www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`16/908,426
`
`06/22/2020
`
`Gregory I. OSTROW
`
`46682-701.317
`
`5508
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`650 PAGE MILL ROAD
`PALO ALTO, CA 94304-1050
`
`SHOWALTER, ALEXANDER KEITH
`
`ART UNIT
`
`1629
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`08/26/2024
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`patentdocket @ wsgr.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`
`
`Applicant-InitiatedInterview Summary
`
`Application No.
`16/908,426
`Examiner
`ALEXANDER K
`SHOWALTER
`
`Applicant(s)
`OSTROWetal.
`AIA (First Inventor
`to File) Status
`Yes
`
`
`
`JEFFREYSLUNDGREN[SPE
`TYLERBIRDCdAttorneyofRecord|
`|UALETAOTAFACdAttorneyofRecord|
`JADMILLSCdAttorney
`
`Date of Interview: 21 June 2024
`
`Issues Discussed:
`
`35 U.S.C. 103
`
`Attorney Bird discussed potential grounds for rebutting the rejections for obviousness. Discussion
`focused on the feature of claim 34, requiring a citrate/acetate buffer, and the assertion that the Kumar
`reference, despite being cited for this feature, teaches away from it. Applicant's representative noted the
`line in Kumarstating, "the limited buffer capacity of the lachrymalfluid precludes the use of strong
`buffers outside the pH range of 6.8-7.6." Applicant asserted that the acetate and citrate of instant claim
`34 are "strong buffers" in the context of this statement of Kumar, in that they have pKas within the pH
`range of instant claim 1 of ~4.8-5.8. Applicant's representative asserted that buffers with pKas within this
`range, like acetate and citrate, would have been considered undesirable by practitioners in the art,
`because they would resist acclimation/transition to physiological pH upon administration to the eye, and
`would tend to maintain acidic pH thereby causing irritation. Examiner Showalter askedif the present
`invention could be accurately characterized as a tradeoff of diminished comfort for improved stability.
`Applicant's representative indicated uncertainty whether this was the inventors’ specific intention, but
`stated the opinion that this description could accurately describe the effect of the invention. Applicant's
`representative stated an intention to submit arguments and amendments consistent with the views
`described above. Examiner Showalter indicated such amendments/arguments would be considered
`upon receipt, and would likely require additional prior art search. No agreement as to specific allowable
`subject matter was reached.
`
`/ALEXANDER K. SHOWALTER/
`Examiner, Art Unit 1629
`
`/JEFFREY S LUNDGREN/
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1629
`
`37 CFR§ 1.2 Businessto be transactedin writing
`
`Applicant is reminded that a complete written statement as to the substanceof the interview must be made of record in
`the application file. It is the applicants responsibility to provide the written statement, unless the interview wasinitiated
`by the Examiner and the Examiner hasindicated that a written summarywill be provided. See MPEP 713.04
`Pleasefurther see:
`MPEP 713.04
`Title 37 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 1.133 Interviews, paragraph (b)
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-413/413b (Rev. Oct. 2019)
`
`Interview Summary
`
`Paper No. 20240819
`
`
`
`Applicant-InitiatedInterview Summary
`
`Applicant(s)
`OSTROWetal.
`AIA (First Inventor
`to File) Status
`Yes
`
`Application No.
`16/908,426
`Examiner
`ALEXANDER K
`SHOWALTER
`
`Applicant recordation instructions: The formal written reply to the last Office action must include the substance of the
`interview. (See MPEP section 713.04). If a reply to the last Office action has already been filed, applicant is given a
`non-extendable period of the longer of one monthor thirty days from this interview date, or the mailing date of this
`interview summary form, whichever is later, to file a statement of the substanceofthe interview.
`
`Examiner recordation instructions: Examiners must summarize the substanceof any interview of record. A complete
`and proper recordation of the substance of an interview should include the itemslisted in MPEP 713.04 for complete
`and proper recordation including the identification of the general thrust of each argumentor issue discussed, a general
`indication of any other pertinent matters discussed regarding patentability and the general results or outcome of the
`interview, to include an indication as to whether or not agreement was reached on the issuesraised.
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-413/413b (Rev. Oct. 2019)
`
`Interview Summary
`
`Paper No. 20240819
`
`
