) and an oil phase (instant claim 21).
Regarding instant claim 26, noted above, Zhang discloses microspheres, interpreted to be shaped as a sphere.
Zhang does not teach that the exemplified 1:10 concentration ratio of microsphere to lipiodol is by weight, and thus does not anticipate the mass percentage range recited in claim 1 or the mass ratio range recited in claim 19. However, Zhang renders these limitations prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
As noted above, Zhang expressly contemplates mixing microspheres and solvent at different ratios (claim 4); Zhang further teaches that the proportion can be selected according to the treatment intensity, and that the amount of microspheres can affect the destruction of tumor tissue (pg. 3, paragraph 3). Thus, an ordinary skilled artisan would be motivated to routinely optimize the mass percentage of microspheres and ratio of microsphere to solvent in the embolization agent of Zhang in order to achieve a desired treatment intensity and destruction of tumor tissue.
Per MPEP 2144.05 II. A., “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”.
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, 4, 6, 11, 17-22, and 26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9, and 13 of copending Application No. 19/471,685 in view of Zhang (CN 1380106 A, published November 20, 2002; included on IDS submitted 05/10/2024), as evidenced by FDA (“LIPIODOL® (Ethiodized Oil) Injection”, March 2014, https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2014/009190s021lbl.pdf).
Both the instant claims and those of copending Application No. 19/471,685 recite an embolic agent comprising microspheres comprising active metals with overlapping particle sizes. Both set of claims further recite that the active metal comprises one or more of magnesium, aluminum, zinc, iron, and tin.
The claims of copending Application No. 19/471,685 do not recite the inclusion of lipiodol, as required by instant claim 1 or a dispersant of an organic phase, oil phase, or one of more of lipiodol, poppyseed oil, soybean oil, and olive oil (as required by instant claims 18, and 20-22). The claims of copending Application No. 19/471,685 do not recite the mass percentage range recited in claim 1 or the mass ratio range recited in claim 19.
Zhang teaches a suspension for tumor vascular interventional embolization containing strong ferromagnetic microspheres (see entire document, particularly claim 1) which are stainless steel or alloy ferromagnetic materials such as nickel-copper alloys and iron-aluminum alloys (claim 2). The solvent is taught to be an iodine-containing contrast agent such as lipiodol (claim 5). As evidenced by FDA, lipiodol is a brand name of ethiodized oil (pg. 1, title and “Description”) and contains iodine organically combined with ethyl esters of fatty acids of poppyseed oil (pg. 1, “Description”); the lipiodol of Zhang is thus interpreted as meeting the limitations of an organic phase (instant claim 20) and an oil phase (instant claim 21). Zhang exemplifies spherical stainless steel microparticles in a suspension of lipiodol at a concentration ratio of 1:10 (pg. 4, final paragraph), and further teaches that microspheres and solvent can be mixed at different ratios depending on the treatment intensity (claim 4 and pg. 3, paragraph 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the embolic agent claimed in copending Application No. 19/471,685 with the lipiodol dispersant of Zhang. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so in order to incorporate a viscous solvent that can embed in the capillary network of tumor tissue so that metal microspheres, such as iron-aluminum alloys, can be maximally embolized to the tumor; lipiodol can further be used as a solvent for chemotherapeutic drugs in a combined treatment approach (Zhang, pg. 3, paragraphs 3-5).
It would further have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the amounts and ratios of components as Zhang contemplates mixing microspheres and solvent at different ratios (claim 4), and teaches that the proportion can be selected according to the treatment intensity, and that the amount of microspheres can affect the destruction of tumor tissue (pg. 3, paragraph 3). Thus, an ordinary skilled artisan would be motivated to routinely optimize the mass percentage of microspheres and ratio of microsphere to solvent in order to achieve a desired treatment intensity and destruction of tumor tissue. Per MPEP 2144.05 II. A., “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”.
Given that the subject matter of the instant claims is obvious and substantially overlaps the subject matter of copending Application No. 19/471,685, the instant claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUDITH M KAMM whose telephone number is (703)756-4575. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am-4:30 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, 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
/J.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1611
Prosecution Insights