DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/09/2025, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Status
Claims 36-39, 41-46, and 48-53 are pending and under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 – New Matter
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 36-39, 41-46, and 48-53, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim 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 of 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.
Claim 36 recites the mixed parts comprise “about 9 wt% to about 11 wt% of hydrogen peroxide.” This does not appear to be supported by the original disclosure. It appear that the only mention of a wt% with respect to the entire weight of the formulation is in tables 3 and 4. While showing hydrogen peroxide amounts within the claimed ranges, examples 1-6 are directed to directed to a single-part tooth whitening gel, which is not the same as the two part whitening kit as instantly claimed. Accordingly, there does not appear to be support for the mixed first and second part hydrogen peroxide content for a two-part composition, as instantly claimed.
Claim 36 also recites “about 6,000 cps to about 10,000 cps.” This does not appear to be supported by the original disclosure. It appears that the only mention of a Brookfield viscosity of the formulations is in table 3, however, all embodiments in table 3 (examples 1-4) are directed to a single part tooth whitening gel, not a two part whitening kit as instantly claimed. Accordantly, there does not appear to be support for the Brookfield viscosities of the mixture of the two part whitening composition. Even if somehow the single part composition were to provide support for a Brookfield viscosity of the mixed two part compositions, viscosity is shown as low as 6054 cP and as high as 9968 cP, which does not support the upper and lower ranges of “about 6000” and “about 10,000”, where about can include amounts above and below 6000 and 10,000.
Claims 37-39, 41-46, and 48-53, are also rejected for the same reasons for depending from rejected claim 36.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or pre-AIA 2nd ¶
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 36-39, 41-46, and 48-53, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 36 recites a first part comprising a thickening agent and a second part comprising a second part thickening agent, and it is not clear to the examiner if the thickening agent and the second part thickening agent are the same thickener, or a different thickener. It appear that Applicants intend for the thickening agent in the first and second parts to be the same crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone, but the examiner is not sure.
Claim 36 also recites the combined first and second part viscosities “based on the thickening agent and the second part thickening agent.” It is unclear how the viscosities can be based on the thickening agent and the second part thickening agent where the thickening agent (of the first part) is from 20,000 cps to 50,000 cps, which is greater than the about 6,000 cps to about 10,000 cps of the combined composition. For purposes of examination, the combined viscosity is being interpreted as being the viscosity of the activated tooth whitening composition (i.e., the combined first and second parts).
Claim 38 recites “wherein the second part thickening agent comprises the crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone as the thickening agent.” The claim is unclear where the claim refers to “the second part thickening agent” as “the thickening agent”. From claim 36, the “second part thickening agent” and the “thickening agent” appear to be separate thickening agents in the first and second part, and claim 38 implies that the second part thickening agent is the thickening agent (i.e., a single thickening agent). For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as wherein the second part comprises the crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone as the second part thickening agent.
Claims 37, 39, 41-46, and 48-53, are also rejected for the same reasons for depending from rejected claim 36.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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 36-39, 41-46, and 48-53, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiao et al. (US 2016/0095801) in view of Ahn et al. (KR 0163502) and Prosise et al (US 20130209376 A1).
Jiao et al. disclose multi-component dental whitening compositions comprising a bleaching agent and an activating agent (abs). The tooth whitening compositions of the present invention comprises a two-component system presented in dual-barrel syringes (¶ 23). The first component active bleaching agent, a peroxide, may be present at above about 15% by weight, preferably from about 15% by weight to about 40% by weight peroxide (¶ 46). The peroxide includes hydrogen peroxide, carbamide peroxide and urea peroxide (¶ 46). Second component is an activator gel (¶ 53, claim 1). The first and second component are in a ratio of 1:1 to 5:1 first to second component (¶ 47). The activating agents include potassium hydroxide, sodium carbonate and bicarbonate and can be used to adjust the pH (¶¶ 11, 41). When the two components are mixed, the resulting pH ranges from 7.0 to 8.5 (¶ 41). A kit includes a dual compartment syringe comprising bleaching gel in a first part and activator gel in a second part (¶ 20). Surfactants are used and include polyoxyethylene/polyoxypropylene block copolymer ranging from about 0.5% to about 15 wt%, and achieve effective whitening results (¶¶ 43, 50). Thickeners should be used to obtain a viscous gel so that it can cling to the surface of teeth, and include polyvinyl pyrrolidone (¶ 37) ranging from about 0.1% to about 35 wt% (¶ 47). Both components comprise a thickening agent (see Tables). Water comprises 40-60 wt% of the activator gel (i.e., the second part), with embodiments disclosed comprising 50 wt% water (Tables 2, 3). Water is a suitable liquid carrier as evidenced by the instant specification (see instant specification pg. 9). Glycerin comprises 17% of the bleaching gel (Table 1). The compositions are in the form of a viscous gel (¶ 14).
Jiao et al. differ from the instant claims insofar as it does not disclose the crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone of claim 36 nor the pH of the alkaline material as instantly claimed.
Ahn et al. disclose stable whitening liquid toothpaste compositions. The compositions comprise a peroxide containing component and a basic liquid toothpaste having a pH of 7.5 to 10.5. Since the basic liquid toothpaste having a pH of 7.5 to 10.5 is used simultaneously, it can promote the decomposition of peroxide in the oral cavity and exhibit the maximum whitening effect for a short brushing time, as well as the cleaning effect and tooth decay expected in a conventional toothpaste. Preventive effects can also be expected. That is, the basic liquid toothpaste is adjusted to a pH of 7.5 to 10.5 by using a pH adjuster in a conventional liquid toothpaste, and it is considered that the pH of the peroxide is changed to weak alkali when used to promote the decomposition of the peroxide, thereby increasing the whitening effect. pH adjusting agents include strong alkaline substances such as sodium hydroxide (page 3).
Ahn et al do not teach the thickening agent of claim 36.
Prosise et al teach oral care containing an oral care ingredient and a thickening agent (abs). The oral care compositions in the form of a gel, etc., contain a lightly to moderately crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone thickening agent (¶ 6), wherein the lightly to moderately crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone has an aqueous gel volume from about 15-150 ml/g, and a Brookfield viscosity of 5% crosslinked PVP in a liquid carrier comprising at least about 10,000 cP (¶ 9). Teeth bleaching actives can be used, including hydrogen peroxide (¶¶ 37, 39). The thickening agent is used to develop the desired viscosity for oral compositions so that they are suitable for their intended use (¶ 2). The amount of thickening agent can vary depending on the consistency and the desired thickness of the composition. The thickening agent may be used in a mounts from about 0.5 to about 10% (¶ 14). The compositions are produced as stable compositions.
Regarding the kit of claim 36, it would have obvious to formulate the whitening composition in the form of a kit with a first and second part, as taught by Jiao et al.
Regarding the hydrogen peroxide amount, it would have been obvious to formulate the first part with hydrogen peroxide in an amount above about 15 wt%, preferably from about 15% by weight to about 40% by weight peroxide, as taught by Jiao et al, overlapping 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. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding the pH of the alkaline material, it would have been obvious to formulate the alkaline component of Jiao et al. with a pH of 10-10.5, because when mixed with the peroxide containing part, it would raise the pH of the peroxide part to promote the decomposition of peroxide in the oral cavity and would exhibit the maximum whitening effect for a short brushing time, as taught by Anh et al.
Regarding the crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone, where Jiao et al teach thickeners can be included in both parts, including polyvinylpyrrolidone, it would have been obvious to include other thickeners that were known to be suitable for oral formulations comprising teeth whitening agents, such as a lightly to moderately crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone thickening agent, wherein the lightly to moderately crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone has an aqueous gel volume from about 15-150 ml/g, and a Brookfield viscosity of 5% crosslinked PVP in a liquid carrier comprising at least about 10,000 cP, as taught by Prosise et al, in order to obtain a viscous gel that can cling to the surface of teeth, as taught by Jiao et al. Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding the amounts of crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone, it would have been obvious to include the crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone thickening agent made obvious above in amounts ranging from about 0.1% to about 35 wt%, as taught by Jiao. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding the wt% of hydrogen peroxide when combined, Examiner notes that the claims are directed to a kit comprising a first and second part, and the combining of the two parts is directed to the intended use of the two parts in the kit. Nevertheless, where hydrogen peroxide in the first part can be any amount above 15 wt%, such as for example 40 wt%, the resulting hydrogen peroxide in the mixed formulation will vary depending on the mixing ratio of the first and second part. Where the mixing ratio of the first and second part ranges from 1:1 to 5:1, it would be expected that the resulting amount of hydrogen peroxide in the mixed formulation would overlap the instantly 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. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding the pH when combined, Examiner notes that the claims are directed to a kit comprising a first and second part, and the combining of the two parts is directed to the intended use of the two parts in the kit. Nevertheless, where Jiao et al teach when the two parts are mixed, the resulting pH ranges from 7.0 to 8.5, the limitations are met.
Regarding the viscosity when combined, Examiner notes that the claims are directed to a kit comprising a first and second part, and the combining of the two parts is directed to the intended use of the two parts in the kit. Nevertheless, where the composition made obvious above comprises thickeners, it would have been well within the relative skills of the skilled artisan to routinely optimize the formulations for optimal viscosity for being applied to the teeth, such as to prevent the formulation from running off of the teeth, where Jiao et al teach the thickeners are included to obtain a viscous gel so that it can cling to the surface of teeth. The skilled artisan would recognize that a viscous gel would have a Brookfield viscosity overlapping the instantly claimed range. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. Where 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. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 37, where the combination made obvious by Jiao et al, Anh et al, and Prosise et al comprise the same components within the amounts claimed, it appears that the functional limitation of the pH increasing after activation is inherent to the combination itself. See MPEP 2112(II) and (III).
Regarding claim 38, it would have been obvious to formulate the teeth whitening kit made obvious above by Jiao et al, Anh et al, and Prosise et al where both components comprise a thickening agent, as taught by Jiao et al.
Regarding the type of thickener, it would have been obvious to select the crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone thickener made obvious above and for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 39, it would have been obvious to use a kit that includes a dual compartment syringe comprising bleaching gel in a first part and activator gel in a second part, as taught by Jiao et al.
Regarding claim 41, it would have been obvious to include the first and second component in a ratio of 1:1 to 5:1 first to second component in the kit made obvious above, as taught by Jiao et al.
Regarding claim 42, it would have obvious to include the activating agents potassium hydroxide, sodium carbonate and bicarbonate, in order to adjust the pH, as taught by Jiao et al.
Regarding claim 43, it would have been obvious to further include a polyoxyethylene/polyoxypropylene block copolymer in amounts ranging from about 0.5% to about 15 wt%, as surfactants, which were shown to be included to achieve effective whitening results, as taught by Jiao et al. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 44, where a dual barrel syringe is made obvious above by Jiao et al, and is used as a kit to mix the two parts, it appears that the two parts would be mixed at the tip, thereby reading on a “mixing tip.” Even if not, it would have been obvious to use a mixing tip to mix the components at the same time when using a dual barrel syringe.
Regarding claim 45, it would have been obvious to include water in an amount ranging from 40-60 wt%, as taught by Jiang et al, a suitable liquid carrier as evidenced by the instant specification above. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 46, the pH of each part would be expected to control the final pH when mixed. It would have taken no more than the relative skills of a skilled artisan to have adjusted the pH of each component to obtain the desired pH when mixed. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding the type of kit of claims 48 and 49, the two component compositions made obvious above comprise the same components in the amounts instantly claimed, in the form of a kit, and would therefore be suitable for home or office use. Therefore, the compositions of the references meet the limitation of the claim.
Regarding claim 50, it would have been obvious to formulate the teeth whitening kit made obvious above by Jiao et al, Anh et al, and Prosise et al where both components comprise a thickening agent, as taught by Jiao et al.
Regarding the type of thickener, it would have been obvious to select the crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone thickener made obvious above and for the same reasons.
Regarding a viscous gel, where the compositions of Jiao et al are disclosed as a viscous gel, the limitations are met.
Regarding claims 51 and 52, it would have been obvious to formulate the first part of Jiang et al with hydrogen peroxide in an amount about above 15 wt%, as taught by Jiang et al, which includes those amounts instantly claimed. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 53, it would have been obvious to include the crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone thickening agent made obvious above in amounts ranging from about 0.1% to about 35 wt%, as taught by Jiao. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Response to Arguments
First, Applicants assert the claimed formulations achieve stable high peroxide gels maintaining greater than 90% peroxide retention after 8 weeks at 40 deg C, an outcome contrary to the expectation that high peroxide concentrations at near neutral pH would rapidly decompose due to highly reactive mixture of hydrogen peroxide. Applicants assert the claimed composition exhibits controlled viscosity and neutral activation (pH 7-9), delivering improved whitening efficacy and reduced tissue irritation. Applicants assert these synergistic results could not have been reasonably predicted from Jiao et al, Singh, Prosise et al’s, or Zaidel et al’s teachings, all of which suggest peroxide instability at high concentration or under alkaline activation.
Second, Applicants assert Jiao et al limits the hydrogen peroxide content to below 30 wt%, and relies on non-crosslinked polymers instead of moderately crosslinked PVP. Also, Applicants assert Jiao et al maintains the bleaching component at an acidic pH of 4-6 and does not disclose any second component having a pH greater than or equal to 10. Applicants assert Jiao et al do not describe controlling post-mix viscosity or achieving a neutral pH activation window between 7 and 9.
Third, Applicants provide arguments with respect to Singh.
Fourth, Applicants assert Prosise et al disclose single-phase oral-care gels and does not teach a separate alkaline part or an activation mechanism that yields a controlled neutral pH upon mixing and longer term storage. Applicants assert Prosise et al cannot supply the missing two-part architecture, the high peroxide concentration, or the post mix rheology and pH required by claim 36.
Fifth, Applicants assert Jiao et al’s peroxide system relies on acidic stabilization, and substituting Singh’s insoluble PVP or introducing an alkaline activator at pH less than or equal to 10 would defeat that stabilization mechanism, causing premature peroxide decomposition. Likewise, Applicants assert modifying Prosise et al’s singe phase gel to incorporate a dual component alkaline activation would undermine its uniform polymer-peroxide matrix.
Sixth, Applicants assert lack of motivation in combining Jiao et al’s acidic compositions with Singh’s solid tablet disintegrants, Prosise et al’s single phase gels, or Zaidel et al’s lower peroxide dentifrice systems. Applicants assert the reference address different objectives. Therefore, Applicants assert the combination is a product of hindsight.
Seventh, Applicants assert Jiao et al teach away from using alkalinity.
First, respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. Applicants assert that synergistic results are shown in the instant specification, but it is respectfully not seen where these results are demonstrated. The claims are directed to a two part whitening kit, and the results demonstrated in tables 1, 3, and 4 (examples 1-6), are all directed to a single part tooth whitening composition. It appears that the only results shown for a two-part tooth whitening composition is table 2 and fig. 1, however, table 2 only lists the components of the compositions and fig. 1 simply displays the change in pH of the two part composition over 20 minutes. Accordingly, it does not appear that the hydrogen peroxide retention results were demonstrated for the two part tooth whitening composition. Regarding the controlled viscosity and natural activation (pH 7-9), while not shown in the instant results, the examiner notes that Jiao et al teach the inclusion of thickeners to adjust the viscosity (i.e., controlling viscosity), where the mixed compositions comprise a pH ranging from 7.0 to 8.5. Regarding Applicants arguments of instability, Jiao et al teach the compositions are stable, and can comprise greater than about 15 wt% hydrogen peroxide, with working embodiment comprising 15-40 wt% hydrogen peroxide. Therefore, it appears that stability at high hydrogen peroxide compositions would be expected.
Second, respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. It is respectfully not seen where Jiao et al limits the hydrogen peroxide content to below 30 wt%. In fact, Jiao et al teaches hydrogen peroxide may be above about 15% by weight, and has a preferable range from about 15 wt% to about 40 wt%.
Regarding the pH, the instant claims do not comprise limitations that limit the pH of the first part (bleaching component). While Jiao et al do not appear to teach the activator gel with a pH greater than or equal to 10, it would have been obvious to formulate the alkaline component of Jiao et al. with a pH of 10-10.5, for the same reasons discussed above by Ahn et al.
Regarding the post mix viscosity, the examiner notes that the claims are directed to a two part kit, where the mixing of the two parts are tied to the intended use of the individual components. Nevertheless, where the composition made obvious above comprises thickeners, it would have been well within the relative skills of the skilled artisan to routinely optimize the formulations for optimal viscosity for being applied to the teeth, such as to prevent the formulation from running off of the teeth, where Jiao et al teach the thickeners are included to obtain a viscous gel so that it can cling to the surface of teeth, as discussed above.
Regarding the neutral pH activation window between 7 and 9, the examiner again notes that the claims are directed to a kit comprising a first and second part, and the combining of the two parts is directed to the intended use of the two parts in the kit. Nevertheless, where Jiao et al teach when the two parts are mixed, the resulting pH ranges from 7.0 to 8.5, the limitations are met.
Third, respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. Applicants argue the teachings of Singh, however, the examiner notes that Singh is not relied upon in the prior art rejection. Accordingly, Applicants’ arguments with respect to Singh are moot.
Fourth, respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the present instance, Prosise et al were not relied upon for teaching a two-part architecture, a high peroxide concentration, or the post mix rheology and pH. Prosise et al were only relied upon for teaching known thickening agents that are suitable for use in teeth whitening formulations.
Fifth, respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. The examiner again notes that Singh is not relied upon in the prior art rejection, and Applicants’ arguments with respect to Singh are moot. Even still, the examiner notes that Jiao et al teach combining the peroxide part with an alkaline activator, wherein the mixed pH can be alkaline. Regarding the argument with respect to Prosise et al, the rejection above does not modify Prosise et al to incorporate a dual component system, rather the two part whitening composition of Jiang et al, which teaches the inclusion of thickeners, was modified by Prosise et al to include other known thickeners suitable for teeth whitening compositions.
Sixth, respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. The examiner again notes that Singh is not relied upon in the prior art rejection, and Applicants arguments with respect to Singh are moot.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Jiao et al, Ahn et al, and Prosise et al are all directed to teeth whitening compositions, and it would have been obvious for the skilled artisan to substitute the thickener of Jiao et al with other known thickeners that were known to be suitable for teeth whitening compositions, as taught by Ahn et al and Prosise et al, for the same reasons discussed above.
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). Here, the modifications to Jiao et al would have taken no more than knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and teachings from analogous prior art, for the reasons discussed above and of record.
Seventh, respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. Jiao et al teach a first part that is combined with a second part, that can have an alkaline pH, in order to result in a mixture with a pH ranging from 7.0 to 8.5, falling within the claimed ranges. Where Jiao et al teach combining the first part with an alkaline second part, Jiao et al does not appear to teach away from the claimed combination, contrary to Applicants’ assertion.
Claims 36-39, 41-46, and 48-53, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiao et al. (US 2016/0095801), in view of Ahn et al. (KR 0163502), Prosise et al (US 20130209376 A1), and Prosise et al (US 20060292091 A1, hereinafter “Prosise ‘091”).
Jiao et al, Ahn et al, and Prosise et al are discussed above, and purely arguendo, if the resulting viscosity of the mixed composition is required and is not obvious to routinely adjust, the following applies.
Prosise ‘091 teaches it was known to formulate tooth whitening compositions with a resulting Brookfield viscosity of 50-10,000 cps (abs). The compositions had effective bioadhesion and retention (abs).
It would have been obvious for the skilled artisan to formulate the tooth whitening mixture with known viscosities suitable for tooth whitening compositions, such as from 50-10,000 cps, as taught by Prosise ‘091, which were known to have effective bioadhesion and retention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
The limitations of claims 36-39, 41-46, and 48-53 are rejected for the same reasons discussed above as applied to each and every claimed limitation.
Claims 36-39, 41-46, and 48-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaidel et al (US 20040062723 A1), in view of Jiao et al (US 2016/0095801) and Prosise et al (US 20130209376 A1).
Zaidel et al disclose a two-part composition wherein one part comprises a peroxide and a second part comprises an alkaline material (abs, ¶ 41). Kits were known (¶ 5). Peroxide comprises up to about 30 wt% of the whitening component (¶ 12). The concentration of the peroxide compound present in the combined composition ranges from 3 to about 30 wt% (claim 22). The second component has a pH in the range of about 8 to about 13 (¶ 33, claim 13). The individual components are maintained separate from each other and are not combined and admixed until simultaneous application to teeth is performed by the patient (abs). When combined in a suitable receptacle such as a dental tray immediately prior to application to teeth, rapid whitening of the teeth is obtained (¶ 9). The peroxide ingredient is formulated using an aqueous vehicle containing a peroxide compound as the whitening agent, a thickening agent such as a polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyethylene/polyoxypropylene, etc., block copolymer and a peroxide compatible abrasive such as a calcium phosphate salt (¶¶ 10, 29). Thickeners comprise about 5 to about 30% of the peroxide part and 0.5 to 5% of the desensitizing composition (¶ 20). The pH of the mixture of the dual components of the present invention ranges from about 8 to about 11 (¶ 33). A preferred means for dispensing the dual component composition is with a double barrel syringe for dispensing equal weight amounts of the components, and comprises a mixing tip (¶ 43). Alkaline agents such as alkali metal compounds including sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, sodium bicarbonate and sodium carbonate may be incorporated in the second dentifrice component of the present invention (¶ 33). Embodiments comprising water in the desensitizing paste at 30.2 wt% and glycerin at 25.0 wt% (table 1), both of which are evidence as suitable carriers according the instant specification (see ¶ 7 of the instant specification).
Zaidel et al does not teach a crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone as instantly claimed, wherein the composition is formed at a volume ratio of claim 41, wherein the first and second parts comprise a viscous gel, the block copolymer of claim 43, wherein the first and second parts comprise a viscous gel, nor wherein the hydrogen peroxide is at least 35 wt% of the first part.
Jiao et al are discussed above but do not teach a crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone as instantly claimed.
Prosise et al are discussed above.
Regarding claim 36, it would have been obvious to provide the tooth whitening composition of Zaidel et al in the form of a kit, where kits were known to be suitable for tooth whitening compositions, as taught by Zaidel et al.
Regarding hydrogen peroxide, it would have been obvious to select hydrogen peroxide as the whitening agent, as taught by Zaidel et al.
Regarding the amount of hydrogen peroxide, it would have been obvious to modify Zaidel et al by providing the first component with known amounts of hydrogen peroxide suitable for two component tooth whitening compositions, such as above about 15% by weight, preferably from about 15% by weight to about 40% by weight, as taught by Jiao et al, overlapping 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. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding the pH of the second part, it would have been obvious to formulate the second component of Zaidel et al with a pH ranging from about 8 to about 13, as taught by Zaidel et al. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding the second part thickening agent, it would have been obvious to formulate the teeth whitening kit made obvious above, where both components comprise a thickening agent, as taught by Zaidel et al.
Regarding the crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone, where Zaidel et al teach thickeners can be included, including polyvinylpyrrolidone, it would have been obvious to include other thickeners that were known to be suitable for oral formulations comprising teeth whitening agents, such as a lightly to moderately crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone thickening agent wherein the lightly to moderately crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone has an aqueous gel volume from about 15-150 ml/g, and a Brookfield viscosity of 5% crosslinked PVP in a liquid carrier comprising at least about 10,000 cP, as taught by Prosise et al. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding the wt% of hydrogen peroxide when combined, Examiner notes that the claims are directed to a kit comprising a first and second part, and the combining of the two parts is directed to the intended use of the two parts in the kit. Nevertheless, where Zaidel et al teaches the combined compositions can comprise 3 to about 30 wt% of the peroxide component, it would have been obvious for the skilled artisan to formulate the mixture with amounts overlapping the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding the amounts of crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone, it would have been obvious to include the crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone in an amount from about 5 to about 30 wt%, which were taught to be suitable for thickeners, as taught by Zaidel et al. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding the pH when combined, Examiner notes that the claims are directed to a kit comprising a first and second part, and the combining of the two parts is directed to the intended use of the two parts in the kit. Nevertheless, Zaidel et al teach when the two parts are mixed, the resulting pH ranges from about 8 to about 11, overlapping 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. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding the viscosity when combined, Examiner notes that the claims are directed to a kit comprising a first and second part, and the combining of the two parts is directed to the intended use of the two parts in the kit. Nevertheless, where the composition made obvious above comprises thickeners, it would have been well within the relative skills of the skilled artisan to routinely optimize the formulations for optimal viscosity for being applied to the teeth, such as to prevent the formulation from running off of the teeth, where Zaidel et al teaches the inclusion of thickeners to form a gel, and Jiao et al teach viscous gels allow for the compositions to cling to the surface of teeth. The skilled artisan would recognize that a viscous gel would have a Brookfield viscosity overlapping the instantly claimed range. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. Where 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. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding wherein the second part lacks an abrasive, this limitation appears to be new matter for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 37, where the combination made obvious above comprises the same components within the amounts claimed, it appears that the functional limitation of the pH increasing after activation is inherent to the combination itself. See MPEP 2112(II) and (III).
Regarding claim 38, it would have been obvious to formulate the teeth whitening kit made obvious above, where both components comprise a thickening agent, as taught by Zaidel et al.
Regarding claims 39 and 44, it would have been obvious to use a kit that includes a dual barrel syringe with a mixing tip that stores the first and second components separately, as taught by Zaidel et al.
Regarding claim 41, it would have been obvious to include the first part, which comprises hydrogen peroxide, the second part, which comprises an alkaline agent, in known ratios suitable for two part whitening compositions, such as in a ratio of 1:1 to 5:1, as taught by Jiao et al. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 42, it would have been obvious to include sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, sodium bicarbonate and/or sodium carbonate as alkaline agents in the second part, as taught by Zaidel et al, in order to achieve desired pH.
Regarding claim 43, it would have been obvious to further include known surfactants suitable for two part tooth whitening compositions, such as a polyoxyethylene/polyoxypropylene block copolymer in amounts ranging from about 0.5% to about 15 wt%, which were known to be used to achieve effective whitening results, as taught by Jiao et al.
Regarding claim 45, it would have been obvious to include liquid carriers in the second part, where Zaidel et al disclose embodiments comprising water at 30.2 wt% and glycerin at 25.0 wt%, both of which are evidences as suitable liquid carriers above, falling within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 46, it would have been obvious to formulate the second component of Zaidel et al with a pH ranging from about 8 to about 13, as taught by Zaidel et al for the same reasons discussed above.
Regarding the type of kit of claims 48 and 49, the two component compositions made obvious above comprise the same components in the amounts instantly claimed, in the form of a kit, and would therefore be suitable for home or office use. Therefore, the compositions of the references meet the limitation of the claim.
Regarding claim 50, it would have been obvious to formulate the first and second components of Zaidel et al in the form of a viscous gel rather than a paste, where viscous gels were known to be suitable for two part tooth whitening compositions, and are useful so that the composition can cling to the surface of teeth during whitening treatment, as taught by Jiao et al.
Regarding claims 51 and 52, it would have been obvious to formulate the first part of Zaidel et al with hydrogen peroxide in an amount about above 15 wt%, as taught by Jiao et al for the same reasons discussed above, which includes those amounts instantly claimed. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 53, it would have been obvious to include the crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone in an amount from about 5 to about 30 wt%, as taught by Zaidel et al for the same reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 54, this limitation appears to be new matter for the reasons discussed above. Nevertheless, there does not appear to be any “foam stabilizer” in the first component of Zaidel et al.
Response to Arguments
First, Applicants assert Zaidel et al do not disclose an activated mixture having a pH of 7-9, a viscosity of 6,000-10,000 cps, nor employ crosslinked PVP as the thickening agent. Applicants assert that Zaidel et al fail to disclose the claimed peroxide concentration, the specified PVP, and the neutral activation behavior of the present invention.
Second, Applicants assert Zaidel et al teaches away from using alkalinity, where it is taught that the peroxide component must remain acidic to neutral because alkaline conditions cause premature peroxide breakdown.
First, respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Jiao et al and Prosise et al are cited above in combination with Zaidel et al, to address the deficiencies of the primary reference. The examiner disagrees that Zaidel et al do not disclose a mixture having a pH of 7-8, and explicitly teaches the combined mixture comprises a pH from about 8 to about 11, overlapping the claimed range. The viscosity of first and second components were known from Jiao et al, and it would have been obvious for the skilled artisan to modify Zaidel et al with known viscosities, and known mixing ratios, in order to arrive at the mixed viscosities instantly claimed, as discussed above. Prosise et al provides motivation to include a crosslinked PVP thickener, for the same reasons discussed above. Finally, Jiao et al teaches peroxide concentrations overlapping the claimed range, which were made obvious above.
Second, respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. Zaidel et al teach when the two parts are mixed, the resulting pH ranges from about 8 to about 11, overlapping the claimed range. The examiner notes that the instant claims do not require a particular pH for the first part. Zaidel et al do not appear to teach away from alkalinity where the compositions can have an alkaline pH.
Claims 36-39, 41-46, and 48-53, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaidel et al (US 20040062723 A1), in view of Jiao et al (US 2016/0095801), Prosise et al (US 20130209376 A1), and Prosise et al (US 20060292091 A1, hereinafter “Prosise ‘091”).
Zaidel et al, Jiao et al, and Prosise et al are discussed above, and purely arguendo, if the resulting viscosity of the mixed composition is required and is not obvious to routinely adjust, the following applies.
Prosise ‘091 teaches it was known to formulate tooth whitening compositions with a resulting Brookfield viscosity of 50-10,000 cps (abs). The compositions had effective bioadhesion and retention (abs).
It would have been obvious for the skilled artisan to formulate the tooth whitening mixture with known viscosities suitable for tooth whitening compositions, such as from 50-10,000 cps, as taught by Prosise ‘091, which were known to have effective bioadhesion and retention.
The limitations of claims 36-39, 41-46, and 48-53 are rejected for the same reasons discussed above as applied to each and every claimed limitation.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 36-39, 41-46, and 48-53, are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/379,052 (reference application), hereinafter referred to as ‘052, in view of Jiao et al. (US 2016/0095801). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are coextensive insofar as they both recite tooth whitening kits comprising a first part comprising a whitening agent and a second part comprising an alkaline material having a pH of at least 10. The first and second parts also comprise a crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone as a thickening agent and wherein the pH ranges between 7 and 9 when combined.
The claims of ‘052 do not specifically disclose the mixed hydrogen peroxide content, the mixed viscosity, the claim the ratios of claim 41, nor the amount of liquid carrier of claim 45.
Regarding the peroxide content upon mixing, Examiner notes that the claims are directed to a kit comprising a first and second part, and the combining of the two parts is directed to the intended use of the two parts in the kit. Nevertheless, where hydrogen peroxide in the first part can at least 35 wt%, the resulting hydrogen peroxide in the mixed formulation will vary depending on the mixing ratio of the first and second part. Upon including the first and second parts in the ratios discussed below, it would be expected that the resulting amount of hydrogen peroxide in the mixed formulation would overlap the instantly 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. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding the mixed viscosity, Examiner notes that the claims are directed to a kit comprising a first and second part, and the combining of the two parts is directed to the intended use of the two parts in the kit. Nevertheless, where the composition of ‘052 comprises thickeners, it would have been well within the relative skills of the skilled artisan to routinely optimize the formulations for optimal viscosity for being applied to the teeth, such as to prevent the formulation from running off of the teeth, for the same reasons discussed above by Jiao et al.
Regarding the ratios of claim 41, it would have been obvious to include the first and second component in a ratio of 1:1 to 5:1 first to second component in the kit made obvious above, as taught by Jiao et al, where both are directed to tooth whitening kits.
Regarding claim 45, it would have been obvious to include water in an amount ranging from 40-60 wt%, as taught by Jiang et al, a suitable liquid carrier as evidenced by the instant specification above, where both are directed to tooth whitening kits comprising a first and second part, for the same reasons discussed above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicants have amended claim 36 and requests reconsideration of the double patenting rejections.
Applicants have not provided arguments with respect to the double patenting rejections. Accordingly, the claims stand rejected for the same reasons above and of record.
Claims 36-39, 41-46, and 48-53, are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/699,873 (reference application), hereinafter referred to as ‘873, in view of Prosise et al (US 20130209376 A1) and Jiao et al. (US 2016/0095801). Although the claims at issue are not identical they are not patentably distinct because the claims are directed to a tooth whitening composition, which can have two parts in the form of a kit, where the first part comprises a whitening agent and a second part comprising an alkaline material. The second part has a pH of at least 12. The hydrogen peroxide ranges from about 3-50 wt%, such as 25 wt% to about 40 wt%. Sodium hydroxide, etc., can be included. At least one thickening agent is present and comprises a crosslinked homopolymer or copolymer. When combined the tooth whitening composition has a pH between 7 and 9. The volume ratio of the first and second parts is between 3.5:1 and 4.5:1.
The claims of ‘873 do not specifically claim the amount of hydrogen peroxide in the first part nor the crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone instantly claimed, nor the combined viscosity.
It would have been obvious for a skilled artisan to adjust the amount of hydrogen peroxide in the first part, and where the total composition comprises from about 3-50 wt%, such as 25 wt% to about 40 wt% of sodium hydroxide, the first part would be expected to have an amount of hydrogen peroxide overlapping 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. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding the peroxide content upon mixing, Examiner notes that the claims are directed to a kit comprising a first and second part, and the combining of the two parts is directed to the intended use of the two parts in the kit. Nevertheless, where the amount of hydrogen peroxide in the compositions can range from about 3-50 wt%, it would have been obvious to formulate the mixed composition within the disclosed 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. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding the mixed viscosity, Examiner notes that the claims are directed to a kit comprising a first and second part, and the combining of the two parts is directed to the intended use of the two parts in the kit. Nevertheless, where the composition of ’873 comprises thickeners as instantly claimed, it would have been well within the relative skills of the skilled artisan to routinely optimize the formulations for optimal viscosity for being applied to the teeth, such as to prevent the formulation from running off of the teeth, for the same reasons discussed above by Jiao et al.
It would have been obvious to include other known thickening agents for tooth whitening compositions, such as the crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone as taught by Prosise et al for the same reasons discussed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicants have amended claim 36 and requests reconsideration of the double patenting rejections.
Applicants have not provided arguments with respect to the double patenting rejections. Accordingly, the claims stand rejected for the same reasons above and of record.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA A ATKINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0877. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM + Flex.
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, Sahana Kaup can be reached at 571-272-6897. 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.
/JOSHUA A ATKINSON/
Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/SAHANA S KAUP/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612