`
`Coalition For Affordable Drugs XI LLC
`Exhibit 1019
`Coalition For Affordable Drugs XI LLC v Insys Pharma, Inc.
`IPR2015-01800
`
`
`
`FILED VIA EFSWEB
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT
`
`AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Applicants:
`
`S. George Kottayil, et al.
`
`Docket No.:
`
`50695.0100
`
`Serial No.:
`
`11/698,739
`
`Confirmation
`No.:
`
`4756
`
`Filing Date:
`
`January 25, 2007
`
`Examiner:
`
`Sandra L. Wegert
`
`Title:
`
`SUBLINGUAL FENTANYL
`SPRAY
`
`Art Unit:
`
`‘
`
`1646
`
`RESPONSE TO NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION
`
`Mail Stop: AMENDMENT
`Commissioner for Patents
`
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Applicants hereby respond to the non-final Office Action dated June 9, 2010, and
`
`respectfully request the Examiner consider the following remarks.
`
`Remarks/Arguments begin on page 2 of this paper.
`
`A Conclusion begins on page 3 of this paper.
`
`11648426
`
`1
`
`
`
`FILED VIA EFSWEB
`
`Remarks/Arguments
`
`In the Non-Final Office Action mailed June 9, 2010, the Examiner maintained the
`
`restriction requirement and provisionally rejected the pending claims on the grounds of
`
`nonstatutory obviousness—type double patenting in View of U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`12/221,333 to Kottayil, et al. (“Kottayil”).
`
`I.
`
`Status of the Claims
`
`Claims 1-4, 10, 11, 20-23, 31, and 32 are pending in the application and are
`
`currently provisionally rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory obviousness—type double
`
`patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9-11, 30-32, 127, 128 and 139 of Kottayil.
`
`II.
`
`Examiner Interview & Provisional Double Patenting Rejection
`
`Applicants thank the Examiner for her time and consideration during the
`
`telephonic interview with Applicants’ representative, Damon Ashcrafi, on June 15, 2010.
`
`During that interview, Mr. Ashcraft pointed out to the Examiner that since the only
`
`rejection pending in this application was a provisional obviousness—type double patenting
`
`rejection, it should be withdrawn and the claims in the instant application be allowed to
`
`issue] The Examiner agreed and requested the Applicants submit a response noting the
`
`substance of the interview. This is that response.
`
`In View of the foregoing, Applicants
`
`request that this rejection be withdrawn.
`
`1 Applicants specifically note that this response is not a concession that the claims of the instant application
`are obvious in view of claims 9-11, 30-32, 127, 128, and 139 of Kottayil.
`
`1 1648426
`
`2
`
`
`
`FILED VIA EFSWEB
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`In view of the above remarks, Applicants respectfiilly submit that all pending
`
`claims properly set
`
`forth that which Applicants regard as their invention and are
`
`allowable. Accordingly, Applicants respectfully request allowance of the pending
`
`claims.
`
`The Examiner is invited to telephone the undersigned at
`
`the Examiner’s
`
`convenience, if that would help further prosecution of the Application. Applicants
`
`authorize and respectfully request that any fees due or overpayments be charged or
`
`credited to Deposit Account No. 19-2814. This statement does NOT authorized
`
`a ment of the issue fee.
`
`647//o
`
`SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
`
`One Arizona Center
`400 East Van Buren
`
`Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202
`Tel (602) 382-6389
`Fax (602) 382-6070
`Email: dashcraft@swlaw.com
`
`1 1648426
`
`3
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
