DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendments submitted 8/5/2025 and 9/19/2025 are acknowledged. Claims 14-20 are newly added. Claims 1, 5, 9, and 13 are currently amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application.
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
The instant application claims domestic benefit to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/558,183, filed on 2/27/2024, and U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/551,599, filed on 2/9/2024. Claims 1-5 and 7-20 find support in U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/551,599, and thus have an effective filing date of 2/9/2024. Claim 6 finds support in U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/558,183, and thus has an effective filing date of 2/27/2024.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to claims 5 and 13 overcomes the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 5/20/2025. Accordingly, the objections to claims 5 and 13 are withdrawn.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Paragraphs [0028], [0029], [0031], and [0032] contain embedded hyperlinks which should not appear in the specification. The links in these paragraphs include “www” and “.com” which should not appear in the specification. Paragraphs [0026] and [0027] demonstrate appropriate references to web sites within the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The recitation of “provided that” in line 10 of claim 1 and line 2 of claim 9 is italicized and should not be italicized in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) – New Matter
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 9 as amended recite new matter that was not previously disclosed in the originally-filed disclosure. Claims 1 and 9 newly recite the limitation “provided that the woman does not have persistent genital arousal disorder” in lines 10-11 of claim 1 and line 2 of claim 9. Applicant suggests that paragraphs [0019], [0022], [0025], [0032], and [0132] of the originally-filed specification provide support for the newly added limitation. The passages referenced in the specification do not provide explicit or implicit support for the newly added limitation with respect to the full scope of the claimed invention. The specification does not positively recite an embodiment of treating one or more sexual dysfunctions selected from the group recited in claim 1 in a woman that does have persistent genital arousal disorder by a clitoral injection of a composition comprising botulinum toxin. In fact, paragraph [0022] suggests botulinum toxin has been injected near but not into the clitoris. Nowhere else in the specification suggests a clitoral injection of a composition of botulinum toxin to treat PGAD. In the absence of a clear, positive disclosure, whether explicit or implicit, there is a lack of support for the negative limitation. Thus, claims 1 and 9 recite new matter which must be deleted from the claim to overcome the rejection.
Claims 1-20 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
New Rejection Necessitated by Amendment: Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blumenfeld et al. (US2012/0251518).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 14-20, Blumenfeld teaches the use of targeted exocytosis modulators (TEMs) and Clostridial toxins such as botulinum neurotoxins in therapeutically effective amounts in treating a sexual dysfunction disorder (see Abstract and paragraphs [0005], [0007], [0008], [0013]-[0015], [0092], and [0122]-[0124). Blumenfeld teaches the sexual dysfunction disorders include hypoactive sexual desire disorder, deficient sexual arousal disorder including not feeling sexually aroused and no vaginal lubrication (interpreted to read on hypoactive sexual arousal disorder, hypoactive sexual sensation, and hypoactive sexual lubrication, respectively), failure to achieve clitoral tumescence (interpreted to read on hypoactive clitoral tumescence), anorgasmia, and inhibited orgasm (see paragraphs [0031], [0094], [0095], [0098]-[0100], [0105], [0110]-[0112], and [0165], [0168]). Each of these sexual dysfunction disorders is considered to reduce sexual satisfaction and thereby read on hypoactive sexual satisfaction. The method of treating the sexual dysfunction disorder includes administering by injection at or near the site exhibiting a symptom of a sexual dysfunction disorder (see paragraph [0137], [0141], [0165], [0168], [0173], and [0174]). Blumenfeld does not explicitly teach a clitoral injection; however, in the case of a failure to achieve clitoral tumescence, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to administer to the clitoris an injection comprising TEMs and botulinum toxin, to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to because Blumenfeld teaches the administration site to be at the site exhibiting the symptom of the sexual dysfunction disorder, yielding predictable results. Therefore, it was prima facie obvious to inject a composition comprising botulinum toxin into the clitoris of a woman to treat hypoactive clitoral tumescence over the prior art of Blumenfeld. Moreover, Blumenfeld teaches sexual stimulation causes physical changes in a person and most significantly in the sex organs, i.e., genital organs (see paragraph [0021]). Blumenfeld further describes that in males the genital organ associated with sexual stimulation, sexual arousal, and orgasm is the penis while in females it is the clitoris (see paragraphs [0021], [0023]-[0025], [0030], [0031], [0093], [0105], [0106], and [0110]-[0112]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have further found it obvious to inject a composition comprising TEMs and botulinum toxin into the clitoris in order to treat the sexual dysfunction disorders hypoactive sexual desire disorder, deficient sexual arousal disorder including not feeling sexually aroused and no vaginal lubrication (interpreted to read on hypoactive sexual arousal disorder, hypoactive sexual sensation, and hypoactive sexual lubrication, respectively), anorgasmia, and inhibited orgasm, to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the clitoris as an important site for sexual stimulation and arousal and determined it to be an appropriate site for injection based on the disclosure of Blumenfeld, yielding predictable results. Thus, it is prima facie obvious to administer a clitoral injection to treat the aforementioned sexual disorders in women that do not have persistent genital arousal disorder as recited in claims 1 and 9.
Regarding claims 2-4 and 10-12, Blumenfeld teaches the botulinum neurotoxin used in combination with a TEM is in an amount of about 75-150 U (see [0122]). Blumenfeld further teaches in a low dose combination therapy the amount of botulinum neurotoxin is less than 50 U (see paragraph [0123]). Thus, Blumenfeld teaches botulinum toxin amounts that overlap those of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, Blumenfeld teaches multiple administrations of an effective dose of the TEM and botulinum neurotoxin composition over a range of time periods including monthly, which reads on wherein said injecting step is repeated at intervals of on to twelve months (see paragraph [0137]).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Blumenfeld teaches the body of the clitoris is surrounded by bulky erectile tissue on either side and is a result of the corpora cavernosa erectile structure sinusoids being filled by blood (see paragraphs [0030] and [0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to inject at the body of the clitoris and at the corpora cavernosa (reading on corpus cavernosum) in order to treat hypoactive clitoral tumescence. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to because Blumenfeld teaches the administration site to be at or near the site exhibiting the symptom of the sexual dysfunction disorder, yielding predictable results.
Thus, claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-20 are prima facie obvious over Blumenfeld.
New Rejection Necessitated by Amendment: Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blumenfeld et al. (US2012/0251518), as applied to claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-20 above, and further in view of Dr. Michael Goodman (The O-Shot® and Other Uses of PRP (Platelet-Rich Plasma); retrieved from https://www.drmichaelgoodman.com/o-shot/; published 9/9/2016 as evidenced by Appendix A; of record).
Blumenfeld teaches the inventions of claims 1 and 9 as outlined in the rejection above.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Blumenfeld does not teach wherein the composition that is injected also comprises autologous platelet-rich plasma.
Dr. Michael Goodman teaches that platelet-rich plasma is isolated from one’s own blood, reading on autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP), and re-injected into an area of the body where it may induce healing or growth-enhancing properties including cell growth, new tissue generation and repair, neovasculogenesis, and collagen production (see passage bridging p.1-2). Dr. Michael Goodman teaches that injection of PRP into the clitoris enhances orgasmic function (see p.2, 5th passage).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined PRP isolated from one’s own blood, as taught by Dr. Michael Goodman, with the injection composition comprising TEM and botulinum toxin, as taught by Blumenfeld, to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to further include PRP to inject into the clitoris to induce healing and to enhance orgasmic function in patients with sexual disorders, yielding predictable results. Therefore, claims 5 and 13 are prima facie obvious over Blumenfeld in view of Dr. Michael Goodman.
New Rejection Necessitated by Amendment: Claims 1-4, 6, 9-12, 15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rimando (US2012/0282241; of record) in view of Mooney et al. (J. Sex. Med., 2022, Vol. 19, 234-248; of record).
Regarding claims 1, 9, 15, 18, and 20, Rimando teaches a method for treating persistent genital arousal disorder (PGAD) by administering a neurotoxin, such as botulinum toxin, to the clitoral area (see Abstract). Rimando teaches direct injections of botulinum toxin for local administration and in therapeutically effective amounts (see paragraphs [0015], [0020]-[0021], [0024], [0029], [0037]-[0038], and [0045]). Rimando further teaches the method may be applied to a woman at risk of developing PGAD in a prophylactic manner or can be used to a treat a symptom of PGAD (see paragraphs [0021]-[0023]). These limitations are interpreted as being inclusive to applying the method of Rimando to woman without PGAD that are at risk of developing PGAD and more broadly to woman that have symptoms that fall under PGAD without the woman necessarily having PGAD.
Rimando does not teach hypoactive sexual desire, hypoactive sexual arousal, hypoactive clitoral tumescence, hypoactive sexual sensation, anorgasmia, inhibited orgasm, hypoactive sexual lubrication, and hypoactive sexual satisfaction.
Mooney teaches that women with PGAD generally experience symptoms of worse sexual functioning in terms of arousal, orgasm, satisfaction, and pain reporting lower sexual arousal, lower orgasm, lower satisfaction and higher pain than the control group (see passage bridging p.241-242, p.242, right column, 1st paragraph, and p.243, right column, 1st passage). Furthermore, Mooney remarks that unexpectedly, women with PGAD reported lower sexual arousal than the control group. These symptoms of reduced sexual arousal, orgasm, and satisfaction are considered to read on hypoactive sexual arousal, inhibited orgasm, and hypoactive sexual satisfaction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the method of injecting a therapeutically effective amount of botulinum toxin in a woman’s clitoris to treat a woman that has symptoms of lower sexual arousal, reduced orgasms, and lower intercourse satisfaction, as taught by Mooney, to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to because Rimando suggests the method of applying botulinum toxin by injection to the clitoris can be used to treat symptoms of PGAD and Mooney teaches symptoms known to occur in women with PGAD. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to apply the method of Rimando to woman suffering from symptoms of lower sexual arousal, reduced orgasms, and lower intercourse satisfaction because the method of Rimando is applicable to treating symptoms of PGAD, yielding predictable results. Therefore, Rimando and Mooney render prima facie obvious a method of injecting botulinum toxin directly into a woman’s clitoris at a therapeutically effective amount to treat the conditions hypoactive sexual arousal, and hypoactive sexual satisfaction, reading on claims 1, 15, 18, and 20 of the instant application.
Regarding claims 2-4 and 10-12, Rimando teaches the administration amount is from about 1 unit to about 150 units of botulinum toxin, which reads on the limitations of claims 2-4 and 10-12 (see paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 6, Rimando teaches neurotoxin is administered about every 1 to about every 12 months to the patient in need thereof (see paragraph [0025]).
Thus, claims 1-4, 6, 9-12, 15, 18, and 20 are prima facie obvious over Rimando in view of Mooney.
New Rejection Necessitated by Amendment: Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rimando (US2012/0282241; of record) in view of Mooney et al. (J. Sex. Med., 2022, Vol. 19, 234-248; of record), as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 9-12, 15, 18, and 20 above, and further in view of Dr. Michael Goodman (The O-Shot® and Other Uses of PRP (Platelet-Rich Plasma); retrieved from https://www.drmichaelgoodman.com/o-shot/; published 9/9/2016 as evidenced by Appendix A; of record).
Rimando in view of Mooney teach the inventions of claims 1 and 9 as outlined in the rejection above.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Rimando and Mooney do not teach wherein the composition that is injected also comprises autologous platelet-rich plasma.
Dr. Michael Goodman teaches that platelet-rich plasma is isolated from one’s own blood, reading on autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP), and re-injected into an area of the body where it may induce healing or growth-enhancing properties including cell growth, new tissue generation and repair, neovasculogenesis, and collagen production (see passage bridging p.1-2). Dr. Michael Goodman teaches that injection of PRP into the clitoris enhances orgasmic function (see p.2, 5th passage).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined PRP isolated from one’s own blood, as taught by Dr. Michael Goodman, with the botulinum toxin composition for injection, as taught by Rimando in view of Mooeny, to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to further include PRP to inject into the clitoris to induce healing and to enhance orgasmic function in patients with sexual disorders, yielding predictable results. Therefore, claims 5 and 13 are prima facie obvious over Rimando in view of Mooney and further in view of Dr. Michael Goodman.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rimando (US2012/0282241; of record) in view of Mooney et al. (J. Sex. Med., 2022, Vol. 19, 234-248; of record), as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 9-12, 15, 18, and 20 above, and further in view of Nazik et al. (J. Sex & Marital Thera., 2014, Vol. 00(0), p.1-5; of record) as evidenced by Wikipedia – Clitoris (retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoris; of record).
Regarding claims 7-8, Rimando teaches injection botulinum toxin into the clitoris or peri-clitoral area (see paragraph [0021]).
Rimando does not teach injecting the body of the clitoris or the corpus cavernosum.
Nazik teaches injecting botulinum toxin at approximately 0.5 cm away from the center of the clitoris at 1, 5, 7, and 11 o’clock positions to treat PGAD (see p.2, last passage, and Fig. 1). Injection at the 5 and 7 o’clock positions as shown in Figure 1 are interpreted as being injections into the corpora cavernosa (a.k.a corpus cavernosum), which is the body of the clitoris, as depicted and evidenced in the Structure section of Wikipedia – Clitoris (see p.2, 2nd passage, and Figure in Structure section).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have injected botulinum toxin into the 5 and 7 o’clock positions 0.5 cm away from the center of the clitoris, as taught by Nazik, in the method of treating a symptom of lower sexual arousal, reduced orgasms, and lower intercourse satisfaction by injecting botulinum toxin into the clitoris, as taught by Rimando in view of Mooney, to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been applying known techniques in the relevant field of injecting botulinum toxin into the clitoris for treating these symptoms with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding predictable results. Therefore, claims 7 and 8 are prima facie obvious over Rimando in view of Mooney and further in view of Nazik as evidenced by Wikipedia – Clitoris.
Response to Arguments
The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections of claims 1 and 7-9 over Nazik et al. (J. Sex & Marital Thera., 2014, Vol. 00(0), p.1-5; of record) as evidenced by Wikipedia – Clitoris (retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoris; of record) is moot in light of Applicant’s amendment to the claims. Accordingly, the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new rejection as necessitated by the amendment has been set forth above over the prior art of Blumenfeld (US2012/0251518).
Applicant's arguments filed 8/5/2025 and 9/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In Applicant’s Remarks, see Remarks filed 8/5/2025 – p.3, 1st paragraph-p.4, 1st paragraph, Applicant argues the specification does not contain browser-executable code since the links in the specification do not follow the exemplified hyperlinks and browser-executable code in MPEP § 608.01(VII). This is not found persuasive. The links in these paragraphs include “www” and “.com” which should not appear in the specification. Paragraphs [0028], [0029], [0031], and [0032] contain embedded hyperlinks which should not appear in the specification. Paragraphs [0026] and [0027] demonstrate appropriate references to web sites within the specification.
In Applicant’s Remarks, see Remarks filed 8/5/2025 – p.5, 1st paragraph-p.6, 2nd paragraph, Applicant argues that Rimando only discloses treatments for PGAD and the amendment to the claims distinguishes the claimed invention from Rimando. Applicant further argues the claimed invention is nonobvious over Rimando since Rimando sought to reduce genital arousal and other symptoms of PGAD and not to enhance them as the claimed invention seeks to ameliorate conditions such as hypoactive sexual desire, hypoactive sexual arousal, etc. Applicant concludes Rimando teaches away from the claimed invention since Rimando sought to reduce arousal while the claimed invention seeks to ameliorate hypoactive arousal among other conditions listed in claim 1. Applicant submits that one seeking to enhance arousal would not find it obvious to adopt procedures that have been reported to reduce arousal. This is not found persuasive. Rimando teaches an embodiment in which injection of botulinum toxin into the clitoris may be applied to a woman at risk of developing PGAD in a prophylactic manner or can be used to a treat a symptom of PGAD (see paragraphs [0021]-[0023]). These limitations are interpreted as being inclusive to applying the method of Rimando to woman without PGAD that are at risk of developing PGAD and more broadly to woman that have symptoms that fall under PGAD without the woman necessarily having PGAD. Mooney teaches that women with PGAD generally experience symptoms of worse sexual functioning in terms of arousal, orgasm, satisfaction, and pain reporting lower sexual arousal, lower orgasm, lower satisfaction and higher pain than the control group (see passage bridging p.241-242, p.242, right column, 1st paragraph, and p.243, right column, 1st passage). Furthermore, Mooney remarks that unexpectedly, women with PGAD reported lower sexual arousal than the control group. These symptoms of reduced sexual arousal, orgasm, and satisfaction are considered to read on hypoactive sexual arousal, inhibited orgasm, and hypoactive sexual satisfaction. Therefore, in view Rimando and Mooney, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the invention of Rimando for injecting botulinum toxin into the clitoris to treat woman with the symptoms of hypoactive sexual arousal, inhibited orgasm, and hypoactive sexual satisfaction, without the woman necessarily having PGAD. Moreover, Applicant conflates Persistent Genital Arousal Disorder with hyperactive sexual arousal disorder. As can be seen in Mooney, it was unexpectedly found that women with PGAD reported lower sexual arousal than a control group. Mooeny thus demonstrates that PGAD cannot necessarily be associated with hyperactive sexual arousal. Even more, Mooeny teaches that women with PGAD generally experience symptoms of worse sexual functioning in terms of arousal, orgasm, satisfaction, and pain reporting lower sexual arousal, lower orgasm, lower satisfaction and higher pain than the control group (see passage bridging p.241-242, p.242, right column, 1st paragraph, and p.243, right column, 1st passage). Therefore, PGAD and hyperactive sexual arousal cannot be equivocated, and one of ordinary skill in the art would still find the method of Rimando in view of Mooney applicable for treating symptoms of hypoactive sexual arousal, inhibited orgasm, and hypoactive sexual satisfaction since they are symptoms disclosed as being treated in the same way as instantly claimed.
In Applicant’s Remarks, see Remarks filed 9/19/2025 – p.2, 5th paragraph-p.4, 2nd paragraph, Applicant argues that the disclosures in specification paragraphs [0019], [0022], [0025], [0032], and [0132] provide support for the negative/exclusionary limitation “provided that the woman does not have persistent genital arousal disorder.” Applicant cites MPEP 2173.05(i) and explains that since the specification discusses PGAD and treatments described in the literature for PGAD, the specification provides support for the new limitation. This is not found persuasive. The specification does not positively recite an embodiment of treating one or more sexual dysfunctions selected from the group recited in claim 1 in a woman that does have persistent genital arousal disorder by a clitoral injection of a composition comprising botulinum toxin. In fact, paragraph [0022] suggests botulinum toxin has been injected near but not into the clitoris. Nowhere else in the specification suggests a clitoral injection of a composition of botulinum toxin to treat PGAD. In the absence of a clear, positive disclosure, whether explicit or implicit, there is a lack of support for the negative limitation. Thus, claims 1 and 9 recite new matter which must be deleted from the claim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN PAUL SELWANES whose telephone number is (571)272-9346. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00.
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, Melenie L. Gordon can be reached at 571-272-8037. 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.
/J.P.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1657
/MELENIE L GORDON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1657