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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-14 and 16-18 are pending. Claims 6, 9 and 15 are canceled. Claims 16-18 are newly added.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-14 and 16-18 are examined on their merits to the extent of the elected species, Laurone (12-tricosanone) for K1, 14-nonacosanone, (heptadecyl undecyl ketone) for K2 and Stearone, (18-pentatriacontanone) for K3.
Previous Rejections
Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn as are those rejections and/or objections expressly stated to be withdrawn.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.
Rejections Withdrawn
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112(b)
In light of the amendments to the claims the rejection of claims 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 USC 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor (or for application subject to pre-AIA 35 USC 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn.
Rejections Maintained and Made Again as Necessitated by Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The rejection of claims 1-5, 7-8, 11-14 and newly applied to claims 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2003/113035 (4/18/2003)(6/17/2022 IDS)(“JP”) in view of Back et al. WO 2018/033607 (2/22/2018)(6/17/2022 IDS) as evidenced by the instant specification, https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C540090&Mask=200 and https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/18-Pentatriacontanone is maintained and made again.
(All citations are to the English translation mailed 5/28/2025 of JP 2003/113035). JP teaches a stick-like cosmetic that has the ability to retain its shape and has good applicability and adhesivity to the skin or lip and exhibits high stability over time which comprises a solid dialkyl ketone or a mixture of solid dialkyl ketones. (See Abstract on page 1 of the English translation). JP teaches that suitable dialkyl ketones include diheptadecyl ketone, diundecyl ketone and heptadecyl undecyl ketone. (See Examples 1-6 and 8-9 on pages 7 and 9).
Diundecyl ketone is also referred to as laurone or 12-tricosanone, as evidenced by https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C540090&Mask=200. Laurone is the elected species of K1. Laurone is a dialiphatic ketone comprising 23 carbons as evidenced by the instant specification at [0059]. 23 carbon atoms falls within the from 15 to 25 carbon atoms called for in claim 1, falls within the 5 to 24 carbon atoms called for in claim 2, and falls within the from 21 to 25 carbon atoms called for in claim 3.
Diheptadecyl ketone is also referred to as stearone or 18-pentatriacontanone, as evidenced by https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/18-Pentatriacontanone. Stearone is the elected species of K3. Stearone is a dialiphatic ketone comprising 35 carbons as evidenced by the instant specification at [0059]. 35 carbon atoms falls within the from 26 to 32 carbon atoms called for in claim 1, falls within the 5 to 24 carbon atoms called for in claim 2, and also falls within the from 33 to 37 carbon atoms called for in claim 5.
Heptadecyl undecyl ketone is the elected species of K2. Heptadecyl undecyl ketone is a dialiphatic ketone comprising 29 carbons as evidenced by the instant specification at [0059] and [0068]. 29 carbon atoms falls within the from 26 to 32 carbon atoms called for in claim 1. Heptadecyl undecyl ketone has 29 carbons and corresponds to the formula in instant claim 2 in which the R radicals have heptadecyl which is 17 carbon atoms which falls within the linear C11-C13 alkyl called for in instant claim 3. R’ in which the R’ radicals have undecyl which is 11 carbon atoms which falls within the linear C11-C13 alkyl called for in instant claim 3.
JP teaches cosmetic composition comprising stearone K3 (referred to by its alternate name of diheptadecyl ketone) (see examples 1-6 and 9) and a combination of stearone (referred to by its alternate name of diheptadecyl ketone) (K3) and laurone (referred to by its alternate name of diundecyl ketone)(K1). (See Example 8 on page 9).
JP also discloses a combination of laurone K1 and heptadecyl undecyl ketone K2. (See Ex. 7 on page 8). JP teaches that the presence of dialkyl ketones can provide a solid cosmetic composition with excellent adhesion and shape-retaining ability, usability on skin and lips and stability over time. (See [0001] on page 2). JP thus teaches the suitability of stearone and laurone and heptadecyl undecyl ketone in its mixtures. JP teaches that the content of the dialkyl ketone used in the present invention is 0.1 to 80% in all components. (See [0005] on page 3). JP thus teaches a composition as called for in instant claim 14.
0.1% to 80% overlaps with the 25 to 73% called for in claim 1 and overlaps with the 2 to 40 wt% called for in claim 1 and overlaps with the from 25 to 90% called for in claim 1. 0.1% to 80% overlaps with the at least 5 wt% called for in claim 6. 0.1% to 80% overlaps with the at least 3.5 wt% called for in claim 7. 0.1% to 80% overlaps with the at least 40 wt% called for in claim 8. 0.1% to 80% overlaps with from 1 to 40% called for in claim 14. 0.1% to 80% also overlaps with from 1 to 40% called for in claim 18, in light of the indefiniteness of claim 18, which is being interpreted as being open ended and as using the transitional phrase “comprising” as further described in the indefiniteness rejection below.
With respect to claim 9 reciting the transitional phrase, “consisting essentially of,” the instant specification does not provide a clear definition for such phrase. Absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed composition actually are, the term “consisting essentially of” is construed as being equivalent in meaning to the term “comprising”. PPG v. Guardian, 156 F.3d 1351, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1998). MPEP 2111.03.
JP teaches that the cosmetic preferably contains an oily component in order to improve shape retention. JP teaches that such oily component can be a wax as called for in instant claim 13. (See [0006] on pages 3-4). A wax is also called for as an additional component in instant claim 17.
Since JP teaches a cosmetic composition comprising a combination of diheptadecyl ketone and diundecyl ketone (laurone) and teaches that suitable dialkyl ketones include diheptadecyl ketone, diundecyl ketone and heptadecyl undecyl ketone and dialkyl ketone mixtures, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date making the JP cosmetic composition comprising a combination of 0.1 to 80 wt% stearone K3, 0.1 to 80 wt% Laurone K1 and a wax to add 0.1 to 80 wt% heptadecyl undecyl ketone as taught by JP in order to have a solid cosmetic composition with excellent adhesion and shape-retaining ability, usability on skin and lips and stability over time.
It is also prima facie obvious to combine two or more components, each of which is recognized by the art as equivalents for the same purpose. Thus, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to combine two or more known solid dialkyl ketones based on a common function. (See MPEP 2144.06). “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted).
JP does not teach dialkyl ketones synthesized by the decarboxylative ketonization of fatty acids. This deficiency is provided in the teachings of Back et al.
Back et al. (Back) teaches the synthesis of a mixture of dialiphatic ketones comprising ketones with the range of C15-C35 by decarboxylative ketonization of fatty acids. (See Examples 1 and 2). Back teaches that decarboxylative ketonization of a fatty acid is an effective way to make dialiphatic ketones. The method is a decarboxylative ketonization reaction of a fatty acid in a liquid phase with a metal compound as a catalyst. (See [0005-0006]). Back teaches that the decarboxylative ketonization of fatty acids into ketones is well known and offers the advantages of yielding the desired ketones in high yield with only minor amounts of undesired by-products obtained which can be easily separated from the reaction mixture. (See [0486]). The dialiphatic ketones being obtained by decarboxylation ketonization of a fatty acid in a liquid with a metal compound catalyst as called for in instant claim 11.
The final composition comprises 69% C15-C25 ketones K1, 28.1% C27-C31 ketones K2 and 2.5% C33-C35 ketones K3. Back teaches that emulsions are useful in cosmetics. (See page 1, lines 26-30).
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art making the JP cosmetic composition comprising a combination of 0.1 to 80 wt% stearone K3, 0.1 to 80 wt% Laurone K1, 0.1 to 80 wt% heptadecyl undecyl ketone K3 and a wax to have each of the dialiphatic ketones be made by decarboxylative ketonization of a corresponding fatty acid in a liquid with a metal catalyst as taught by Back in light of Back’s teaching that the decarboxylative ketonization of fatty acids into ketones is well known and offers the advantages of yielding the desired ketones in high yield with only minor amounts of undesired by-products obtained which can be easily separated from the reaction mixture.
There would be a reasonable expectation of success because Back teaches that its compositions and methods are useful in cosmetics and JP teaches the suitability of stearone, laurone and heptadecyl undecyl ketone in its mixtures. There would also be a reasonable expectation of success because Back teaches the decarboxylative ketonization of fatty acids into ketones is well known and offers the advantages of yielding the desired ketones in high yield with only minor amounts of easily removed undesired by-products.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 16 are free of the prior art. The prior art does not teach or suggest a cosmetic composition or mixture that consists of only ketones K1, K2 and K3.
Claim 16 is allowable. Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
The comments filed November 13, 2025 have been considered and are found to be mostly unpersuasive.
Applicants note the amendments to the claims. It is noted that Applicants do not point out where in the originally filed claims or specification support can be found for the amendments to the claims. Although the PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims, when filing an amendment an applicant should show support in the original disclosure for new or amended claims. See MPEP 714.02 and 2163.06 (“Applicant should therefore specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”)
Applicants argue that the amendments remedy the indefiniteness of the claims. The indefiniteness rejection has been withdrawn above.
Applicants note that ketone mixtures and cosmetic composition that include the claimed ketones in the clamed amounts show superior long term stability and softening points compared to compositions that do not include ketones K1, K2 and K3, or compositions that contain too much or too little of ketones K1, K2 and K3. Superior long term stability is found in the claimed composition and significantly higher softening points, up to 26 degrees Celsius higher, than those compositions which comprise less than this amount of ketones K1, K2 and K3.
Applicants further assert that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine the teachings of JP and Back because Back is directed towards the decarboxylative ketonization of fatty acids, particularly to produce surfactants. Back does not teach any cosmetic compositions or indicate that the ketones produced would be safe to use in cosmetic compositions.
Applicants note that the new claims incorporate and expand on the subject matter of allowable claim 10.
Applicants’ arguments have been reviewed and with the exception of those regarding the indefiniteness rejection are found to be unpersuasive.
Applicants arguments that superior long term stability is found in the claimed composition and significantly higher softening points, up to 26 degrees Celsius higher, than those compositions which comprise less than this amount of ketones K1, K2 and K3 is found to be unpersuasive because this property does not need to be recognized in the prior art in order for a prima facie obviousness rejection to be valid.
The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result is covered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings.”); In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991).
In the instant case it would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art making the JP cosmetic composition comprising a combination of 0.1 to 80 wt% stearone K3, 0.1 to 80 wt% Laurone K1, 0.1 to 80 wt% heptadecyl undecyl ketone K3 and a wax to have each of the dialiphatic ketones be made by decarboxylative ketonization of a corresponding fatty acid in a liquid with a metal catalyst as taught by Back in light of Back’s teaching that the decarboxylative ketonization of fatty acids into ketones is well known and offers the advantages of yielding the desired ketones in high yield with only minor amounts of undesired by-products obtained which can be easily separated from the reaction mixture.
There would be a reasonable expectation of success because Back teaches that its compositions and methods are useful in cosmetics and JP teaches the suitability of stearone, laurone and heptadecyl undecyl ketone in its mixtures. There would also be a reasonable expectation of success because Back teaches the decarboxylative ketonization of fatty acids into ketones is well known and offers the advantages of yielding the desired ketones in high yield with only minor amounts of easily removed undesired by-products.
Applicants argument that Back does is directed towards the decarboxylative ketonization of fatty acids and does not teach any cosmetic compositions or indicate that the ketones produced would be safe to use in cosmetic compositions is not found to be persuasive because this is not necessary. However, Back does teach that emulsions are useful in cosmetics. (See page 1, lines 26-30). Furthermore, JP contains the teaching that ketones are useful and safe to use in cosmetics. Back teaches the method of making an important component of a cosmetic composition that is taught to be useful and effective in JP’s cosmetic composition and JP is the primary reference in the obviousness rejection. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would naturally go to the teachings of Back in trying to make the composition of JP and its components.
It is also worth noting that there is both motivation and a reasonable expectation of success in combining the JP and Back teachings. Back teaches that its compositions and methods are useful in cosmetics and JP teaches the suitability of stearone, laurone and heptadecyl undecyl ketone in its mixtures. There would also be a reasonable expectation of success because Back teaches the decarboxylative ketonization of fatty acids into ketones is well known and offers the advantages of yielding the desired ketones in high yield with only minor amounts of easily removed undesired by-products.
New Grounds of Objections/Rejections
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 14 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only (claims 13 and 14). In the instance of claim 14, claim 14 is additionally improper because any multiple dependent claim cannot serve as the basis for any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The response filed 11/13/2025 added new claims 17 and 18. Upon further consideration, claim 17 does not have clear support in the specification and claims as originally filed.
Specifically, claim 17 recites “A composition consisting of a ketone mixture M as follows: a) from 0 to 73 wt%, based on the total weight of ketone mixture M, of at least one dialiphatic ketone K1 comprising from 15 to 25 carbon atoms, b) from 2 to 40 wt%, based on the total weight of ketone mixture M, of at least one dialiphatic ketone K2 comprising from 26 to 32 carbon atoms, wherein dialiphatic ketone K2 is of formula R2-C(=O)-R’2 and wherein R2 and R’2 are linear C12-C16 alkyl, and c) from 25 to 90 wt%, based on the total weight of ketone mixture M, of at least one dialiphatic ketone K3 comprising from 33 to 47 carbon atoms; and additionally one or more component selected from the group consisting of :
d) solid oil, semisolid oil, liquid oils, or volatile oils,
e) hydrocarbons,
f) waxes,
g) esters,
h) alcohols,
i) silicones,
j) fluorine based oils, and k) lanolin or lanolin derivatives.”.
Claim 17 recites a composition consisting of a ketone mixture M…”, wherein the transitional phrase “consisting of” excludes any element, step or ingredient not specified in the claim. Claims 17 lacks support for a “ketone mixture M” that includes ketones and other components such as the additional one or more components as recited in claim 17. At paragraph [0018] the term “ketone mixture M” is defined as being directed strictly to the ketones (e.g., K1, K2 and K3) and being essentially free of any components other than ketones. Indeed, “ketone mixture M” is defined as preferably being free, i.e. is entirely free, of any components other than ketones. Additionally, at paragraph [0069], the specification indicates that “ketone mixtures M” is limited to the ketone mixture and not additional components.
However, in new claim 17 the term “ketone mixture M” is recited as additionally containing one or more components, which is not supported by the disclosure as filed. In new claim 17 it is the composition that is limited by the ’consisting of’ language and not the ketone mixtures M.
Thus, one skilled in the art would not understand that applicant was not in possession of the currently claimed invention.
Obviousness is not the standard for the addition new limitations to the disclosure as filed. It is noted that entitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter, which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed. Lockwood v. American Airlines Inc., 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1977).
Applicants are advised that there does appear to be sufficient support for a composition consisting of the ketone mixture alone.
New claim 18 also does not have clear support in the specification and claims as originally filed.
Claim 18 recites “The composition of claim 17 comprising from 1 to 40 wt% of the ketone mixture M. Claim 18 lacks support for a “ketone mixture M” that includes ketones and other components such as the additional one or more components as recited in claim 17. At paragraph [0018] Applicant defines the term “ketone mixture M” being directed strictly to the ketones (e.g., K1, K2 and K3) and is essentially free of any components other than ketones and preferably is free, i.e. is entirely free, of any components other than ketones. Additionally at paragraph [0069], the specification clearly indicates that “ketone mixtures M” is limited to the ketone mixture and not additional components.
However, in new claim 17 (which claim 18 depends from) the term “ketone mixture M” is recited as additionally containing one or more components, which is not supported by the disclosure as filed. In new claim 17 it is the composition that is limited by the ’consisting of’ language and not the ketone mixtures M. Claim 18 recites that the composition comprises 1 to 40% of the ketone mixture M of claim 17, which in claim 17 includes the ketones and one or more components as recited. While it should be noted that in par [0072] of the specification there is support for 1 to 40 wt% of the ketone mixture M in a composition that comprises additional components, however those are not included in the 1 to 40 wt%. Rather, the specification discloses various separate amounts for the additional components in claim 17 (e.g., see pars [0073] – [0092] and examples).
Thus, one skilled in the art would not understand that applicant was not in possession of the currently claimed invention.
Obviousness is not the standard for the addition new limitations to the disclosure as filed. It is noted that entitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter, which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed. Lockwood v. American Airlines Inc., 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1977).
Claim 17 and 18 recite limitations, which were not clearly disclosed in the specification as filed, and now change the scope of the instant disclosure as filed. Such limitations recited in claims 17 and 18, which did not appear in the specification, as filed, introduce new concepts and violate the description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C 112. Applicant is required to provide sufficient written support for the limitations recited in present claims 17 and 18 in the specification or claims, as-filed, or remove these claims in response to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112(b)
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.
Claim 18 is 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 18 is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for reciting “The composition of claim 17 comprising from 1 to 40% of the ketone mixture M.”. However, base claim 17 recites a composition consisting of a ketone mixture M…”, wherein the transitional phrase “consisting of” excludes any element, step or ingredient not specified in the claim. Claim 18 recites the composition of claim 17 comprising, which is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional unrecited elements, see MPEP 2111.03. Thus, claim 18 is indefinite as the intended scope of the claim is ambiguous in view of the conflicting transitional phrases which have the opposite meaning, making it unclear whether claim 18 is intended to open or closed. As written, one skilled in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claim.
Conclusion
Claims 16 is allowed. Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 11-14 and 17-18 are rejected.
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 SARAH CHICKOS whose telephone number is (571)270-3884. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Blanchard can be reached on 571-272-0827. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
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.
SARAH CHICKOS
Examiner
Art Unit 1619
/DAVID J BLANCHARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1619