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
Claims 10-17 are cancelled.
Claims 1-9 and 18-20 are pending. Applicant’s amendment has necessitated a new ground of rejection. Accordingly, this Action is FINAL.
Withdrawn rejections
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 8/18/25 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. The Examiner has re-weighed all the evidence of record. Any rejection and/or objection not specifically addressed below is herein withdrawn. Claims 1-12 and 18-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph and claim 20 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph and claim 20 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph. Applicant has amended these claims to overcome the rejection.
The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections and/or objections presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-9 and 18-20 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. Previously, the Examiner made a 112, second paragraph rejection over claim 20 for “are used”, which prompted Applicant to amend claim 20 by deleting the indefinite expression. Now, claim 1 has been amended to recite (Examiner added emphasis): “wherein the colorant composition (I) and the developer composition (II) are used…”. Similar to the previous rejection over claim 20, Applicant is claiming the activities of a user of the package in a composition of matter claim which is impermissible and indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II): “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims are rejected as indefinite because they are dependent upon an indefinite base claim.
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(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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(a) 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-9 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maubru , M. (US 6180118) and Hsiung, DY. (US 3651931) and Hamilton et al. (CN1711041A with English translation) and Aubrun-Sonneville, O. (US 20060210521) and Josso et al. (US 20080115846).
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Applicant claims a dye package comprising a dying composition (A) and a composition (B) as set forth in claim 1.
Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
(MPEP 2141.03)
MPEP 2141.03 (I) states: “The “hypothetical ‘person having ordinary skill in the art’ to which the claimed subject matter pertains would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art.” Ex parte Hiyamizu, 10 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988). The level of skill is that of a hair dye cosmetic research scientist, as is the case here, then one can assume comfortably that such an educated artisan will draw conventional ideas from hair dye compositions, hair dye methods and cosmetic formulation— without being told to do so.
In addition, the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level (MPEP 2141.03(II)).
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Regarding claims 1-3, 7-9, 11 and 18-19, Maubru disclose a two-part hair dying composition comprising dye composition A2 with para-phenylenediamine oxidative dye and separately a poly(2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulphonic acid) crosslinked AMPS polymer, present at 0.27 g in 100 g or 0.27%, composition B2 with hydrogen peroxide oxidant developer, present in 12 g in 100 g or 12%, that turns hair blue and is thus a colorant composition (Example 2, Column 9, lines 1-40). Maubru claims compositions and methods of dying keratin hair fibers and reshaping hair (Claims 1-37). Maubru teaches that the polymer, hence the AMPS polymer, is present from 0.01 to 10% by weight relative to the total weight of the composition (Claim 14), which overlaps the claimed ranges of from 0.5% to 5% and from 0.5% to 2% by weight relative to the total weight of the composition, and the composition has a viscosity range from 5000 to 40,000 cps (Claim 10), which is due to the thickener/gelling polymer (Column 2, lines 33-39; column 5, lines 1-6). Maubru teach oxidizing agents hydrogen peroxide, urea peroxide, perborates and persulphates (Claim 16) and that the concentration of the compound capable of producing hydrogen peroxide ranges from 0.1 to 25% by weight of the total weight of the composition (Claim 20), which overlaps the claimed range of from 1% by weight to 15% by weight based on the weight of the composition (II). Regarding overlapping ranges, see MPEP 2144.05(I): 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).
Regarding claim 1, Maubru teaches adding an antioxidant (Column 9, line 25) and that the “reducing composition comprises at least one reducing agent, which may in particular be chosen from thioglycolic acid, cysteine, cysteamine, glyceryl thioglycolate, thiolactic acid, or salts of thiolactic or thioglycolic acid.” (Column 6, lines 40-43).
Further regarding claim 3, Maubru teaches: “It is also known that the shades obtained with these oxidation bases can be varied by combining them with couplers or colour modifiers, the latter being chosen in particular from aromatic metadiamines, meta-aminophenols, meta-diphenols and certain heterocyclic compounds such as indole compounds.” (Column 1, lines 19-24).
Regarding claims 6-7, the oxidation base para-phenylenediamine is present in 0.324 g in a 100 g composition (Column 9, Example 2), which is 0.324%.
Regarding claim 1, Maubru teach that the poly(2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulphonic acid) polymers in accordance with the invention are generally characterized in that they comprise:
PNG
media_image1.png
330
621
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
102
669
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Column 3, lines 1-28). The ordinary artisan readily envisages sodium as an alkali metal cation for X+.
Regarding claim 1, Maubru teach using 100 g of dye composition A2 and 100 g of oxidizing composition B2 for a 1:1 weight ratio (Example 2, Column 9, lines 1-40).
Regarding claim 1, Hsiung teaches a dispensing package for two-part hair treating compositions (title; abstract; Examples 1-3; claim 1).
Regarding claims 1, 3 and 6-7, Hamilton et al. tech hair treatment kits (Abstract) sold in a box or package with a combination of items and a plurality of compartments (Page 5, middle; Figure 1) including one or more commonly used coupling agent for dyeing keratin fibers for example, a suitable coupling agent is selected from m-phenylenediamine, m-aminophenol, resorcinol, naphthalene couplers and heterocyclic couplers, and the use of these compounds for cosmetically acceptable salt and the coupling agent can be the total weight of the dyeing composition of about 0.001 wt % to about 10 wt % and/or from about 0.005% to about 6% by weight of the composition. other oxidation bases can be the total weight of the dyeing composition of about 0.001 wt % to about 10 wt % and/or from about 0.005% to about 6% by weight of the composition (Page 7).
Regarding claim 1, Josso et al. teach thickeners: “Simulgel 600 (CTFA name: acrylamide/sodium acryloyldimethyltaurate copolymer/is hexadecane/polysorbate 80) by SEPPIC; 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic acid polymers and copolymers, which are optionally crosslinked and/or neutralized, for instance the poly(2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic acid) marketed by Hoechst under the trademark "Hostacerin AMPS" (CTFA name: ammonium polyacryloyldimethyltaurate) or Simulgel 800 marketed by SEPPIC (CTFA name: sodium polyacryloyldimethyltaurate/polysorbate 80/sorbitan oleate ); copolymers of 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic acid and of hydroxyethyl acrylate, for instance Simulgel NS and Sepinov EMT 10 marketed by SEPPIC” [0147].
Regarding claim 1, Aubrun-Sonneville teach AMPS polymer and copolymers [0066] including homopolymer of 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic acid sold by the company Clariant under the trade name "Hostacerin AMPS" (CTFA name: ammonium polyacryldimethyltauramide) [0067]; copolymers of (meth)acrylic acid or of (meth) acrylate and of 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic acid, especially those in the form of a W /0 emulsion, such as those sold under the name Simulgel NS by the company SEPPIC (copolymer of acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonate/hydroxyethyl acrylate [0069]; and hydrophobic-modified AMPS polymers, such as, especially, the copolymer of AMPS and of ethoxylated Cl 2-Cl4 alkyl methacrylate (non-crosslinked copolymer obtained from Genapol LA-070 and AMPS) (CTFA name: ammonium acryloyldimethyltaurate/Laureth-7 methacrylate copolymer) sold under the name Aristoflex LNC by the company Clariant, and the copolymer of AMPS and of ethoxylated (25 EO) stearyl methacrylate) (copolymer crosslinked with trimethylolpropane triacrylate, obtained from Genapol T-250 and AMPS) (CTFA name: ammonium acryloyldimethyltaurate/Steareth-25 methacrylate crosspolymer) sold under the name Aristoflex HMS by the company Clariant.” [0071].
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02) Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rational and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
The difference between the instant application and Maubru is that Maubru do not expressly teach a dye package for the composition wherein composition (B) is placed in a chamber separate from the dyeing composition (A) comprising the colorant composition (I) and the developer composition (II) wherein the colorant composition (I) and the developer composition (11) are used at a ratio by weight of 2:3 to 1:1. This deficiency in Maubru is cured by the teachings of Hsiung and Hamilton et al. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to package the components A2 and B2 of Maubru wherein composition (B) is placed in a chamber separate from the dyeing composition (A) comprising the colorant composition (I) and the developer composition (II), as suggested by Hsuing and Hamilton et al., wherein the colorant composition (I) and the developer composition (II) are used at a ratio by weight of 2:3 to 1:1, and produce the instant invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this for the following reasons. First, Hsiung teaches that: “because of the instability of aqueous alkaline peroxide solutions, as well as because of the interaction of hydrogen peroxide with other ingredients in most of the compositions, it has been essential to package such compositions so that the ingredients are contained in two separate compartments” (Column 1, lines 12-17). Thus, it is essential and desirable from a stability standpoint to package the components separately and the ordinary artisan would do so with a reasonable expectation of success. Secondly, it is obvious to package the components separately such that the intended user can then open the package and mix the packaged components just prior to use. Hamilton et al. even show a package with separate compartments holding different components for each step as in Figure 1 shown below:
PNG
media_image3.png
600
872
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thus, separating components and packaging them together is obvious to the ordinary artisan. Thirdly, Maubru teaches different amounts of polymer that can be added to the composition to adjust the viscosity. Accordingly, prior to mixing the oxidizing composition of Maubru, the ordinary artisan has the crosslinked poly(2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulphonic acid) in one container/chamber (See PREPERATION EXAMPLE, column 7, line 40 through column 8 line 2) that is separate from the dying composition A2 and the aqueous oxidizing hydrogen peroxide in the package. It is then obvious for the ordinary artisan to have in hand a composition (B) comprising the poly(2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulphonic acid) crosslinked AMPS polymer in a separate chamber/container from the dyeing composition (A) comprising the colorant composition (I) and the developer composition (II) in the package, such that the polymer can be added to the colorant/developer compositions to achieve the desired amount of polymer and corresponding viscosity with a reasonable expectation of success. How the package is used by the artisan, such as wherein the colorant composition (I) and the developer composition (II) are used at a ratio by weight of 2:3 to 1:1, is merely an intended use of the package, is not further limiting of the package components and is given no patentable weight. An intended use will not limit the scope of the claim because it merely defines a context in which the invention operates. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
The difference between the instant application and Maubru is that Maubru do not expressly teach adding 0.001-10% by weight or from 0.005% to 5% by weight of one or more couplers selected from the group consisting of meta-phenylenediamines, meta-aminophenols, meta-diphenols, naphthalene-based couplers heterocyclic couplers, the addition salts thereof, and mixtures thereof. However, Maubru teaches that couplers are well known in the art and Hamilton et al. teach that one or more commonly used coupling agent for dyeing keratin fibers for example, a suitable coupling agent is selected from m-phenylenediamine, m-aminophenol, resorcinol, naphthalene couplers and heterocyclic couplers, and the use of these compounds for cosmetically acceptable salt and the coupling agent can be the total weight of the dyeing composition of about 0.001 wt % to about 10 wt % and/or from about 0.005% to about 6% by weight of the composition. Consequently, it would have been obvious to add 0.001-10% or from 0.005% to 5% by weight of one or more common couplers selected from the group consisting of meta-phenylenediamines, meta-aminophenols, meta-diphenols, naphthalene-based couplers heterocyclic couplers, the addition salts thereof, and mixtures thereof to adjust the shade of color with a reasonable expectation of success.
The difference between the instant application and Maubru as combined with Hsiung and Hamilton et al. is that Maubru as modified by Hsiung and Hamilton et al. do not expressly teach adding ammonium polyacryloyldimethyl taurate homopolymer, AMPS/hydroxyethyl acrylate copolymer, or ammomum acryloyldimethyltaurate/steareth-25 methacrylate crosspolymer. This deficiency in Maubru as combined with Hsiung and Hamilton et al. is cured by the teachings of Josso et al. and Aubrun-Sonneville.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to package the components A2 and B2 of Maubru as modified by Hsuing and Hamilton et al., with the claimed homopolymers and copolymers of AMPS, as suggested by Josso et al. and Aubrun-Sonneville, and produce the instant invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this Maubru teach at least one polymer is present (Column 2, line 49; claim 1) and is a thickener agent. And Maubru also teach that these polymers are thickener agents based on poly(2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulphonic acid) polymers (Column 2, lines 33-39). The art of Aubrun-Sonneville and Josso et al. teaches commercially available related thickener polymers similar in structure to the AMPS taught by Maubru. It is then obvious to add or substitute any of the AMPS homopolymers and/or copolymers taught by Josso et al. and/or Aubrun-Sonneville in the cosmetic composition of Maubru with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 4-5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maubru , M. (US 6180118) and Hsiung, DY. (US 3651931) and Hamilton et al. (CN1711041A with English translation), as applied to claims 1-3, 6-9 and 18-20 above, in further view of Basketter et al. (GB2471135) and Tsuji et al. JP2007008910A, English translation, and Vainshelboim et al. (US 20100313362).
Applicant claims:
PNG
media_image4.png
442
1026
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
198
1028
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
178
912
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Maubrau, Hsiung and Hamilton et al. are discussed in detail above.
Regarding claim 4, Maubru teaches adding an antioxidant (Column 9, line 25) and that the “reducing composition comprises at least one reducing agent, which may in particular be chosen from thioglycolic acid, cysteine, cysteamine, glyceryl thioglycolate, thiolactic acid, or salts of thiolactic or thioglycolic acid.” (Column 6, lines 40-43).
Regarding claim 4, Basketter et al. teach antioxidants for hair dye compositions that include vitamin E (Claim 3), thioglycolic acid, thioctic acid, thiolactic acid, carotenoids, ascorbic acid, chalcone, curcumin, the stilbene resveratrol (Claim 5).
Regarding claims 4-5, Tsuji et al. teach oxidation hair dying compositions (Title; Abstract) comprising antioxidants including flavonoids, ascorbic acid, thioglycolic acids, thiolactic acid, thiomalic acid (Pages 2, 4-5 of 10; Claims 1-3) present in an amount of 0.01-1% by mass (Page 5 of 10).
Regarding claims 4-5, Vainshelboim et al. teach a two-part composition for dying keratin fibers comprising antioxidants (Claim 1) such as carotenoids, curcuma longa, anthocyanins (Claim 3) alpha-tocopherols (Claim 4) and flavonoid (Claim 5) at a concentration of 0.5-15% [0112]. Vainshelboim et al. also teach that the antioxidants can be natural source and cite numerous plant extracts (Claim 3), which would include plant produced tannins, phenylpropanoids and coumarins.
The difference between the instant application and Maubru, as modifed by Hsuing and Hamilton et al., is that Maubru, as modifed by Hsuing and Hamilton et al, do not expressly teach the antioxidants claimed in an amount of from 0.001 to 10% by weight. This deficiency in Maubru, as modifed by Hsuing and Hamilton et al., is cured by the teachings of Tsuji et al., Vainshelboim et al. and Basketter et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to package the components A2 and B2 of Maubru and Hsuing, with 0.001-10% by weight of the antioxidants claimed, as suggested by Tsuji et al., Vainshelboim et al. and Basketter et al., and produce the instant invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this because Maubru suggest adding an antioxidant and the combined references of Tsuji et al., Vainshelboim et al. and Basketter et al. teach and suggest the majority of the claimed compounds and Vainshelboim et al. provide guidance on the amount to use 0.5-15% antioxidant, which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, the ordinary artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in employing any of the art known antioxidant agents, alone or in combination, taught by the references for the purpose of their antioxidant activity in the absence of any unexpected results.
Response to Arguments:
Applicant’s arguments filed on 8/18/25 have been carefully considered but are not persuasive.
On page 7 of remarks, Applicant asserts that it “has surprisingly discovered that the AMPS polymer can be used as a retardant to slow down reactions of dye or intermediates thereof, e.g., the oxidative dye…” However, that appears to simply be a latent benefit of mixing the AMPS polymer with a dye composition and implicit in the disclosure of Maubru teaching that composition A2 was mixed, at the time of use, with the oxidizing composition B2 where B2 contains the AMPS and A2 comprising the dye (Example 2; column 9, lines 1-45). See MPEP 2145(II): “Prima Facie Obviousness Is Not Rebutted by Merely Recognizing Additional Advantages or Latent Properties Present But Not Recognized in the Prior Art
Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979).” Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
On page 9 of remarks, Applicant argues that Maubru does not teach or disclose the technical problem to be solved, i.e., slowing down reactions of dye or intermediates…or reduce or substantially avoid stain by dye to a non-target position. However, as asserted by the Examiner above these are latent benefits of mixing the cosmetic composition of Maubru and there was no requirement that Maubru recognize the inherent feature to the cosmetic composition. See MPEP 2112 II: “II. INHERENT FEATURE NEED NOT BE RECOGNIZED AT THE TIME OF THE INVENTION
There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003).”
On pages 9-11, Applicant discusses the secondary references. However, the Examiner is relying upon the secondary references as characterized in the rejection and not as characterized by Applicant. It is impermissible to attack references singly when the Examiner relies upon the combined teachings of the references, nor may they attack a reference for not teaching a limitation of the claim when the Examiner has explicitly relied upon another reference as teaching that limitation. See In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
On pages 11-12, Applicant discusses Example 3 and asserts that in Figure 1 mixtures with AMPS had a lighter color than hair dyed without AMPS. After careful review of the Figure and the Example the Examiner is not persuaded. At best this appears to be a mere difference in degree color rather than a difference in kind. Applicants evidence fails to support a finding that their alleged surprising results are a difference in kind as opposed to a difference in degree. See In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139 (Fed. Cir. 1996). While the observation by Applicant might be interesting to the cosmetic arts, it does not appear to an invention/substantial discovery as will sustain a patent. While it could be considered that Applicant’s hair coloring differences provides a useful contribution to the art, that does not necessarily mean that it is patentable. See MPEP 2145: The Federal Circuit concluded that "[g]ood science and useful contributions do not necessarily result in patentability." (PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. Viacell, Inc., 491 F.3d 1342, 1364, 83 USPQ2d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Furthermore, the data is not in comparison with the closest prior art of Maubru. It is applicant’s burden to demonstrate unexpected results over the closest prior art. See MPEP 716.02, also 716.02 (a) - (g). As stated previously by the Examiner: “There is no evidence in this record that the reactions of dye or intermediates thereof was not also slowed down in the process of Maubru. In other words, the gel/thickening role of AMPS in Maubru could be the property that is slowing down the reactions of the dye or intermediates thereby reducing stain of a dye especially when similar amounts of AMPS are taught by Maubru, which embrace Applicant’s examples.” Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered but are not persuasive.
In conclusion, MPEP 2141 III states: “The proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts.” Respectfully, after review of all the facts, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner has reached a determination that the instant claims are not patentable in view of the preponderance of evidence and consideration of all the facts, which is more convincing than the evidence which has been offered in opposition to it.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 ERNST V ARNOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-8509. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-3:30.
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, Brian Y Kwon can be reached at 571-272-0581. 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.
/ERNST V ARNOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613