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
The Applicant’s reply filed on 6/28/24 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 12, 13, and 18-55 are pending. Claim 2, 5, 6, 8-11, and 14-17 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 12, 13, and 18-55 are under consideration.
Rejections Maintained and New Grounds of Rejections
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/11/24. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 12, 13, and 18-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mann et al. (US 2016/0015615A1) in view of Klug (US 2017/0000710).
Mann et al. teach active ingredient combinations of alkylamidothiazoles and one or more cosmetically or dermatologically acceptable preservatives (e.g. abstract). Mann et al. teach that the compositions include compositions for cleaning the skin and the hair comprising surfactants (e.g. paragraph 0083; Examples). Mann et al. exemplify antidandruff shampoo formulations comprising
- 9.0 or 10.0 wt% sodium lauryl ether sulfate and 4.0 or 3.0 wt% cocamidopropylbetaine (i.e. 12-14 wt% of one or more surfactants, and 3-4% amphoteric co-surfactant);
- 0.3 or 0.2 wt% sodium salicylate;
- 0.25 or 0.3% sodium benzoate;
While the ranges of sodium salicylate and sodium benzoate are slightly above those claimed, Mann et al. more broadly teach that the one or more preservatives are preferably present at 0.005-3 wt% and may include sodium benzoate and salicylic acid (e.g. paragraphs 0021-0024), which overlaps with the claimed ranges of 0.04-0.15% and 0.07-0.15%. It is obvious to optimize within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation. In addition, the ranges result in ratios of salicylate salts to the benzoate salts of 1:625 to 600:1, which overlaps 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) (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Mann is silent as to the pH of the composition. This is made up for by the teachings of Klug.
Klug teaches shampoo compositions (e.g. abstract; Examples). Klug et al. exemplify a shampoo comprising 8% sodium lauryl ether sulfate and 3% cocamidopropyl betaine (11% of one or more surfactants, 3% amphoteric so-surfactant), 0.1% sodium salicylate and 0.1% sodium benzoate (e.g. Examples 3 and 6, paragraph 0141). Klug et al. exemplify the compositions having a pH of 5.0 (e.g. Examples 3 and 6, paragraph 0141).
Regarding Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 12, 13, 18, and 23-33, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected a pH of 5 as in the shampoo of Klug for use in the shampoos of Mann et al. Mann et al. are silent as to the pH, but Klug et al. teach shampoo compositions comprising substantially similar ingredients. Given that Mann is silent as to the pH, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to seek guidance on an appropriate pH for their shampoo, and further would have predicted success as both Mann et al. and Klug et al. teach shampoos comprising substantially similar ingredients.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to vary the salicylate and benzoate concentrations through routine experimentation in order to optimize the resulting product. 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). In addition, Klug et al. exemplify 0.1% sodium salicylate and 0.1% sodium benzoate, which while this is outside of the claimed ratio, demonstrates that concentrations within the claimed ranges are typical and known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g. Examples 3 and 6, paragraph 0141).
Regarding Claims 19-22, Mann et al. are silent as to the bacteria log reduction. However, as Mann et al. teach the claimed preservatives (salicylate and benzoate) in the claimed concentrations in a shampoo formulation, then the outcome of bacteria log reduction would necessarily occur. The instant specification (page 1) links the antibacterial properties to the sodium salicylate and sodium benzoate which are taught by Mann et al. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claims 34-38, Mann et al. teach 0.2% guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride (e.g. paragraph 0106, Examples 87 and 88).
Regarding Claims 39 and 40, Mann et al. teach the inclusion of thickeners including polyacrylate (e.g. paragraph 0092, 0106, Examples 87 and 88).
Regarding Claims 41-55, Mann et al. teach the inclusion of 0.45% climbazole, 1.0 and 0.5% piroctone olamine, 0.2% selenium sulfide, and 1.0% zinc pyrithione (e.g. paragraphs 0105 and 0106, Examples 85-88).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 12, 13, and 18-55 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-53 of copending Application No. 17/980,169.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant and copending claims require a hair care composition comprising: from about 8 to about 17% of one or more surfactants; from about 0.04 to about 0.15% of salicylate salts or acids, and from about 0.04 to about 0.15% of benzoate salts or acids. The copending claims recite a ratio of salicylate salts or acids to benzoate salts or acids of about 1:1 to 2.5:1, which overlaps with the instant claimed ratio of 1:0.9 to 4:1. 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) (MPEP 2144.05.I). Dependent claims include the claimed surfactants, benzoate salts, thickener, and antidandruff/scalp health agents, and amounts thereof.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 12, 13, and 18-55 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-53 of copending Application No. 17/980,199.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant and copending claims require a hair care composition comprising: from about 8 to about 17% of one or more surfactants; from about 0.04 to about 0.15% of salicylate salts or acids, and from about 0.04 to about 0.15% of benzoate salts or acids. The copending claims recite a ratio of salicylate salts or acids to benzoate salts or acids of about 1:1 to 2.5:1, which overlaps with the instant claimed ratio of 1:0.9 to 4:1. 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) (MPEP 2144.05.I). Dependent claims include the claimed surfactants, benzoate salts, thickener, and antidandruff/scalp health agents, and amounts thereof.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 12, 13, and 18-55 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-35 of U.S. Patent No. 11,523,979.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant and patented claims require a hair care composition comprising: a. from about 10 to about 17% of one or more surfactants; 0.1-0.25% salicylate salts or acids; and 0.1-0.25% benzoate salts or acids. The patented claims recite a ratio of salicylate salts or acids to benzoate salts or acids of about 1:1 to 2.5:1, which overlaps with the instant claimed ratio of 1:0.9 to 4:1. 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) (MPEP 2144.05.I). Dependent claims include the claimed surfactants, benzoate salts, thickener, and antidandruff/scalp health agents, and amounts thereof.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 12, 13, and 18-55 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-51 of U.S. Patent No. 11,684,558.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant and patented claims require a hair care composition comprising: a. from about 8 to about 17% of one or more surfactants; 0.02-0.15% salicylate salts or acids; and 0.02-0.15% benzoate salts or acids. The patented claims recite a ratio of salicylate salts or acids to benzoate salts or acids of about 1:1 to 1:0.08, which overlaps with the instant claimed ratio of 1:0.9 to 4:1. 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) (MPEP 2144.05.I). Dependent claims include the claimed surfactants, benzoate salts, thickener, and antidandruff/scalp health agents, and amounts thereof.
Response to Arguments and Declaration
Applicant's arguments filed 6/28/24 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Arguments relevant to the current grounds of rejection will be addressed below.
Applicant argues, beginning on page 10 that Klug et al. exemplify compositions outside of the claimed ratio and this would not lead one of skill in the art to the unexpected results of the present invention without undue experimentation. Applicant continues on page 12 that the Declaration of Debora W. Chang (Examples 1-4 summarized on pages 12-13) provides evidence that the compositions comprising 0.15% sodium salicylate and 0.15% sodium benzoate result in different bacteria log reduction than a composition comprising 0.2 wt% of each ingredient. Applicant concludes that to one of skill in the art, the expectation would be that with continued reduction of sodium benzoate and sodium salicylate levels, the preservative properties would also show continually diminished efficacy until no preservative benefit is observed, however, the present invention has demonstrated that levels as low as 0.04% can provide a significant bacteria log reduction.
This is not found persuasive. First, it is noted that Examples 1 and 2 are outside of the claimed pH range. Second, while the data show a difference between the values 0.15% and 0.2%, this is not a surprising result. It would be expected that a slightly lower preservative concentration would result in a slight lower bacteria log reduction. Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It is unclear why the results should be considered surprising. Applicant is claiming a composition and not a method. The composition comprises from about 8 to about 17% of one or more surfactants, from about 0.04 to about 0.15% of salicylate salts or acids, and from 0.04 to 0.15% of benzoate salts or acids, wherein there is a weight ratio of 1:0.9 to 4:1 of the salicylate salts or acids to the benzoate salts or acids, and wherein the composition has a pH less than or equal to about 6. The bacteria log reduction is an inherent property of the ingredients and the concentrations thereof. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.”. Mann et al. teach that the one or more preservatives are preferably present at 0.005-3 wt% and may include sodium benzoate and salicylic acid (e.g. paragraphs 0021-0024). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have selected a value as low as 0.005 wt% for each ingredient and it is obvious to optimize within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation.
Applicant further argues on page 14 that Mann et al. do not exemplify any shampoo or hair care detersive compositions with preservatives at such levels. Furthermore, Mann et al. in view of Klug only exemplifies oil in water emulsion, water in oil emulsions, deodorants/antiperspirants and hair tonics with some lower levels of such preservatives. For example, in an Oil/Water Emulsion with sodium benzoate at 0.01 (Ex. 1), 0.05 (Ex. 2); in deodorant/antiperspirant examples of sodium benzoate at 0.10% (Ex. 55); 0.02% (Ex. 56) both of which one of skill in art would not look to when formulating a hair care shampoo compositions of the present invention.
This is not found persuasive. First, the instant claims are not limited to a shampoo. Second, Mann et al. teach that the one or more preservatives are preferably present at 0.005-3 wt% and may include sodium benzoate and salicylic acid (e.g. paragraphs 0021-0024) and need not exemplify every possible option. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant continues, while Mann et al. is silent to pH, the present invention has demonstrated a benefit and significant difference at pH 6 vs. 7 wherein the difference is magnified at pH 6. This is not found persuasive. Mann et al. are silent as to the pH of their compositions (i.e. they may or may not meet the claimed range of less than or equal to 6), however Klug et al. teach shampoo compositions and a shampoo comprising 0.1% sodium salicylate and 0.1% sodium benzoate having a pH of 5.0 (e.g. Examples 3 and 6, paragraph 0141) and more broadly teach a preferred pH range of 4-6 (e.g. paragraph 0102). Mann et al. are silent as to the pH, but Klug et al. teach shampoo compositions comprising substantially similar ingredients. Given that Mann is silent as to the pH, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to seek guidance on an appropriate pH for their shampoo, and further would have predicted success as both Mann et al. and Klug et al. teach shampoos comprising substantially similar ingredients.
Beginning on page 14, Applicants re-assert that the 1.132 Declaration of Chang clearly states and includes Examples 1-4 below based off of the surfactant chassis and preservatives in Example 87 in Mann et al. (US 2016/0015615) - which, along with cited Ex. 86, are the only exemplified compositions in Mann et al. for which one of skill in the art could duplicate and compare. Applicants re-assert the above results demonstrate that 0.2% and 0.15% of sodium salicylate (and sodium benzoate) do not have the same preservative properties. Therefore, to one of skill in the art, the expectation would be that with continued reduction of sodium benzoate and sodium salicylate levels, the preservative properties would also show continually diminished efficacy until no preservative benefit is observed. However, the present invention has demonstrated that levels as low as 0.04% can provide a significant bacteria log reduction.
This is not found persuasive. First, it is noted that Examples 1 and 2 are outside of the claimed pH range. Second, while the data show a difference between the values 0.15% and 0.2%, this is not a surprising result. It would be expected that a slightly lower preservative concentration would result in a slight lower bacteria log reduction. Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It is unclear why the results should be considered surprising. Applicant is claiming a composition and not a method. The composition comprises from about 8 to about 17% of one or more surfactants, from about 0.04 to about 0.15% of salicylate salts or acids, and from 0.04 to 0.15% of benzoate salts or acids, wherein there is a weight ratio of 1:0.9 to 4:1 of the salicylate salts or acids to the benzoate salts or acids, and wherein the composition has a pH less than or equal to about 6. The bacteria log reduction is an inherent property of the ingredients and the concentrations thereof. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.”. Mann et al. teach that the one or more preservatives are preferably present at 0.005-3 wt% and may include sodium benzoate and salicylic acid (e.g. paragraphs 0021-0024). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have selected a value as low as 0.005 wt% for each ingredient and it is obvious to optimize within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation.
Regarding the results provided in the Specification and repeated in the Arguments, this is not found persuasive. First, Applicants have not shown any criticality of the claimed amounts of salicylate salts and benzoate salts in the claimed invention because the comparative composition is a composition comprising no salicylate and no benzoate, however the composition relied upon in Mann et al. comprises both salicylate and benzoate. In addition, Mann teaches preservative concentrations as low as 0.0001% by wt, and preferably 0.005-3 wt% (e.g. paragraph 0021). Therefore, Applicant has not compared to the closest prior art. An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979) (see MPEP 716.02(e)). Second, the results do not appear to be surprising. Applicant has shown that the inventive compositions (which comprise preservative) had better anti-bacterial properties compared to the control (unpreserved). This is not surprising as preservatives are known in the art by definition to prevent the growth of harmful bacteria and mold. Third, the inventive compositions provided do not appear to include a benzoate at all. Applicant’s data is not commensurate in scope with the claims. Applicant has provided data for distinct narrow compositions while the claims are still much broader, both in terms of ingredients and the amounts thereof.
Applicants have not shown any criticality of the claimed amounts of salicylate salts and benzoate salts in the claimed invention because the comparative composition is a composition comprising no salicylate and no benzoate, and no other concentrations, or any ratios, have been tested. While Mann et al. exemplify both salicylate and benzoate at relatively low concentrations which are only slightly above those claimed, and generally preservative concentrations as low as 0.0001% by wt, and preferably 0.005-3 wt% (e.g. paragraph 0021). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Applicant further argues over Klug that the rejection is a conclusionary statement based on no findings in Mann or Klug. This is not found persuasive. Klug is relied upon for teaching the pH of the composition, now recited in Claim 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected a pH of 5 as in the shampoo of Klug for use in the shampoos of Mann et al. Mann et al. are silent as to the pH, but Klug et al. teach shampoo compositions comprising substantially similar ingredients. Given that Mann is silent as to the pH, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to seek guidance on an appropriate pH for their shampoo, and further would have predicted success as both Mann et al. and Klug et al. teach shampoos comprising substantially similar ingredients.
Applicant argues, that the concentrations of sodium salicylate and sodium benzoate of Mann et al. are not slightly higher than those claimed but are “7 to 8 times higher than the present invention’s Claim 1”. This is not found persuasive. To make that math accurate, it appears that Applicant is calculating based on the lower range of claim 1 of 0.04, however claim 1 recites a range of up to 0.15% of each of salicylic salts and benzoate salts. In addition, Mann teaches preservative concentrations as low as 0.0001% by wt, and preferably 0.005-3 wt% (e.g. paragraph 0021). In addition, Klug exemplifies 0.1% sodium benzoate and 0.1% sodium salicylate (e.g. paragraph 0141), which provides further evidence that lower concentrations (than exemplified by Mann) of the preservatives sodium salicylate and sodium benzoate were known and used in the art.
Accordingly, the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE PLOURDE BABSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3055. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-4:30; F 8-12:30.
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 Blanchard can be reached on 571-272-0827. 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.
/NICOLE P BABSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1619
Prosecution Insights