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 .
Priority
This application filed November 23rd, 2022, is a national stage application of PCT/US2022/080429, which claims the benefit of provisional applications 63/283,140 and 63/416,745 filed November 24th, 2021 and October 17th, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure statements submitted on September 10th 2024, September 25th 2025, and January 15th 2026 were considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they are in gray ink, and it is difficult to see the Figures.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Status
Claims examined: 1-31
Claims rejected: 1-31
Claims objected to: 26 and 27
Claim objections
Claims 26 and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
States “a Compound 1”, should be rewritten as “the Compound 1”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-28, and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01.
The omitted elements are: The structure of compound 1 should be included in Claim 1, it is only referenced in the specification, see below. Compound 1 is interpreted as (1R,5R)-1-(3-Methyl-1,2,4-oxadiazol-5-yl)-3-azabicyclo[3.1.0]hexane, without the addition of the hydrochloride salt.
PNG
media_image1.png
143
160
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 29 is dependent on Claim 1, a method for treating schizophrenia or Alzheimer’s disease psychosis in a patient in need thereof, the method comprising administering a therapeutically effective amount of Compound 1, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof and a therapeutically effective amount of fesoterodine, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof.
Claim 29 claims the method of claim 1, wherein the Compound 1 comprises the hydrochloride salt, see below.
PNG
media_image2.png
140
172
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 29 uses the open-ended claim language, “comprises” to describe compound 1 as having additional components of the hydrochloride salt. Claim 29 does not further limit claim 1, because of the addition of the hydrochloride salt that is not mentioned in Claim 1. The additional element in Claim 29, of the hydrochloride salt to Compound 1, does not further limit the scope of Claim 1 that it is dependent on.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3, 21-23, and 26-30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abraham (Brent Abraham, Richard Copp, et al. “Cognition enhancing compounds and compositions, methods of making, and methods of treating”, WO 2012/033956 A1, Pub. Date 03-15-2012) and further in view of Li (Z. Lane Li et al. “Relationship Between Physical Properties and Crystal Structures of Chiral Drugs”, Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Volume 86, Number 10, Pub. Date October 1997, Pgs. 1073-1078).
Regarding claims 1-3, 29, and 30, Abraham teaches "embodiments include administering to a subject suffering from psychosis, a therapeutically effective amount of the compounds and compositions described above", and in some instances, the psychosis accompanies or results from schizophrenia or Alzheimer's disease” (pg. 65, [00142]). In Claim 64, Abraham teaches a pharmaceutical composition for administration to a subject in need comprising a selective muscarinic agonist compound of claims 1-13 to achieve anti-psychotic behavior, and a muscarinic antagonist.
Abraham teaches fesoterodine fumarate as a muscarinic antagonist (Pg 60, [00129]).
Claim 12 in Abraham teaches 5-(3-azabicyclo [3.1.0, hexane,1(-3-methyl-1,2,4 oxadiazol-5-yl)-hydrochloride), compound 56 in the specification (Pg. 172, [00414]), see below.
PNG
media_image3.png
156
153
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Abraham teaches “Stereoisomers {also known as optical isomers) of the compounds described herein include all chiral, diastereomeric, and racemic forms of a structure, unless the specific stereochemistry is expressly indicated” (Pg. 57, [00122]).
Abraham does not teach the 1R,5R enantiomer of Compound 1 in the instant claims, left or the pharmaceutically acceptable salt in instant Claim 29, right.
Li teaches pharmaceutical applications of enantiomers of chiral drugs, and that different enantiomers produce different pharmacological and toxicological effects when they interact with biological macromolecules.
Regarding Claims 1-3, 29 and 30, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize compound 56 disclosed in Abraham, to arrive at the specific stereochemistry disclosed in Compound 1 in the present claims because, both methods disclose a pharmaceutical composition for treating schizophrenia and psychosis associated Alzheimers disease with fesoterodine fumarate and 5-(3-azabicyclo [3.1.0, hexane,1(-3-methyl-1,2,4 oxadiazol-5-yl)-hydrochloride). Although Abraham does not disclose the 1R,5R enantiomer form of Compound 1 in the present claims, Li teaches different enantiomers produce different pharmacological and toxicological effects. It would have been obvious to try a finite number of enantiomers and through routine optimization, determine which one produces the least toxicological effects with the greatest pharmacological effects, to arrive at the claimed compound 1 because Abraham teaches the same method as the instant claims and discloses Compound 56 as including all racemic forms.
See rejection above regarding Claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, Abraham teaches a method of co-administration with separate administration of agonist and antagonist and the compounds/compositions described herein can be formulated, into pharmaceutically acceptable compositions (Pg. 59 and 70, [00126] and [00153]).
Regarding claim 22, Abraham teaches “The instant compositions can be formulated for various routes of administration, for example, by oral, transdermal, parenteral, rectal, nasal, vaginal administration, or via implanted reservoir or other device such as a stent” (Pg. 70, [00153]).
Regrading claim 23, Abraham teaches “the period over which the extended release is observed is for about three, four, five, or six hours” (Pg. 4, [0021]).
Regarding claim 28, Abraham teaches a pharmaceutical composition comprising one selective muscarinic agonist compound and one muscarinic antagonist in Claim 86.
Regarding claim 31, Abraham discloses “combinations of a subtype selective, muscarinic agonist and a peripherally selective muscarinic antagonist can he delivered efficiently and simultaneously from a single, iontophoretic device, and that the combination: can reduce or prevent unwanted side effects” (Pg. 145, [00351]).
Regarding Claims 21-23, 28, and 31, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to administer the muscarinic agonist and antagonist in separate formulations, orally, in extended release form, and in a pharmaceutical composition to reduce unwanted side effects, because the same method of treatment, used with the same muscarinic agonist (Compound 1 in instant claims), and muscarinic antagonist (fesoterodine fumarate) would produce the same results if administered the same way.
Claims 26 and 27 in the present application, recites the intended biological test results of the method of claim 1, “desfesoterodine plasma concentration ratio”, but do not provide further limitations. The court noted that a “‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’” Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Therefore, if the method of claim 1 is rejected under anticipation, the limitations of Claims 26 and 27 that recite the intended results of the method of Claim 1 are also rejected under anticipation.
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.
Claims 4-20, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abraham (Brent Abraham, Richard Copp, et al. “Cognition enhancing compounds and compositions, methods of making, and methods of treating”, WO 2012/033956 A1, Pub. Date 03-15-2012) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Elenko (Eric Elenko, Andrew Miller, “Methods and Compositions for Treatment of Disorders Ameliorated by Muscarinic Receptor Activation”, WO2011011060 A1 Pub. Date: 01-27-2011).
Regarding Claims 15-20, and 24 Abraham does not teach administration of the muscarinic inhibitor more than once during a 24-hour period, or the administration of the muscarinic inhibitor within one hour of the muscarinic activator.
Regarding Claims 15-20, and 24, Elenko teaches a method of treating central nervous system disorders using combinations of muscarinic activators and inhibitors (Abstract). Schizophrenia, psychosis, and psychosis associated Alzheimer’s disease are diseases/disorders disclosed as embodiments for the method (Pg. 9, [0040]).
Regarding claims 15-20, Elenko teaches, the muscarinic Activator and Muscarinic Inhibitor are administered to a patient 1, 2, or 3 times during a 24-hour period, in preferred embodiments (Pg. 16-17, [0066]).
Regarding claim 24, Elenko teaches the muscarinic Inhibitor is administered within one hour of administration of the muscarinic Activator (Pg. 16, [0064]).
Regarding claims 15-20, and 24, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute compound 56 disclosed in Abraham for use in the method disclosed in Elenko because Elenko and Abraham both teach a method for treating Schizophrenia and psychosis associated Alzheimer’s by administering a muscarinic inhibitor and muscarinic activator and compound 56 is taught in Abraham as a muscarinic activator. It would have been obvious to substitute one muscarinic activator for another when they both apply to the same patient population and mechanism of action.
Regarding claims 4-6, Abraham does not teach dosage for the muscarinic activator in composition with the muscarinic inhibitor.
Elenko teaches from 10 micrograms to 10 grams of Activator is used in the combination with the Inhibitor (Pg. 16, [0065]).
The dosage for Compound 1 disclosed in Claims 4-6, falls within the range value disclosed in Elenko for muscarinic activators. The courts found that, 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 reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.
Regarding claim 4, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize the dosage range of 10 micrograms to 10 grams for muscarinic activators disclosed in Elenko, to arrive at the claimed dosage range of 5 mg to 800 mg in Claim 4 because the range of the claimed invention lies inside the range disclosed in the prior art. Claim 5 and 6 also fall within the dosage range disclosed in Elenko and are rendered obvious.
Regarding claims 7-9, Abraham teaches “embodiments of the disclosure herein provide testing a subject to determine the concentration, of a composition described herein in the subject's serum or plasma at a predetermined time following administration of a predetermined dose of that composition, and/or testing a patient to determine the amount of cholinergic side effects, if any” (Pg. 105, [00271]).
Abraham also teaches, “Skilled artisans, however, will appreciate that the current may be adjusted to deliver drug at a lower rate to maintain a steady plasma concentration above the therapeutic level and below the level, at which side effects such as diaphoresis or salivation are triggered” (Pg. 133, [00324]).
Regarding claims 7-9, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try and optimize the steady state plasma concentrations disclosed in claims 7-9 because steady state-plasma concentrations are calculated based on dosage and if the dosage ranges of Claims 4-6 fall into the range disclosed in Elenko for muscarinic activators, it would be obvious that the steady state plasma concentrations would also fall into the range disclosed.
Regarding Claims 10-12, Abraham does not teach dosage amounts for fesoterodine.
Regarding Claims 10-12, Elenko teaches two milligrams to 56 milligrams of fesoterodine administered daily (Pg. 35, [0093]).
Claims 11 and 12 fall within the range value disclosed in Elenko, while Claim 10 has an overlapping range value.
The courts found that, 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 reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.
Regarding claim 10, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize the dosage range of 2 mg to 56 mg for fesoterodine disclosed in Elenko, to arrive at the claimed dosage range of 1 mg to 50 mg in Claim 10 because the range of the claimed invention overlaps with the range disclosed in the prior art. Claim 11 and 12 also fall inside the dosage range disclosed in Elenko and are rendered obvious.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Abraham teaches “embodiments of the disclosure herein provide testing a subject to determine the concentration, of a composition described herein in the subject's serum or plasma at a predetermined time following administration of a predetermined dose of that composition, and/or testing a patient to determine the amount of cholinergic side effects, if any” (Pg. 105, [00271]).
Abraham also teaches, “Skilled artisans, however, will appreciate that the current may be adjusted to deliver drug at a lower rate to maintain a steady plasma concentration above the therapeutic level and below the level, at which side effects such as diaphoresis or salivation are triggered” (Pg. 133, [00324]).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try and optimize the steady state plasma concentrations disclosed in claims 13 and 14 because steady state-plasma concentrations are calculated based on dosage and if the dosage ranges of Claims 10-12 fall into the range disclosed in Elenko for muscarinic inhibitor fesoterodine, it would be obvious that the steady state plasma concentrations would also fall into the range disclosed in the present invention.
Regarding claim 25, Abraham does not teach treatment optimization for the composition containing the muscarinic activator and inhibitor.
Regarding claim 25, Elenko discloses “Treatment, including composition, amounts, times of administration and formulation, may be optimized according to the results of such monitoring” (Pg. 36, [0095]).
Regarding claim 25, It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the disclosed method of administering the muscarinic activator 1 hour after the inhibitor and optimize the dosage to include administering the activator four hours after the inhibitor. Four hours and 1 hour are relatively close values, and with dose optimization, it would be obvious to try administration after four hours, rendering claims obvious.
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 1-7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 28, 29, provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 66, 67, 68, 69, 22, of copending Application No. US 19/487,423 (reference application).
Regarding Claims 1-6, and 10-12 in the present application, claim 1 in the copending application claims a composition comprising about 10 mg to about 500 mg of Compound 1, shown below,
PNG
media_image4.png
163
178
media_image4.png
Greyscale
or a pharmaceutically acceptable salty thereof; and about 1 mg to about 20 mg of fesoterodine or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof; wherein the oral administration of the composition to a patient in need thereof provides a tmax of Compound 1 of about 0.1 h to about 10 h and a tmax of desfesoterodine of about 0.1 h to about 10 h following administration of the composition.
Claim 66 in the copending application claims a method of treating schizophrenia in a patient in need thereof, comprising administering a therapeutically effective amount of the composition of any one of claims 1-19 and 58-61, or the tablet of any one of claims 20-57.
Claim 67 in the coepnding application claims a method of treating Alzheimer's disease in a patient in need thereof, the method comprising administering a therapeutically effective amount of the composition of any one of claims 1-19 and 58-61, or the tablet of any one of claims 20-57.
Although Claim 1-6, 10-12, 22 and 28 in the present application, and claims 1, 66, and 67 in the copending application are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, claims 1, 66, and 67 in the copending application discloses the same patient population, Schizophrenia and Alzheimer’s patients, administration of Compound 1 and fesoterodine in a oral composition, and dosage ranges for Compound 1 and fesoterodine in therapeutically effective amounts that overlap with the instant claims. It can be assumed that administering the same composition, to the same patient population, with the same dosage, would produce the same results. Therefore Claims 1, 66, and 67 in the copending application are not patentably distinct from Claim 1-6, 10-12, 22 and 28 in the present application.
Regarding Claims 15, 16, 18 and 19 in the present application, claim 68 in the copending application claims the method of any of claims 62-66, wherein the composition is administered once per day. Claim 69 in the copending application claims the method of any of claims 62-66, wherein the composition is administered twice per day.
Although claims 15, 16, 18, and 19 in the present application, and claims 68 and 69 in the copending application are not identical, they are not patentablty distinct from each other because, they both claim administering a composition of Compound 1 and fesoterodine once or twice a day, to the same patient population, Schizophrenia and Alzheimer’s patients.
Regarding claim 23 in the present application, claim 22 in the copending application claims the tablet of claim 20 or 21, wherein the tablet comprises an extended-release (ER) portion comprising fesoterodine or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof.
Although claim 23 in the present application and claim 22 in the copending application are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both claim the method of administering Fesoterodine in an extended-release composition with Compound 1, to treat Alzheimer’s psychosis or schizophrenia.
Regarding Claims 26 and 27 in the present application, it recites the intended biological test results of the method of Claim 1, but does not provide further limitations. The court noted that a “‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’” Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Therefore, if the method of Claim 1 is rejected under nonstatutory double patenting over Claims 1, 66, and 67 in copending Application No. 19/487,423, the limitations of Claims 26 and 27 that recite the intended results of the method of claim 1 in the present application are also rejected as obvious over copending claims 1, 66, and 67.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CIERRA M ROCHELLE whose telephone number is (571)272-9962. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Kortney Klinkel can be reached at 571-270-5239. 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.
/C.M.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 1627
/Kortney L. Klinkel/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1627
Prosecution Insights