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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/08/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Amendment filed on 01/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 3-11 are amended. Claim 2 remain cancelled.
Claims 1 and 3-15 are pending and being examined on merits herein.
Priority
The instant application, filed on 06/10/2022, is a 371 of PCT/JP2020/046447, filed on 12/08/2020, which claims foreign priority to Japan 2019-228433, filed on 12/18/2019.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 is interpreted as:
A composition comprising:
(a) at least one oil comprising caprylic/capric succinic triglyceride;
(b) at least one polyglyceryl fatty acid ester having an HLB of 8 to 11;
(c) at least one anionic surfactant;
(d) at least one acrylic thickener; and
(e) water.
The phrase of “wherein a specific gravity of the (a) at least one oil at 25 ° C is more than 0.97, provided that if the (a) at least one oil comprises two or more oils, the specific gravity of the (a) at least one oil is determined by an average of specific gravities of all of the two or more oils” is interpreted as property of the (a) at least one oil comprising caprylic/capric succinic triglyceride, because the gravity does not contribute structurally to the composition.
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 1 and 3-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mintel (2015-11-01, IDS of 06/10/2022) as evidenced by PubChem (hexylcinnamaldehyde, NPL in record of 12/05/2024), in view of Rapidot et al. (JP2005512993, 05/12/2005, Machine translation replied upon below; attached copy in record of 10/17/2025), Derrips et al. (US20160317416, 11/03/2016) and Helland et al. (US20110212146, 09/01/2011).
Mintel discloses a face/neck skin care night cream containing water (aqua), butylene glycol, hydrogenated polyisobutene, Simmondsia chinensis (jojoba) seed oil, Limnanthes alba (meadowfoam) seed oil, octyldodecyl myristate, glycerin, glyceryl/polyglyceryl-6 isostearate/behenate esters, phytosteryl hydroxystearate, phytosteryl/decyltetradecyl myristoyl methyl beta-alaninate, batyl alcohol, hydrogenated rapeseed alcohol, PEG-25 phytostanol, squalane, cetyl palmitate, Euphorbia cerifera (candelilla) wax (candelilla) cera, sucrose pentahydroxystearate, methylparaben, carbomer, hydrogenated lecithin, aminomethyl propanediol, fragrance (parfum), sucrose stearate, acrylates/C10-30 alkyl acrylate crosspolymer, tocopherol, disodium EDTA, glycerylamidoethyl methacrylate/stearyl methacrylate copolymer, xanthan gum, Glycine soja (soybean) oil, sodium hyaluronate, sodium dilauramidoglutamide lysine, Gynostemma pentaphyllumLuffa cylindrica hybrid cell extract, Lilium hybrid flower extract, phenoxyethanol, sodium tocopheryl phosphate, hydrolyzed elastin, soluble collagen, Daucus carota sativa (carrot) root extract, glycosaminoglycans, ethylparaben, hexyl cinnamal, linalool, citronellol, hydroxycitronellal, alpha-isomethyl ionone, limonene, geraniol (Ingredients, On Pack, Page 3-4).
Regarding claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, and 10, Mintel recites jojoba seed oil, meadowfoam seed oil, hexyl cinnamal, linalool, citronellol, geraniol, and soybean oil, along with multiple ester oils and fatty acids in the composition. Among them, the fragrance oil hexyl cinnamal, also known as hexylcinnamaldehyde, has its density as 0.95-0.961 (PubChem, Page 14, 3.2.4 Density). Conclusively, Mintel teaches at least one oil with gravity very close to 0.97 (as close as 0.961/0.97 = 99.1%) (corresponding to an oil and gravity in instant claim 1(a)).
The ingredient glyceryl/polyglyceryl-6 isostearate/behenate esters in Mintel exhibits specific polyglyceryl fatty acid esters having isostearate/behenate as acid moiety and 6 glycerol units (corresponding to polyglyceryl fatty acid ester comprising 4 to 10 glycerol units, PG6, in instant claim 5), behenate having 22 carbons (corresponding to 12-24 carbon atoms in instant claim 4), with an HLB of 8-11 as evidenced by instant invention that polyglyceryl fatty acid ester 6 (PG6) isostearate HLB is 10.8 (Spec. Page 12, Lines 7-14) (corresponding to polyglyceryl fatty acid ester HLB 8-11 in instant claim 1(b)).
Sodium dilauramidoglutamide lysine in Mintel displays a specific anionic surfactant as evidenced by instant invention (Spec. Page 2, Lines 15-17) (corresponding to instant claim 1(c)), as an exemplary compound corresponding to the anionic surfactant represented by formula A in instant claim 7 and listed as an anionic surfactant in instant claim 8.
The acrylates/C10-30 alkyl acrylate crosspolymer in Mintel represents a specific acrylic thickener, because it is one of the preferable acrylic thickeners indicated in instant application (Spec. Page 20, Lines 6-26) and further recited in instant claim 10 as a narrower limitation (corresponding to instant claim 1(d)).
Regarding instant claims 14 and 15, Mintel night cream is produced by Nippon Menard Cosmetic company and described as a silky rich cream that blends smoothly on and into the skin to replenish and maintain maximum moisture and elasticity, embrace skin with rich nutrients, protect skin from dryness during sleep and restore skin to its optimal state, creating serene beauty (Night Cream, Product Description, Page 1). There is no doubt about Mintel night cream composition is a cosmetic composition. Mintel teaches the process and steps of applying the composition to the facial skin: “At night, after conditioning your skin with a lotion or emulsion, take an appropriate amount (about the size of a small red bean) on the attached stick, and apply it to the entire face.” (Page 1, Directions) and provides cautions in detail. Therefore, the prior art composition teaches the same active steps to the skin, which necessarily contains keratin substances from the same patient population. In other words, the intended use for treating a keratin substance flows logically along the teaching of prior art. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable.
Mintel does not teach at least one oil in the composition comprising caprylic/capric succinic triglyceride, and the average gravity of all oils present in the composition is more than 0.97 as in instant claim 1, ingredient amounts as recited in 3, 6, 9, 11-12, and it does not teach the composition is O/W emulsion as recited in instant claim 13.
Rapidot teaches a cosmetic or pharmaceutical encapsulated O/W emulsion composition (e.g., [0007]) comprising at least one active ingredient in combination with an oil or a mixture of oils, wherein the oil or mixture of oils alone or in combination with active ingredient has a specific gravity greater than that of water (e.g., Claim 1), in other words, the gravity of at least one oil or mixture of oils is greater than 1.0. Rapidot teaches the oil can be selected from the long groups of compounds including diisopropyl adipate and others (e.g., [0051]) (corresponding to oil gravity more than 0.97 in instant claim 1).
Derrips teaches a stable cosmetic O/W emulsion [0003-0006; 0012] (corresponding to instant claim 13) composition for skin care comprising (a) at least one oil, (b) at least one nonionic surfactant with an HLB value from 8.0 to 14.0, (c) at least one C-glycoside compound, and (d) water (Abstract; [0013-0017]; Claim 1).
Derrips provides oils suitable for the composition including artificial triglycerides [0023-0055], such as, glyceryl trimyristate, glyceryl tripalmitate, glyceryl trilinolenate, glyceryl trilaurate, glyceryl tricaprate, glyceryl tricaprylate, glyceryl tri( caprate/caprylate) and glyceryl tri(caprate/ caprylate/ linolenate ) [0041]. Derrips indicates that the amount of the oil (a) in the cosmetic composition may be in the range from 0.1 % to 50% by weight, preferably from 1 % to 40% by weight and more preferably from 5% to 30% by weight relative to the total weight of the composition [0053] (corresponding to instant claim 3).
Derrips specifies that (b) the nonionic surfactant with an HLB value from 8.0 to 14.0 [0116], is chosen from polyglyceryl fatty acid esters and monooxyethylene or polyoxyethylene fatty acid esters [0116], in the range from 0.1 % to 30% by weight, preferably from 1 % to 25% by weight and more preferably from 3% to 20% by weight relative to the total weight of the composition [0126] (corresponding to polyglyceryl fatty acid ester with overlapping HLB in instant claim 1(b) and overlapping with amount range from 0.01% to 10% in instant claim 6).
Derrips teaches anionic surfactants as additional surfactants such as alkylpolyglucoside derivatives having 8 to 22 carbon atoms can be used [0317] (overlapping with carbon atom numbers in instant claim 4), at the amount from 0.01% by weight to 20% by weight, preferably from 0.10% by weight to 10% by weight and more preferably from 1 % by weight to 5% by weight, relative to the total weight of the composition [0346] (same as or overlapping with anionic surfactant amount range from 0.01% to 10% in instant claim 9).
Derrips also teaches that the composition may comprise at least one thickener [0355], and the thickener may be present in an amount in the range from 0.001% to 10% by weight and preferably from 0.01% to 10% by weight, for example from 0.1% to 5% by weight, relative to the total weight of the composition [0360] (overlapping with acrylic thickener range from 0.01% to 5% amount in instant claim 11).
Derrips indicates that the amount of water is not limited, and may range from 50% to 99% by weight, preferably from 55% to 95% by weight and more preferably from 60% to 90% by weight relative to the total weight of the composition [0309] (overlapping with amount range from 50% to 90% in instant claim 12).
Helland throughout the reference directs to the compositions comprising a derivative of 5-ALA, e.g., as ester of 5-ALA, for improving or enhancing the appearance of the skin (e.g., Abstract) that are preferably oil-in-water emulsion (e.g., [0068]) .
Helland teaches the oil-in-water emulsion comprising a) 2% or less of 5-ALA, b) 70% or more of water, c) 2-25% of at least one lipid carrier, d) one or more oil-in-water emulsifiers (e.g., [0069-0073]), and one or more dermal adjuvants including viscosity modifiers such as thickening agents [0088], wherein emulsifiers include anionic emulsifiers, and non-ionic emulsifiers with HLB value of 8 to 18 [0081]. Helland points out that a lipid carrier one or more fats are triglycerides [0050], overlapping with a lipid carrier one or more oils [0058-0059]. Helland teaches that the preferred lipid carrier as a fat or an oil includes caprylic/capric triglyceride, caprylic/capric/succinic triglyceride (e.g., [0052], [0065]), present in the composition from 2 to 25% by weight (e.g., [0066]) (corresponding to oil species in instant claim 1(a)). Helland exemplifies in examples 1-4 compositions 1-8 using caprylic/capric triglyceride as the only lipid carrier in the composition ([0205]-[0127]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to combine the composition in Mintel with the teachings of Rapidot, Derrips and Helland of ingredient amounts and caprylic/capric/succinic triglyceride with oil gravity to arrive at the instant invention. Combining Rapidot, Derrips, and Helland with Mintel would have motivated scientists because Rapidot teaches using high gravity oil in the composition can be advantageous (e.g., [0018]) while Mintel’s night cream as a mature market product contains oil with high gravity, and both Derrips and Helland prefers triglycerides as oil component in the composition, as Derrips indicates that the resulting in cosmetic product is stable with a preferred transparent appearance in the desirable non-sticky O/W form (e.g., [0004], [0394]), and Helland emphasizes that the compositions are stable despite of high water content at room temperature and keep their appearance and texture and thus provide an adequate shelf life for e.g., use as a commercial cosmetic product (e.g., [0046]). Incorporating caprylic/capric/succinic triglyceride into the composition would have provided reasonable expectation of success because Derrips and Helland stable emulsions demonstrate the advantage of using triglycerides. It is well settled that it is a matter of obviousness for one of ordinary skill in the art to select a particular component from among many disclosed by the prior art as long as it is taught that the selection will result in the disclosed effect, even when the possible selections number 1200 or in the thousands. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In light of claim interpretation as presented above, gravity of oil is the property of oil. MPEP 2112.01.II states "[p]roducts of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable, as indicated in MPEP 2112.01.II. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. For this instance, the oil gravity in the composition would necessarily be more than 0.97 when it is used alone, since it is inherent property of the same compound caprylic/capric/succinic triglycerides that Helland has taught. Therefore, whether caprylic/capric/succinic triglyceride is used alone as oil in the composition, same as Helland compositions using triglyceride alone as lipid carrier (fat or oil), or combining with fragrance oil hexyl cinnamal in Mintel would achieve the oil gravity above 0.97. Moreover, MPEP 2145 II. states that “prima facie obviousness is not rebutted by merely recognizing additional advantages or latent properties present but not recognized in the prior art”, see In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select a known component taught by prior art. It is well settled that it is a matter of obviousness for one of ordinary skill in the art to select a particular component from among many disclosed by the prior art as long as it is taught that the selection will result in the disclosed effect. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
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. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP §2144.05(I) states that “A prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art.” See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003); 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). For this instance, all the ingredient amount ranges, carbon numbers, HLB values, and gravity value overlap with those taught by prior art. Furthermore, “[i]t would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize additive amount through nothing more than “routine experimentation,” because of a reasonable expectation of success resulting from the optimization for desirable features of intended use of the composition (MPEP §2144.05 (II)). See Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
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 1 and 3-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1-15 of application No. 18256334 (hereafter, US’334), in view of Mintel (2015-11-01, IDS of 06/10/2022) as evidenced by PubChem (hexylcinnamaldehyde, NPL in record of 12/05/2024), Rapidot et al. (JP2005512993, 05/12/2005, Machine translation replied upon below; attached copy in record of 10/17/2025), Derrips et al. (US20160317416, 11/03/2016) and Helland et al. (US20110212146, 09/01/2011). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
US’334 claims a cosmetic O/W emulsion composition comprising at least one oil, two polyglyceryl fatty acid esters with HLB 8-11 having C6-C22 and C24-C32 fatty acid residue respectively, one fatty alcohol, one gemini surfactant, and water (Claim 1). US’334 specifies oil as triglyceride oils (Claim 2) and oil amount range 0.01-15% by weight (Claim 3). US’334 indicates polyglyceryl moiety number as 2-10 (Claims 4 and 7 ) and 2-6 glycerol units for polyglyceryl fatty acid esters (Claim 5). US’334 provides polyglycryl-3 beeswax as a species of second polyglyceryl fatty acid ester (Claim 8), and claims first polyglyceryl fatty acid ester weight amount in the composition as 0.01-20% (Claim 6) and the second one as 0.01-15% (Claim 9). US’334 points out the fatty alcohol species (Claim 11). US’334 also discloses dilauramidoglutamide lysine can be one of the gemini surfactant in the composition (Claim 12), and gemini surfactant amount ranges from 0.01-5% by weight in the composition (Claim 13) and water ranges from 50-90% weight (Claim 14). US’334 recites the cosmetic process is for treating a keratin substance by applying the composition (Claim 15).
US’334 does not claim expressly about anionic surfactant, however, dilauramidoglutamide lysine as an anionic surfactant in instant invention is evidenced by US’334 as a gemini surfactant in claim 12. US’334 does not recite the specific oil species with high gravity and acrylic thickener as recited in instant claim 1. US’334 does not recite polyglycerol fatty acid ester carbon atom numbers as in instant claim 4, or acrylic thickener species and amounts, or anionic surfactant amount as recited in instant claims 9-11.
Combined teachings of Mintel, Rapidot, Derrips and Helland teach the composition comprising the instantly claimed oil species and oil with high gravity, acrylates/C10-30 alkyl acrylate cross polymer (an acrylic thickener), carbon atom numbers in polyglycerol fatty acid ester, and anionic surfactant and acrylic thickener amounts in the compositions as discussed above in great detail and incorporated herein.
It would have been prima farcie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use anionic surfactant in the composition that features same property as the gemini surfactant in US’334 composition , while incorporating the components taught by Mintel, Rapidot, Derrips and Helland to arrive at the instant invention. An ordinary skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining acrylic thickener, high gravity oil, and other known ingredients of Mintel, Rapidot, Derrips and Helland with US’334 to bring the full benefit of the cosmetic composition as demonstrated in the mature market product of Mintel. Even though numbers in US’334 differ from instant invention in oil amount, fatty acid residue carbon numbers, fatty acid ester amount, and surfactant amount, it provides opportunity for inventors to optimize through nothing more than “routine experimentation.” See Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.").
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/remarks filed on 01/08/2026 has been fully considered.
Applicant asserts that the overall oil gravity in Mintel would not be more than 0.97, now that the amended claim requires all oil resulting in average gravity above 0.97.
In response to the assertion and claim amendment, new ground of rejections have been presented in this office action in light of the claim amendment. Prior art Helland, in combination with Mintel, Rapidot, and Derrips, has been added to address this subject matter in question. Helland teaches using triglyceride in the composition as lipid carrier (or fat, oil), especially teaches caprylic/capric/succinic triglyceride as oil in the composition. Please refer to the entire office action as presented above as the complete response to the remarks/arguments.
Applicant requests nonstatutory double patenting over application No. 18256334 to be held.
A request to hold a rejection in abeyance is not a proper response to a rejection. Rather, a request to hold a matter in abeyance may only be made in response to an OBJECTION or REQUIREMENTS AS TO FORM (see MPEP §714.02 and 37 CFR 1.111(b)). Thus, the double patenting rejection(s) of record has/have been maintained as no action regarding these rejections has been taken by Applicants at this time.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONGXIU ZHANG SPIERING whose telephone number is (703)756-4796. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5:00pm (Except for Fridays).
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, SUE X. LIU can be reached at (571)272-5539. 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.
/DX.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1616
/SUE X LIU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1616