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 .
Claim Status
Applicant’s claim amendments and arguments in the response filed 24 April 2026 are acknowledged.
Claims 25 & 48-66 are pending.
Claims 1-24 & 26-47 are cancelled.
Claims 63 & 65 are amended.
No claims are withdrawn.
Claims 25 & 48-66 are under consideration.
Examination on the merits is to the extent of the following species:
Number of hair treatment compositions in kit: 3- (i.e. a shampoo, conditioner & an enhancing composition);
Types of Hair Treatments: A shampoo, conditioner & an enhancing composition;
At least one non-polymeric mono, di, or tricarboxylic acid, and/or salt and where included: citric acid in shampoo & conditioner;
A second non-polymeric mono, di, or tricarboxylic acid, and/or salt thereof and the hair treatment composition(s) that include it: maleic acid, included in the enhancing composition;
-and-
E. At least one surfactant & hair treatment composition(s) that include it: sodium laureth sulfate-in the shampoo; behentrimonium chloride in conditioner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 24 June 2026 has been fully considered by the examiner. A signed and initialed copy of each IDS is included with the instant Office Action.
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
The objection to claim 65 is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment to add the missing word, “more” to line 4 of the enhancing composition.
The rejection of claims 25, 50, 55, 60, 63, & 65 under 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn due to Applicant’s representative clarifying that recited amount for the carboxylic acids “is the total amount of all carboxylic acids, not just the ones specifically recited” in page 18-19 of the reply.
The rejection of claims 63 & 65 under 35 USC 112(b)-lack of antecedent basis is withdrawn due to claim amendments to recite “one or more carboxylic acids chosen from” which provides basis for the recitation “the total amount of carboxylic acids” in claims 63 & 65.
Maintained Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 25 & 48-62 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(s) 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a new matter rejection.
The reply filed 29 November 2024 states that pg. 2, ll. 1-3 discloses “[m]any chemical treatments are available for changing the appearance of hair. For example, hair may be lightened or bleached, and oxidative dyes can be used to change the color of the hair." (reply, pg. 11). Applicant further argues “ the as-filed application states that it relates to "kits and methods for minimizing and/or compensating for damage to hair, for example damage caused by ... cosmetic treatments (e.g .... chemical processing, etc.). Id., p. 2, II. 23-27" (reply, pg. 11). Applicant further argues the application explains that "the enhancing composition enhances the repairing, strengthening, and protective properties imparted to the hair." Id., p.11, ll. 15-17 (reply, pg. 11).
This is not persuasive. Nowhere does Applicant’s representative point to where support for the amendment for the added limitation of "the enhancing composition is not a hair color-altering treatment composition". Nowhere in the as-filed specification is the limitation for exclusion of “a hair color-altering treatment composition” positively recited. No description is provided within the instant specification or original claims for the newly added limitation of "the enhancing composition is not a hair color-altering treatment composition" as the limitation “a hair color-altering treatment composition” is not positively recited beyond the background section and this only discusses mechanisms of how people can damage their hair. A negative limitation that does not appear in the Specification as filed may “introduce new concepts and violate the description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112.” HYPERLINK "http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15785973736914870022" Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393, 394 (BPAI 1983), aff' d mem. 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984). According to MPEP § 2173.05(i), negative limitations may be claimed as long as they are clear and supported by the specification. Negative limitations must have basis in the original disclosure. The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for a negative limitation. In the instant case, pg. 2, lines 1-3 of the specification is drawn to chemical hair treatments known in the prior art. In other words, pg. 2, lines 1-3 of the specification is not a description of Applicant’s invention. Page 3, lines 3-4 merely states that the inventive compositions may be in a kit which “typically include two or more separately contained hair treatment compositions”. Page 3, lines 18-25 teaches the inventive compositions may be “a shampoo, a conditioner, a hair gel, a hair spray, a hair rinse, a hair lotion, etc.” “Hair color-altering treatment composition[s]", hair dyes, hair lighteners, hair bleaches, or hair colorants are not positively recited anywhere in the originally filed, claims, examples or specification beyond the background and a description of how people damage their hair. In other words, the as-filed specification did not contemplate any reagent, process or concept affiliated with altering hair color with respect to their invention. Thus, the claim amendments change the scope of the disclosure; thereby, constituting new matter.
Claims 48-62 are rejected under 35 USC 112(a) because they ultimately depend from rejected claim 25 and do not resolve the issue. Claims 43-45 are rejected under 35 USC 112(a) because they ultimately depend from rejected claim 42 and do not resolve the issue.
Claims 25 & 48-66 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(s) 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a written description rejection.
Claims 25, 49, 54, 59 & 61-66 recite the enhancing composition comprises a salt of maleic acid. The issue is possession of the genus of “salts of maleic acid”. While Applicant of page 18 of the their specification contemplate “di-carboxylic acids, and a salt thereof” with maleic acid contemplated as one of the di-carboxylic acids, Applicant does not disclose or show any species of salts of maleic acid in their specification or examples. This is important because the genus of salts of maleic acid is very broad with much variation including drug salts (e.g. a maleate salt of the 5-aminolevulinic acid), simple salts (e.g. disodium maleate), and polymeric salts (sodium acrylate maleate). Because no species have been contemplated, and no reduction to practice with maleic acid salts are present in the examples, there is no correlation of what in the structure of the salt is critical to the function of maleate salt in the enhancing composition. To have possession of a genus, a representative number of species must be shown (see MPEP 2163. II. (ii)). “Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus.” See AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1300, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Response to Arguments
In the traverse of the rejection of claims 25 and 48-62 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)-New Matter, Applicant argues that the recitation of "the enhancing composition is not a hair color-altering treatment composition” does not add new matter because support is present at pg. 2, ll. 23-27; pg. 3, ll. 3-4 and pg. 11, ll. 15-17 of the specification (reply, pg. 10-11). Applicant summarizes the Examiner’s position that pg. 2, ll. 23-27 is drawn to hair treatments known in the prior art; pg. 3, ll. 3-4 merely states that the inventive compositions may be in a kit which "typically include two or more separately contained hair treatment compositions” and the Examiner’s observation that no positive recitation of hair color-altering treatment compositions, hair dyes, hair lighteners, hair bleaches, or hair colorants are present with respect to Applicant’s invention (reply, pg. 11-12). Applicant argues the legal standard, stating that a lack of literal basis in the specification for a negative limitation may not be sufficient to establish a prima facie case for lack of descriptive support (reply, pg. 12-13). Applicant further argues the specification sufficiently conveys both a reason to recite the enhancing compositions are not color altering compositions and the inventors were in possession of kits and bundles comprising the components as claimed wherein the compositions are not coloring altering compositions and points back to pg. 1, ll. 11-18; pg. 2, ll. 1-3, 20-21, & 23-27; and pg. 11, ll. 13-19 for support (reply, pg. 13-14).
This is not persuasive. Page. 1, ll. 11-14 is drawn to the field of disclosure of the invention and does not disclose the concept of the enhancing compositions are not color altering compositions. Page 1, ll. 15-18; and pg. 2, ll. 1-3, & 20-21 is the background of the prior art and does not disclose the concept of the inventive enhancing compositions are not color altering compositions. Page 2, ll. 23-27 disclose that the inventive kits and methods are for strengthening hair and methods for minimizing and/or compensating for damage to hair. Page 11. ll. 13-19 describes an enhancing composition being a type of hair treatment that enhances the restructuring properties of the other compositions used in the kits and methods; it may enhance repairing, strengthening and protective properties. These sections do not disclose the concept of the inventive enhancing compositions are not color altering compositions. These sections do not mention/positively recite coloring, dyeing, lightening or bleaching (i.e. color altering) at all. “Matter not present on the filing date of the application in the specification, claims, or drawings that is added after the application filing is usually new matter.” MPEP 608.04(a). Applicant’s amendment changes the scope of the disclosure, thereby contemplating new matter.
In the traverse of the rejection of claims 25 and 48-66 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)- written description due to the language that "the enhancing composition comprises a salt of maleic acid", Applicant argues compact prosecution was not performed (reply, pg. 15-16). Applicant further argues the rejection is legally improper because the proper BRI (broadest reasonable interpretation) was not taken (reply, pg. 16-17). Applicant points to page 18, l. 3; p. 3, II. 13-14; p. 6, II. 11-12; p. 11, II. 20-21; p. 12, II. 15-17; pg. 13, II. 10-12; and p. 14, II. 12-14 of their specification for description of the kits including "at least two non-polymeric mono, di, and/or tri-carboxylic acids, and/or a salt thereof" (emphasis added; reply, pg. 17-18).
This is not persuasive. The instant claims recite “maleic acid, and/or salts thereof” (see claim 25). The claims do not limit the “maleic acid, and/or salts thereof” to non-polymeric salts as argued by Applicant’s representative. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant also does not disclose or show any species of salts of maleic acid in their specification or examples. In comparison, the Examiner has provided three specific examples as to why the claimed genus is broad. Applicant has failed to show possession of the broad genus of maleic acid and/or salt thereof.
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.
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.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beumer (US 2009/0068136; Published: 03/12/2009; previously cited).
Beumer teaches hair care compositions comprising condensation polymers as serve a conditioning agent, strengthening agent, film forming agent, surfactant, anti-static agent, moisturizer, emulsifier or hair styling agent (abstract; [0069]) With regard to claims 25(A), Beumer teaches inclusion of the amino acids “ (e.g. glycine, histidine, tyrosine, tryptophan)” as an antioxidant with antioxidants present in an amount of “ at least 0.01 wt. % of the total weight of the composition. Preferably about 0.01 wt. % to about 10 wt. % of the total weight of the composition…Most preferred, one or more preservatives/antioxidants are present in an amount about 0.1 wt. % to about 1 wt. %” [0087]. With regard to claim 25(A), Beumer teaches inclusion of citric acid and lactic acid as β-hydroxy acids which are antioxidants [0087]. Beumer in the Example 63 Shine Shampoo teaches inclusion of citric acid in an amount of 0.01% [0319]. Beumer also teaches lactic acid as a moisturizer which retains water on the hair surface with the moisturizer present in an amount of “about 0.5 wt. % to about 8 wt. % in a product of the present invention, preferably about 1 wt. % to about 5 wt. %.” As such, with regard to claim 25(A), Beumer teaches citric acid and lactic acid in a combined amount of about 0.51 to about 5.01%. With regard to claim 25(A), Beumer in the Example 63 Shine Shampoo teaches inclusion of sodium laureth sulfate (elected species; anionic surfactant), cocamidopropyl betaine (amphoteric surfactant), laureth-4 (nonionic surfactant), hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride (i.e. cationic polymer) and water [0319]. With regard to claim 25(B), Beumer in Example 21 teaches an Extra Shine Revitalizing Hair Cream (conditioner) comprising behentrimonium chloride (cationic surfactant), polysilicone-15 (silicones) and water [0253]. With regard to claim 25(B), Beumer teaches inclusion of the amino acids “(e.g. glycine, histidine, tyrosine, tryptophan)” as an antioxidant with antioxidants present in an amount of “ at least 0.01 wt. % of the total weight of the composition. Preferably about 0.01 wt. % to about 10 wt. % of the total weight of the composition… Most preferred, one or more preservatives/antioxidants are present in an amount about 0.1 wt. % to about 1 wt. %” [0087]. With regard to claim 25(B), it would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified Beumer’s conditioner by adding the amino acids, glycine and histidine, in the amount of about 0.01 wt. % to about 10 wt. % of composition in order to provide antioxidant properties to the formulation. With regard to claim 25(B), Beumer teaches inclusion of citric acid and lactic acid as β-hydroxy acids as antioxidants [0087]. Beumer in the Example 63 Shine Shampoo teaches inclusion of citric acid in an amount of 0.01% [0319]. Beumer also teaches lactic acid as a moisturizer which retains water on the hair surface with the moisturizer present in an amount of “about 0.5 wt. % to about 8 wt. % in a product of the present invention, preferably about 1 wt. % to about 5 wt. %.” As such, with regard to claim 25(B), Beumer teaches citric acid and lactic acid in a combined amount of about 0.51% to about 5.01%. It would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan at the time of filing to have modified Beumer’s Example 21 extra shine revitalizing hair cream by adding citric acid and lactic acid in a combined amount of about 0.51 to about 5.01% in order to provide moisturization and antioxidant properties to the hair conditioner. With regard to claim 25(c), Beumer in Example 24 teaches a silky hair cocktail (i.e. enhancing composition; [0257]). With regard to claim 25(c), Beumer in Example 24 teaches the hair cocktail comprises phenyl trimethicone (i.e. a silicone) and water [0257]. With regard to claim 25(c), Beumer teaches inclusion of antioxidants present in an amount of “ at least 0.01 wt. % of the total weight of the composition. Preferably about 0.01 wt. % to about 10 wt. % of the total weight of the composition…Most preferred, one or more preservatives/antioxidants are present in an amount about 0.1 wt. % to about 1 wt. %” [0087]. With regard to claim 25(c), Beumer teaches inclusion of citric acid as a β-hydroxy acid which is an antioxidants [0087]. It would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified Beumer’s silky hair cocktail by adding citric acid in an amount of about 0.01 wt. % to about 10 wt.% in order to provide antioxidant properties to the silky hair cocktail. With regard to claim 25 the Example 63 Shine Shampoo, the Example 21 Extra Shine Revitalizing Hair Cream, and the Example 24 silky hair cocktail are all separately contained in their own reaction vessels. With regard to claim 25, the Example 24 silky hair cocktail is not a hair coloring altering treatment composition.
While there is not a single example comprising each of the Shine Shampoo, Extra Shine Revitalizing Hair Cream, and silky hair cocktail packaged together as a kit or bundle, it would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to combine these elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions to provide a kit for making the hair shiny and silky, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results.
With regard to amount of amino acids in the shampoo, the amount of carboxylic acids in the shampoo, the amount of amino acids in the conditioner, amount of carboxylic acids in the conditioner, and the amount of carboxylic acids in the enhancing composition/silky hair cocktail, Beumer teaches these reagents in amounts which overlap with the claimed range. 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 re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 25, 48-50, 53-55 & 58-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beumer (US 2009/0068136; Published: 03/12/2009; previously cited) in view of Okuno (US Patent No. 6,607,718; Published: 08/19/2003; previously cited).
The teachings of Beumer are described above. In brief, Beumer teaches a shine shampoo, a shine hair cream/conditioner, and a silky hair cocktail (i.e. enhancing composition). Beumer teaches inclusion of citric acid as an antioxidant and lactic acid as an antioxidant and moisturizing agent in the shampoo and hair cream/conditioner. With regard to claims 50 & 55, Beumer teaches inclusion of citric acid and lactic acid as β-hydroxy acids are antioxidants [0087]. Beumer in the Example 63 Shine Shampoo teaches inclusion of citric acid in an amount of 0.01% [0319]. Beumer also teaches lactic acid as a moisturizer which retains water on the hair surface with the moisturizer present in an amount of “about 0.5 wt. % to about 8 wt. % in a product of the present invention, preferably about 1 wt. % to about 5 wt. %.” As such, with regard to claims 50, 55 & 60, Beumer teaches citric acid and lactic acid in a combined amount of about 0.51% to about 5.01%. With regard to claim 50, it would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan at the time of filing to have modified Beumer’s Example 63 shine shampoo by adding lactic acid in an amount of about 1 wt. % to about 5 wt. % [yielding a combined amount of about 0.51 to about 5.01% lactic acid and citric acid] in order to provide moisturization and antioxidant properties to the hair shampoo. With regard to claim 55, it would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan at the time of filing to have modified Beumer’s hair cream by adding lactic acid in an amount of about 1 wt. % to about 5 wt. % and adding citric acid in an amount of 0.01% [yielding a combined amount of about 0.51 to about 5.01% lactic acid and citric acid] in order to provide moisturization and antioxidant properties to the hair cream. With regard to claim 60, it would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan at the time of filing to have modified Beumer’s silky hair cocktail by adding lactic acid in an amount of about 1 wt. % to about 5 wt. % and adding citric acid in an amount of 0.01% [yielding a combined amount of about 0.51 to about 5.01% lactic acid and citric acid] in order to provide moisturization and antioxidant properties to the hair cocktail. Beumer teaches the compositions of their invention impart shine to the hair [0141].
Beumer does not teach the shampoo comprises benzoic acid and maleic acid, hair cream/conditioner comprises benzoic acid and maleic acid, or that the silky hair cocktail/enhancing composition comprises benzoic acid and maleic acid.
In the same field of invention of hair cosmetics, Okuno teaches a hair cosmetic composition. Okuno teaches a component (B) for providing hair with luster which include hydroxycarboxylic acid with maleic acid and benzoic acid taught as preferred acids (col. 2, ll. 60-end to col. 3, ll. 1-10). Component (B) is taught to be most preferably 0.1 to 25% (col. 3, ll. 15-25).
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit.
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Note that the list of rationales provided is not intended to be an all-inclusive list. Other rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness may be relied upon by Office personnel.
With regard to claims 48-50, at least rationale (A) may be employed in which it would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified Beumer’s shine shampoo composition by adding maleic acid and benzoic acid in a combined amount of 0.1 to 25% [yielding a total carboxylic acid content of 0.61 to about 30.01%] as suggested by Okuno because Beumer teaches a shine shampoo and maleic acid and benzoic acid are reagents which enhance hair luster as taught by Okuno. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success, in order to increase the shine/luster of imparted by the composition to hair.
With regard to claims 53-55, at least rationale (A) may be employed in which it would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified Beumer’s extra shine hair cream/conditioner by adding maleic acid and benzoic acid in a combined amount of 0.1 to 25% [yielding a total carboxylic acid content of 0.61 to about 30.01%] as suggested by Okuno because Beumer teaches a shine cream and maleic acid and benzoic acid are reagents which enhance hair luster as taught by Okuno. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success, in order to increase the shine/luster of imparted by the shine cream to hair.
With regard to claims 58-60, at least rationale (A) may be employed in which it would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified Beumer’s silky hair cocktail cream/conditioner by adding maleic acid and benzoic acid in a combined amount of 0.1 to 25% [yielding a total carboxylic acid content of 0.11 to about 25.01%] as suggested by Okuno because Beumer teaches the compositions of their invention provide shine to hair and maleic acid and benzoic acid are reagents which enhance hair luster as taught by Okuno. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success, in order to increase the shine/luster of imparted by the silky hair cocktail/enhancing composition to hair.
With regard to amount of amino acids in the shampoo, the amount of carboxylic acids in the shampoo, the amount of amino acids in the conditioner, amount of carboxylic acids in the conditioner, and the amount of carboxylic acids in the enhancing composition/silky hair cocktail, the combined teachings of Beumer and Okuno teach these reagents in amounts which overlap with the claimed range. 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 re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 25, 51 and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beumer (US 2009/0068136; Published: 03/12/2009; previously cited) in view of Crotein (https://www.kutilov.cz/user/related_files/crotein_cashmere_pe_ds-250r-11.pdf; Published: 06/16/2008; previously cited).
The teachings of Beumer are described above. In brief, Beumer teaches a shampoo and hair cream (i.e. conditioner) comprising amino acids in which glycine and histidine are exemplified [0087].
Beumer does not teach the amino acids in the shampoo comprise “alanine and/or a salt thereof… and valine and/or a salt thereof” or that the conditioner comprises ““alanine and/or a salt thereof… and valine and/or a salt thereof”
In the same field of invention, Crotein teaches an amino acid complex comprising alanine, arginine, aspartic acid, glycine, histidine, isoleucine, phenylalanine, proline, serine, threonine, and valine (Table 1, pg. 2). Crotein teaches the amino acid complex is for use in conditioning shampoo, hair conditioners, intensive conditioning treatments, and styling product (pg. 1). Crotein teaches this amino acid complex is a “added value” ingredient with the amino acids exhibiting powerful moisture binding properties (pg. 1). The amino acids are able to penetrate the hair cuticle to help prevent breakage and split ends (pg. 1).
Here at least rationale (A) may be employed in which it would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified Beumer’s shine shampoo and shine hair cream/conditioner by adding Crotein, comprising the amino acids “alanine… valine” as suggested by Crotein because Beumer teaches the compositions of their invention may comprise amino acids, Beumer’s compositions include shampoos and conditioners, and Crotein which comprise “alanine… valine” is taught for inclusion in shampoos and conditioners by Crotein as an added-value reagent. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success, in order to increase hair moisture while preventing breakage and split ends as taught by Crotein.
With regard to amount of amino acids in the shampoo, the amount of carboxylic acids in the shampoo, the amount of amino acids in the conditioner, amount of carboxylic acids in the conditioner, and the amount of carboxylic acids in the enhancing composition/silky hair cocktail, the combined teachings of Beumer and Crotein teach these reagents in amounts which overlap with the claimed range. 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 re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 52 & 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beumer and Okuno as applied to claims 25, 48-50, 53-55 & 58-60 above, and further in view of Crotein (https://www.kutilov.cz/user/related_files/crotein_cashmere_pe_ds-250r-11.pdf; Published: 06/16/2008; previously cited).
The teachings of Beumer and Okuno are described above. In brief, the combined teachings of Beumer and Okuno suggest a shine shampoo compositions comprising the amino acids, glycine and histidine, maleic acid and benzoic acid in a combined amount of 0.1 to 25% [yielding a total carboxylic acid content of 0.61 to about 30.01%]; a shine cream/conditioner comprising the amino acids, glycine and histidine, maleic acid and benzoic acid in a combined amount of 0.1 to 25% [yielding a total carboxylic acid content of 0.61 to about 30.01%]; and a silky hair cocktail cream/conditioner comprising the amino acids, glycine and histidine, maleic acid and benzoic acid in a combined amount of 0.1 to 25% [yielding a total carboxylic acid content of 0.11 to about 25.01%].
Neither Beumer nor Okuno teach the shampoo (A) comprises “alanine and/or a salt thereof…and valine and/or a salt thereof”
The teachings of Crotein are described above.
With regard to claims 52 and 57, at least rationale (A) may be employed in which it would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified Beumer’s shine shampoo and shine hair cream/conditioner by adding Crotein, comprising the amino acids “alanine… valine” to the compositions as suggested by Crotein because Beumer teaches the compositions of their invention may comprise amino acids, Beumer’s compositions include shampoos and conditioners, and Crotein which comprises “alanine… valine” is taught for inclusion in shampoos and conditioners by Crotein as an added-value reagent. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success, in order to increase hair moisture while preventing breakage and split ends as taught by Crotein.
Claims 61 & 62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beumer and Okuno as applied to claims 25, 48-50, 53-55 & 58-60 above, and further in view of Brady (US Patent No. 5,376,145; Published: 12/27/1994; previously cited) and McKay (https://www.beautycon.com/article/is-water-damaging-my-hair; Published: 07/01/2010; previously cited).
The teachings of Beumer and Okuno are described above. In brief, the combined teachings of Beumer and Okuno suggest a silky hair cocktail/enhancing composition comprising citric acid, benzoic acid and maleic acid.
Neither Beumer nor Okuno teach the enhancing composition comprises a salt of maleic acid.
In the related field of processing textile materials comprising keratin fibers which include human hair, Brady teaches fabrics of textile undergo hygral expansion which produce faults and that damage occurs to keratinous fibers when they are heated above room temperature in water (abstract; col. 1, ll. 5-25). The ordinary skilled artisan would recognize hot to warm showers are warmer than room temperature; it is why the shower feels warm. To solve these problems, Brady teaches treatment with ammonium and sodium salts derived from “especially maleic acid” and in Example 1 teaches use of sodium hydrogen maleate (col. 5, ll. 10-20; col. 6, ll. 30-35).
McKay teaches “water can also be very damaging to your hair. In fact, the more damaged your hair is, the more damaging water is to it” (pg. 2).
With regard to claims 61 & 62, at least rationale (G) may be employed in which it would have been prima facie to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified the enhancing composition suggested by the combined teachings of Beumer and Okuno by adding sodium hydrogen maleate (i.e. salt of maleic acid) to the composition because Beumer, Okuno, Brady, and McKay are all drawn to the treatment of hair and work in one field of endevor may be applied in a related field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success, in order to protect hair from damage from water and wet hair from heat (i.e. hot water as when treated with a blow-dryer).
Claims 65-66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beumer (US 2009/0068136; Published: 03/12/2009; previously cited) in view of Reich (US 6,287,546; Published: 09/11/2001; previously cited), and Okuno (US Patent No. 6,607,718; Published: 08/19/2003; previously cited).
In a different embodiment, with respect to claim 65(A), Beumer in Example 19 teaches a hydrating shampoo [0212]. With regard to claim 65(A), Beumer teaches inclusion of the amino acids “ (e.g. glycine, histidine, tyrosine, tryptophan)” as an antioxidant with antioxidants present in an amount of “ at least 0.01 wt. % of the total weight of the composition. Preferably about 0.01 wt. % to about 10 wt. % of the total weight of the composition…Most preferred, one or more preservatives/antioxidants are present in an amount about 0.1 wt. % to about 1 wt. %” [0087]. With regard to claim 65(A), Beumer teaches inclusion of citric acid and lactic acid as β-hydroxy acids which are antioxidants [0087]. Beumer in the Example 63 Shine Shampoo teaches inclusion of citric acid in an amount of 0.01% [0319]. With regard to claim 65(A), it would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified Beumer’s Example 19 hydrating shampoo by adding 0.01% citric acid to the formulation to provide the composition with antioxidant properties. With regard to claim 65(A), Beumer also teaches lactic acid as a moisturizer which retains water on the hair surface with the moisturizer present in an amount of “about 0.5 wt. % to about 8 wt. % in a product of the present invention, preferably about 1 wt. % to about 5 wt. %.” As such, with regard to claim 65(A), Beumer teaches citric acid and lactic acid in a combined amount of about 0.51 to about 5.01%. With regard to claim 65(A), Beumer in Example 19 teaches the hydrating shampoo comprises sodium laureth sulfate, cocoamidopropyl betaine, decyl glucoside, polyquaternium-10 and water [0249]. Beumer teaches polyquaternium -10 and PQ-11 (i.e. polyquaternium-11) to be typical conditioning agents [0212]. It would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified Beumer’s Example 19-hydrating shampoo by substituting the polyquaternium-10 with the polyquaternium-11 polymer because they are both taught as typical conditioning agents for inclusion in the invention. Beumer in the silky hair cocktail/enhancing composition teaches inclusion of acrylates copolymer [0257]. With regard to claim 65(A), more broadly, Beumer teaches inclusion of acrylate copolymer (i.e. acrylates copolymer) as an additional polymer which may be used in combination with their inventive condensation polymers [0118]. With regard to claim 65(A), Beumer teaches a concern for stability of their product by teaching hair care compositions contain emulsifiers which act to stabilize the composition and these emulsifiers include fatty alcohols, including stearyl alcohol (i.e. a C18 alcohol; [0088]). With regard to claim 65(B), Beumer in Example 21 teaches an Extra Shine Revitalizing Hair Cream (conditioner) comprising behentrimonium chloride (cationic surfactant), tocopheryl acetate, cocodimonium hydroxypropyl hydrolyzed wheat protein (i.e. one or more cationic polymers), propylene glycol (polyhydric acid), and water [0253]. With regard to claim 65(B), Beumer teaches tocopherol and derivates (such as vitamin E acetate, (i.e. tocopherol acetate)) as an antioxidant suitable for inclusion in the compositions of their invention [0087]. With regard to claim 65(B), Beumer teaches inclusion of the amino acids “(e.g. glycine, histidine, tyrosine, tryptophan)” as an antioxidant with antioxidants present in an amount of “ at least 0.01 wt. % of the total weight of the composition. Preferably about 0.01 wt. % to about 10 wt. % of the total weight of the composition… Most preferred, one or more preservatives/antioxidants are present in an amount about 0.1 wt. % to about 1 wt. %” [0087]. With regard to claim 65(B), it would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified Beumer’s conditioner by adding the amino acids, glycine and histidine, in the amount of about 0.01 wt. % to about 10 wt. % of composition in order to provide antioxidant properties to the formulation. With regard to claim 65(B), Beumer teaches inclusion of citric acid and lactic acid as β-hydroxy acids as antioxidants [0087]. Beumer in the Example 63 Shine Shampoo teaches inclusion of citric acid in an amount of 0.01% [0319]. Beumer also teaches lactic acid as a moisturizer which retains water on the hair surface with the moisturizer present in an amount of “about 0.5 wt. % to about 8 wt. % in a product of the present invention, preferably about 1 wt. % to about 5 wt. %.” As such, with regard to claim 65(B), Beumer teaches citric acid and lactic acid in a combined amount of about 0.51% to about 5.01%. It would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan at the time of filing to have modified Beumer’s Example 21 extra shine revitalizing hair cream/conditioner by adding citric acid and lactic acid in a combined amount of about 0.51 to about 5.01% in order to provide moisturization and antioxidant properties to the hair conditioner. With regard to claim 65(C), Beumer in Example 24 teaches a silky hair cocktail (i.e. enhancing composition; [0257]). With regard to claim 65(C), Beumer in Example 24 teaches the hair cocktail comprises caprylic/capric triglyceride (i.e. a thickener) and water [0257]. With regard to claim 65(C), more broadly, Beumer teaches humectants including glycerine and propylene glycol may be used to bind water to retain it on the hair surface with low diols being incorporated into the aqueous phase ( [0106] & [0107]). It would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified Beumer’s hair cocktail by adding propylene glycol (i.e. a polyhydric alcohol) to the composition to bind moisture and retain it on the hair surface. With regard to claim 65(C), Beumer teaches inclusion of antioxidants present in an amount of “ at least 0.01 wt. % of the total weight of the composition. Preferably about 0.01 wt. % to about 10 wt. % of the total weight of the composition…Most preferred, one or more preservatives/antioxidants are present in an amount about 0.1 wt. % to about 1 wt. %” [0087]. With regard to claim 65(C), Beumer teaches inclusion of citric acid as a β-hydroxy acid which is an antioxidant [0087]. It would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified Beumer’s silky hair cocktail by adding citric acid in an amount of about 0.01 wt. % to about 10 wt.% in order to provide antioxidant properties to the silky hair cocktail. With regard to claim 65(C), Beumer’s silky hair composition comprises phenyl trimethicone, macadamia nut oil and tocopheryl acetate [0257]. With regard to claim 65(C), Beumer teaches tocopherol and derivates (such as vitamin E acetate, (i.e. tocopherol acetate)) as an antioxidant suitable for inclusion in the compositions of their invention [0087]. It would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have substituted tocopheryl acetate with tocopherol because they are both suitable antioxidant for inclusion in the invention based upon vitamin E. With regard to claim 65(C), Beumer teaches inclusion of neopentylglycol dihepanoate as other fatty compounds which may be advantageously incorporated into the hair care compositions of the invention [0101]. It would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified Beumer’s silky hair cocktail by adding neopentylglycol dihepanoate to the composition in order to provide fat/lubricity to the hair. With regard to claim 65 the hydrating shampoo, the Example 21 Extra Shine Revitalizing Hair Cream, and the Example 24 silky hair cocktail are all separately contained in their own reaction vessels. While there is not a single example comprising each of the hydrating shampoo, Extra Shine Revitalizing Hair Cream, and silky hair cocktail packaged together as a kit or bundle, it would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to combine these elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions to provide a kit for making the hair moisturized, shiny and silky, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results.
Beumer does not provide motivation to select acrylates copolymer for inclusion in the shampoo, Beumer does not teach inclusion of benzoic acid in the shampoo, conditioner or silky hair cocktail/enhancing composition, inclusion of maleic acid in the shampoo, conditioner or enhancing composition, or inclusion of quaternium-91 in the silky hair cocktail composition.
With regard to claim 65(A), Reich teaches a stabilized shampoo in which the stabilizers are at least one of (i) long chain fatty alcohols with greater than 14 carbons and (ii) acrylates copolymer (abstract; Example 16-col. 12, ll. 35-65; Reich’s claim 1).
The teachings of Okuno are described above. In brief, in the same field of invention of hair cosmetics, Okuno teaches a component (B) for providing hair with luster which include hydroxycarboxylic acid with maleic acid and benzoic acid taught as preferred acids (col. 2, ll. 60-end to col. 3, ll. 1-10). Component (B) is taught to be most preferably 0.1 to 25% (col. 3, ll. 15-25).
With regard to claims 65(A) & 66, at least rationale (A) may be employed in which it would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified Beumer’s hydrating shampoo composition by adding maleic acid and benzoic acid in a combined amount of 0.1 to 25% [yielding a total carboxylic acid content of 0.61 to about 30.01%] as suggested by Okuno because Beumer teaches a hydrating shampoo and maleic acid and benzoic acid are reagents which enhance hair luster as taught by Okuno. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success, in order to increase the shine/luster of imparted by the hydrating shampoo to hair.
With regard to claim 65(A), at least rationale (A) may be employed in which it would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified Beumer’s hydrating shampoo composition by adding acrylates copolymer to the composition as suggested by Reich because Beumer and Reich are both drawn to shampoo compositions and it is obvious to modify similar compositions in the same way. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with and expectation of success, in order to stabilize the hydrating shampoo.
With regard to claims 65(B) & 66, at least rationale (A) may be employed in which it would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified Beumer’s extra shine hair cream/conditioner by adding maleic acid and benzoic acid in a combined amount of 0.1 to 25% [yielding a total carboxylic acid content of 0.61 to about 30.01%] as suggested by Okuno because Beumer teaches a shine cream and maleic acid and benzoic acid are reagents which enhance hair luster as taught by Okuno. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success, in order to increase the shine/luster of imparted by the shine cream to hair.
With regard to claim 65(C), at least rationale (A) may be employed in which it would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified Beumer’s silky hair cocktail cream/conditioner by adding maleic acid and benzoic acid in a combined amount of 0.1 to 25% [yielding a total carboxylic acid content of 0.11 to about 25.01%] as suggested by Okuno because Beumer teaches the compositions of their invention provide shine to hair and may comprise conditioning compounds and maleic acid and benzoic acid are reagents which enhance hair luster as taught by Okuno. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success, in order to increase the shine/luster imparted by the silky hair cocktail/enhancing composition to hair.
With regard to amount of amino acids in the shampoo, the amount of carboxylic acids in the shampoo, the amount of amino acids in the conditioner, amount of carboxylic acids in the conditioner, and the amount of carboxylic acids in the enhancing composition/silky hair cocktail, the combined prior teachings of Beumer, Reich, and Okuno suggest these reagents in amounts which overlap with the claimed range. 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 re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 63 & 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beumer, Reich, and Okuno as applied to claims 65-66 above, and further in view of Glynn JR (US Pub No. 2007/0141007; Published: 06/21/2007; previously cited).
The teachings of Beumer, Reich, and Okuno are relied upon as above with respect to the hydrating shampoo, shine conditioner and silky hair cocktail. Further, with regard to claim 63(C), Beumer’s silky hair cocktail comprises dimethicone copolyol and centrimonium chloride [0257]. More broadly, with regard to claim 63(c), Beumer teaches the compositions of their invention can comprise “typical conditioning agents” which may be combined with the inventive condensation polymers in a haircare composition with “dimethicondopolyole” (sic; dimethicone copolyol) being one such conditioning active [0096].
Neither Beumer, Reich, nor Okuno teach the enhancing composition comprises quaternium-91.
In the same field of treating hair, Glynn JR teaches cetyltrimonium chloride and quaternium-91 are cationic hair conditioning compounds/actives [0051].
With regard to claim 65(C), at least rationale (A) may be employed in which it would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified the silky hair cocktail cream/conditioner suggested by the combined teachings of Beumer, and Okuno by adding quaternium-91 as suggested by Glynn JR because Beumer teaches the compositions of their invention provide shine to hair and may comprise conditioning compounds and quaternium-91 is a conditioning compound used in hair treatments as taught by Glynn JR. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success, in order to the conditioning imparted by the silky hair cocktail/enhancing composition to hair.
With regard to amount of amino acids in the shampoo, the amount of carboxylic acids in the shampoo, the amount of amino acids in the conditioner, amount of carboxylic acids in the conditioner, and the amount of carboxylic acids in the enhancing composition/silky hair cocktail, the combined prior teachings of Beumer, Reich, Okuno and Glynn JR suggest these reagents in amounts which overlap with the claimed range. 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 re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Response to Arguments
Applicant summarizes the standard of obviousness (reply, pg. 19-20). Applicant argues hindsight reconstruction was used because while amino acids are taught as preservatives/antioxidants, antioxidants/preservatives are taught among other optional components, with more than 500 distinct individual components disclosed (reply, pg. 21-22). Applicant proceeds to argue more than 125,000,000 permutations are possible (reply, pg. 22).
This is not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the instant case, Beumer teaches each of a shampoo, conditioner, and enhancing composition/silky hair cocktail in their examples. Use of the preservatives in such composition to increase the shelf life is obvious and Beumer teaches the amino acids, glycine and histidine, as suitable for functioning as a preservative/antioxidant [0087]. Notably, Applicant does not point to any teaching that the Examiner has cited that could have been gleaned only from the disclosures of Applicant’s specification. Selection of the amino acids, glycine and histidine, for their preservative/antioxidant properties is obvious because Beumer teaches their suitability for this function. “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
Applicant argues the “bundle feature” of their recited invention and that hindsight reasoning was added to achieve this recited feature (reply, pg. 22-23).
This not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the instant case, Beumer teaches each of a shampoo, conditioner, and enhancing composition/silky hair cocktail in their examples. Beumer teaches a feature of their invention is to provide shine to the hair and teaches a multitude of shine enhancing shampoos, conditioners and silky hair cocktails ([0003], [0142], Example 63 Shine Shampoo, Example 21 Extra Shine Revitalizing Hair Cream, and Example 24 silky hair cocktail). The Example 63 Shine Shampoo, the Example 21 Extra Shine Revitalizing Hair Cream, and the Example 24 silky hair cocktail which comprises phenyl trimethicone (i.e. a reagent which imparts shine/gloss) are all separately contained in their own reaction vessels. It would have been obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have packaged/bundled the three compositions together in order provide the consumer with products to achieve shine to the hair, meeting Beumer’s stated feature of their invention.
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LORI K MATTISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5866. The examiner can normally be reached 9-7 (M-F).
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, David J Blanchard can be reached at 5712720827. 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.
/LORI K MATTISON/ Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/NICOLE P BABSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1619
Prosecution Insights