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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment of 1 October 2025, in which claims 1-10, 12-16, 21-24 have been cancelled, and new claims 25-41 have been added, is acknowledged.
Claims 25-41 are pending in the instant application.
Claims 25-41 are being examined herewith.
Priority
The filing receipt of 4 April 2025 (see Application Data Sheet (ADS) of 03/14/2025) indicates no domestic or foreign applications for which benefit is claimed.
In order for any priority claim to be considered, Applicant is to refer to the communication mailed on 9 October 2025.
Response to arguments of 1 October 2025
In view of Applicant’s amendment of 1 October 2025, all the rejections and objections to claims 1-10, 12-16, 21-24 are herein withdrawn. Claims 1-10, 12-16, 21-24 have been cancelled.
New rejections are made below, based on Applicant’s amendment of 1 October 2025.
Claims 25-41 have been examined, and the following objections and rejections are made below.
Objection to the Specification
The Specification is objected to because paragraph [0001] reads:
PNG
media_image1.png
82
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The priority statement made in [0001] Specification does not match the filing receipt (see explanation above).
Appropriate correction is required.
Objection to the Claims
Dependent claims 30, 37 should recite --The composition of claim 25, […]--, or --The composition of claim 33, […]--, respectively.
Claim 27 is objected to because the recitation “the carboxylic acid selected from […]” should read –the acid selected from […]--.
Claim 29 is objected to because it recites that “the neutralized acids are combined for oral administration”. This recitation renders the claim unclear, because claim 29 is drawn to a composition; as such, the ingredients in the composition are already “combined” to form said composition. It is suggested that claim 29 could read –The composition of claim 27, wherein the composition is for oral administration.—
Claim 36 is objected to because the recitations “in (a)” , “in (b)” are unnecessary. Further, as explained above, claim 36 is drawn to a composition, and, as such, its components (a) and (b) are already “combined” in the composition. It is suggested that claim 36 could read –The composition of claim 33, wherein the composition is for oral administration.— (or is an oral composition).
Claim 40 is drawn to a composition comprising a therapeutically effective dose of
(a) […], (a) […], and (b) none of citric acid, citrate or resveratrol. The claim is confusing because (a), (a), and (b) seem to refer to therapeutically effective doses; yet (b) is used to exclude components from the composition, so (b) cannot refer to a therapeutically effective dose. See also rejection of claims 40, 41 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), indefinite.
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 25-41 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.
Independent claim 25 is drawn to a composition comprising
PNG
media_image2.png
112
590
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Independent claim 33 is drawn to a composition comprising
PNG
media_image3.png
140
552
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Claims 25, 33 and their dependent claims 26-32 and 34-39, respectively, are confusing because they are drawn to a composition, yet they recite doses in mg/kg (instead of amounts in mg, or relative amounts, or ratios between components) for the components in the composition. Said limitation reciting doses in mg/kg is relevant to a method step. However, the claims appear to be product claims reciting a method step, rendering the claims confusing as hybrid claims. The claims are confusing as to which category of patentable subject matter the claims belong. For purposes of prior art, the claims are interpreted to be product claims. Since the claims are interpreted to be product claims, said doses administered, relevant to a method step, in the product claims do not appear to further limit the structural components of the composition.
Claim 27 depends on claim 25 and recites that the AKG and the acid “are neutralized to salts”; yet claim 25 does not recite salts of AKG or of the acid. As such, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation “salts” of claim 27, in claim 25.
Further, the recitation “are neutralized to salts” in claim 27 seems to refer to a process (the verb to neutralize), yet the claim is drawn to a composition. As such, claim 27 appears to be a product claim reciting a method step “are neutralized”, rendering the claim confusing as hybrid claim. The claim is confusing as to which category of patentable subject matter the claim belongs. For purposes of prior art, the claim is interpreted to be a product claim.
Claim 40 is drawn to a composition comprising a therapeutically effective dose of (a) […], (a) […]; and (b) none of citric acid, citrate or resveratrol. Claim 40 is confusing because it recites “therapeutically effective dose of”, which is relevant to a method of treatment claim. Further confusion arises from the fact that claim 40 lists a therapeutically effective dose of (a) […], (a) […]; and (b) none of citric acid, citrate or resveratrol. First, (as explained at the Objections above) point (b) is aimed to exclude certain components from the composition, and thus cannot be a therapeutically effective dose. Further, there are two possible (a) components, separated by comma, which render the claim unclear, because it is unclear whether the two (a) components are alternative possibilities, or rather additive (both (a)s have to be present in the composition).
Claim 41 is unclear because it recites a dose in mg/kg of lycopene, which is relevant to a method of treatment, yet claim 41 is a composition claim.
Appropriate clarification of the claim language is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim interpretation: If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation”). See MPEP 2111.02. In this case, the body of claims 25-41 fully and intrinsically set forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, namely a composition comprising carboxylic acids selected from a list; the preamble “for up-latching mitochondrial energetics and reversing aging of a mammalian organism” only states the intended use of the composition. Thus, the preamble is not given any patentable weight.
"[T]he patentability of apparatus or composition claims depends on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure." Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801,809 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Claim interpretation: the recitation “a plurality of acids” in claims 33, 40 is interpreted as more than one acid.
Claims 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Smirnov et al. (EP 2630958, published 28 August 2013, cited in PTO-892).
Smirnov teaches [0074] a composition (N. 6) comprising
alpha-ketoglutaric acid 0.5 mmol/l;
succinic acid 0.5 mmol/l; where the relative ratios of the acids are within the ranges in the instant claims, and
the composition does not contain citric acid, citrate, resveratrol, as in instant claim 25.
Smirnov teaches that the composition further comprises sodium bicarbonate, which is an acid neutralizer, as in instant claim 26, and the acids are neutralized to salts, as in instant claim 27.
As such, a composition of instant claims 25-27 is anticipated by Smirnov.
Claims 33-34, 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Smirnov et al. (EP 2630958, published 28 August 2013, cited in PTO-892).
Smirnov teaches [0074] a composition (N. 7) comprising
alpha-ketoglutaric acid 0.2 mmol/l; and
succinic acid 0.2 mmol/l; and
malic acid 0.1 mmol/l,
where the relative ratios of the acids are within the ranges in the instant claims,
and wherein the composition does not contain citric acid, citrate, resveratrol, as in instant claims 33, 40.
Smirnov teaches that the composition further comprises sodium bicarbonate, which is an acid neutralizer, as in instant claim 34.
As such, a composition of instant claims 33, 34, 40 is anticipated by Smirnov.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 25-29, 33-36, 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blass, J. (US 2003/0176365, cited in PTO-892 of 1 October 2025), in view of Pierzynowski et al. (WO 2008/058993, cited in PTO-892).
Blass (US 2003/0176365) teaches (Abstract) a composition comprising a Krebs cycle intermediate, or salt thereof, where the Krebs cycle intermediates include, for example, alpha.-ketoglutaric, succinic acid, fumaric acid, malic acid, or oxaloacetic acid, which are carboxylic acids of instant claims 25, 33, 40, or salts thereof [0013], as in instant claims 33, 34, 36, 40, and mixtures thereof. Blass teaches (Abstract) that the pharmaceutical compositions of the invention are useful to treat an individual for a disorder involving impaired mitochondrial function.
Blass teaches [0018] a pharmaceutical composition comprising a Krebs cycle intermediate; [0019] Krebs cycle intermediates are the acids or salts of compounds which are utilized during the Krebs cycle. Thus, Krebs cycle intermediates include, for example, alpha.-ketoglutaric acid, succinic acid, fumaric acid, malic acid, oxaloacetic acid, or mixtures thereof. Blass teaches [0019] that the pharmaceutic compositions of the present invention preferably contain a Krebs cycle intermediate such as succinic acid, fumaric acid, malic acid, oxaloacetic acid, or mixtures thereof.
The Krebbs cycle intermediates above taught by Blass are carboxylic acids of instant claims 25, 33, 40.
Blass teaches [0023] that the compositions of the invention are for oral administration, as in instant claim 29, 36.
Blass exemplifies (Examples 1-3) a composition of the invention comprising 15 g malic acid, no citric acid or salt thereof, no resveratrol, as solution for oral administration, where the amount of malic acid is within the range in instant claims 25, 33 (assuming amount is 1-200 mg/kg x 80 kg = 80 mg – 16 g).
Blass does not specifically teach a composition comprising malic acid and alpha-ketoglutaric acid, as in instant claim 25, nor does he exemplify a composition comprising alpha-ketoglutaric acid and more than one Krebs cycle intermediate succinic acid, fumaric acid, malic acid, or oxaloacetic acid, as in instant claims 33, 40.
Blass does not teach a composition comprising malic acid and alpha-ketoglutaric acid in the amount in instant claim 25.
Blass does not exemplify a composition comprising alpha-ketoglutaric acid and more than one Krebs cycle intermediate succinic acid, fumaric acid, malic acid, or oxaloacetic acid, as in instant claims 33, 40, in the amounts in instant claim 33.
Blass does not teach arginine alpha-ketoglutarate in the composition, as in instant claims 28, 35.
Pierzynowski et al. (WO 2008/058993) teaches compositions for oral administration comprising a pharmaceutically acceptable salt of alpha-ketoglutaric acid, namely arginine salt of alpha-ketoglutaric acid (page 5, lines 19-21, 26-27).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Blass to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add alpha-ketoglutaric acid to a composition comprising malic acid disclosed by Blass, and to further add one or two additional carboxylic acids from the Krebbs cycle intermediates succinic acid, fumaric acid, or oxaloacetic acid, or salts thereof, taught by Blass, because Blass teaches mixtures of Krebs cycle intermediates alpha.-ketoglutaric, succinic acid, fumaric acid, malic acid, oxaloacetic acid or salts thereof, useful to treat an individual for a disorder involving impaired mitochondrial function.
Thus, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have added alpha-ketoglutaric acid to a composition comprising malic acid, and would have further added one or two additional carboxylic acids from the Krebbs cycle intermediates succinic acid, fumaric acid, oxaloacetic acid, or salts thereof, taught by Blass, and would have optimized the relative amounts of alpha ketoglutaric acid and other carboxylic acids in the mixture, with the expectation that the resulting composition retains therapeutic effect in treating impaired mitochondrial function. Such optimization of therapeutic amounts of active ingredients in the composition of Blass, in order to optimize therapeutic effect, is well within the skill of the artisan.
Regarding claims 28, 35, it would have been obvious to use an arginine salt of alpha-ketoglutarate in the composition, because Blass teaches salts of Krebbs cycle intermediate alpha-ketoglutaric acid in an oral composition, and Pierzynowski teaches compositions for oral administration comprising a pharmaceutically acceptable salt of alpha-ketoglutaric acid, namely arginine salt of alpha-ketoglutaric acid. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have prepared a composition comprising arginine alpha-ketoglutarate, and other carboxylic acids Krebbs cycle intermediates, with the expectation that the resulting composition retains therapeutic effect in treating impaired mitochondrial function.
As such, claims 25-29, 33-36, 40 are rejected as prima facie obvious.
Claims 25, 30, 31, 33, 37, 38, 40, 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blass, J. (US 2003/0176365, cited in PTO-892 of 14 July 2025), in view of Gianpapa, V. (US 2018/0207113, cited in PTO-892 of 14 July 2025).
Blass (US 2003/0176365) teaches (Abstract) a composition comprising a Krebs cycle intermediate, or salt thereof, where the Krebs cycle intermediates include, for example, alpha.-ketoglutaric, succinic acid, fumaric acid, malic acid, or oxaloacetic acid, which are carboxylic acids of instant claims 25, 33, 40, and mixtures thereof. Blass teaches (Abstract) that the pharmaceutical compositions of the invention are useful to treat an individual for a disorder involving impaired mitochondrial function.
Blass teaches [0018] a pharmaceutical composition comprising a Krebs cycle intermediate; [0019] Krebs cycle intermediates include, for example, alpha.-ketoglutaric acid, succinic acid, fumaric acid, malic acid, oxaloacetic acid, or mixtures thereof. Blass teaches [0019] that the pharmaceutic compositions of the present invention preferably contain a Krebs cycle intermediate such as succinic acid, fumaric acid, malic acid, oxaloacetic acid, or mixtures thereof.
The Krebbs cycle intermediates above taught by Blass are carboxylic acids of instant claims 25, 33, 40.
Blass exemplifies (Examples 1-3) a composition of the invention comprising 15 g malic acid as the only carboxylic acid present, as in instant claim 25, (no citric acid or salt thereof, no resveratrol) as solution for oral administration, where the amount of malic acid is within the range in instant claims 25, 33 (assuming amount is 1-200 mg/kg x 80 kg = 80 mg – 16 g).
Blass does not specifically teach a composition comprising malic acid and alpha-ketoglutaric acid, as in instant claim 25, nor does he exemplify a composition comprising alpha-ketoglutaric acid and more than one Krebs cycle intermediate succinic acid, fumaric acid, malic acid, or oxaloacetic acid, as in instant claims 33, 40.
Blass teaches [0022] that the compositions of the invention can also include an adjuvant for enhancing mitochondrial function (i.e. oxidative metabolism), such as an antioxidant.
Blass does not teach that the composition comprises fullerene C60, as in instant claims 31, 38.
Blass does not teach that the composition comprises lycopene, as in instant claims 30, 37, 41.
Gianpapa (US 2018/0207113) teaches [0019] lycopene as an antioxidant in compositions that improve cellular health of a subject [0001].
Gianpapa teaches (Abstract) that C60 fullerenes can be added to a composition (oral [0019]) to enhance mitochondrial ATP production. Gianpapa teaches [0051] that C60 fullerenes found in extra virgin olive oil bases have shown remarkable improvements in mitochondrial ATP production. Fullerenes also help enhance ATP production in the cell so it functions more efficiently without producing more free radicals.
Gianpapa teaches [0069] fullerenes C60 present in an amount of 0.1% to 10% wt. of the composition [0069].
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Blass and Gianpapa to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add lycopene or a C60 fullerene to a composition comprising a mixture of Krebbs cycle intermediates alpha-ketoglutaric acid, and malic acid, succinic acid, fumaric acid, or/and oxaloacetic acid, or salts thereof, taught by Blass, because
Blass teaches mixtures of Krebs cycle intermediates alpha.-ketoglutaric, succinic acid, fumaric acid, malic acid, oxaloacetic acid or salts thereof, useful to treat an individual for a disorder involving impaired mitochondrial function, and Blass also teaches that the compositions of the invention can also include an adjuvant for enhancing mitochondrial function (i.e. oxidative metabolism) such as an antioxidant, and
Gianpapa teaches compositions comprising lycopene and C60 fullerene effective to improve cellular health of a subject and enhance mitochondrial ATP production.
Since mixtures of Krebs cycle intermediates alpha.-ketoglutaric, succinic acid, fumaric acid, malic acid, oxaloacetic acid or salts thereof, are known to treat impaired mitochondrial function (Blass), lycopene is a known antioxidant (Gianpapa), and C60 fullerenes are known to enhance mitochondrial ATP production, it is considered prima facie obvious to combine them in a composition used for the same purpose. At least additive therapeutic effects would have been reasonably expected. See In re Kerkhoven, 205 USPQ 1069 (CCPA 1980).
Further, it would have been obvious to vary the amounts of the Krebs cycle intermediates carboxylic acids, lycopene and fullerene C60 in the composition, in order to optimize the enhanced mitochondrial function achieved with the composition.
As such, claims 25, 30, 31, 33, 37, 38, 40, 41 are rejected as prima facie obvious.
Claims 25, 32, 33, 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blass, J. (US 2003/0176365, cited in PTO-892 of 14 July 2025), in view of Owoc, J. (US 2015/0050260, cited in PTO-892 of 14 July 2025).
Blass (US 2003/0176365) teaches (Abstract) a composition comprising a Krebs cycle intermediate, or salt thereof, where the Krebs cycle intermediates include, for example, alpha.-ketoglutaric, succinic acid, fumaric acid, malic acid, or oxaloacetic acid, which are carboxylic acids of instant claims 25, 33, or salts thereof, as in instant claim 33, and mixtures thereof. Blass teaches (Abstract) that the pharmaceutical compositions of the invention are useful to treat an individual for a disorder involving impaired mitochondrial function.
Blass teaches [0018] a pharmaceutical composition comprising a Krebs cycle intermediate; [0019] Krebs cycle intermediates are the acids or salts of compounds which are utilized during the Krebs cycle. Thus, Krebs cycle intermediates include, for example, alpha.-ketoglutaric acid, succinic acid, fumaric acid, malic acid, oxaloacetic acid, or mixtures thereof. Blass teaches [0019] that the pharmaceutic compositions of the present invention preferably contain a Krebs cycle intermediate such as succinic acid, fumaric acid, malic acid, oxaloacetic acid, or mixtures thereof.
The Krebbs cycle intermediates above taught by Blass are carboxylic acids of instant claims 25, 33.
Blass exemplifies (Examples 1-3) a composition of the invention comprising 15 g malic acid as the only carboxylic acid present, where the amount of malic acid is within the range in instant claims 25, 33 (assuming amount is 1-200 mg/kg x 80 kg = 80 mg – 16 g).
Blass teaches [0022] that the compositions of the invention can also include an adjuvant for enhancing mitochondrial function (i.e. oxidative metabolism).
Blass does not teach PQQ in the composition.
Blass does not teach a composition comprising a mixture of Krebbs cycle intermediates selected from alpha.-ketoglutaric acid, succinic acid, fumaric acid, malic acid, and oxaloacetic, or salts thereof, and 2.5 to 500 mg PQQ, as in instant claims 32, 39.
Owoc (US 2015/0050260) teaches ([0043]-[0044]) compositions comprising PQQ effective to treat diseases associated with mitochondrial dysfunction. The compositions are oral liquid compositions [0049]. Owoc exemplifies a liquid oral composition comprising (Example 1, [0144]) 1% w/w PPQ, wherein the composition also comprises malic acid.
Owoc teaches [0138] that the total concentration of PQQ in an aqueous solution provided hereby may be any amount between about 0.1% and about 90% by weight based on the total weight of the aqueous solution.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Blass and Owoc to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add PQQ to a composition comprising a mixture of Krebbs cycle intermediates alpha-ketoglutaric acid, malic acid, succinic acid, fumaric acid, or oxaloacetic acid, or salts thereof, taught by Blass, because
Blass teaches mixtures of Krebs cycle intermediates alpha.-ketoglutaric, succinic acid, fumaric acid, malic acid, oxaloacetic acid or salts thereof, useful to treat an individual for a disorder involving impaired mitochondrial function, and Blass also teaches that the compositions of the invention can also include an adjuvant for enhancing mitochondrial function (i.e. oxidative metabolism), and
Owoc teaches compositions comprising PQQ effective to treat diseases associated with mitochondrial dysfunction.
Since mixtures of Krebs cycle intermediates alpha.-ketoglutaric, succinic acid, fumaric acid, malic acid, oxaloacetic acid or salts thereof, are known to treat impaired mitochondrial function (Blass) and PQQ is known to treat mitochondrial dysfunction (Owoc), it is considered prima facie obvious to combine them in a composition used for the same purpose. At least additive therapeutic effects would have been reasonably expected. See In re Kerkhoven, 205 USPQ 1069 (CCPA 1980).
Further, it would have been obvious to vary the amounts of the Krebs cycle intermediates carboxylic acids and PQQ in the composition, within the ranges in instant claims 25, 32, 33, 39, in order to optimize the enhanced mitochondrial function achieved with the composition.
As such, claims 25, 32, 33, 39 are rejected as prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
Claims 25-41 are rejected.
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 IRINA NEAGU whose telephone number is (571)270-5908. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, JEFFREY S. LUNDGREN can be reached on (571) 272-5541. 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.
/IRINA NEAGU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1629