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 .
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.
Claim Status
Applicant’s preliminary amendment of 12/02/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-2, 7-8, 13-14, and 16-17 are amended, and claim 5 is cancelled. Claims 1-4 and 6-18 are currently pending and are examined on the merits herein.
Priority
The instant application claims domestic benefit to U.S. Application No. 63/227,106 filed on 07/29/2021 as reflected in the filing receipt dated on 08/09/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/29/2025, 01/06/2026, and 02/26/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the Examiner.
Withdrawn Objections and Rejections
Applicant’s amendment to the specification has overcome the previous objection to the disclosure. Thus, the objection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previous objections to the claims. Thus, the objections are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome/rendered moot the previous 112(b) rejections. Thus, the rejections are hereby withdrawn.
The following grounds of rejection are modified only as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment to independent claim 1, which now includes the limitations of previous dependent claim 5.
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, 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 1-7 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US20190105247A1; published: 04/11/2019; IDS of 09/20/2022) in view of Ryklin et al. (US20110092405A1; published: 04/21/2011; PTO-892 of 09/03/2025) and Brown et al. (US20200188243A1; published: 06/18/2020; PTO-892 of 10/21/2024) and as evidenced by Geary et al. (US20040157754A1; published: 08/12/2004; IDS of 03/17/2023).
Song teaches a clear cleansing composition comprising: from about 3 wt.% to about 35 wt.% of anionic surfactant; from about 3 wt.% to about 15 wt.% of an amphoteric surfactant; from about 0.01 wt.% to about 2 wt.% cationic polymer; from about 0 wt.% to about 1.0 wt.% inorganic salts; and an aqueous carrier. Song notes that the clear composition, which has a percent light transmittance of greater than about 80%, remains phase stable and minimizes coacervate formation (Abstract).
The aqueous carrier reads on the liquid carrier recited in instant claim 1. Song recognizes the cationic polymer as a cationic deposition polymer (Abstract), which reads on the same recited in instant claim 10. The level of inorganic salt lies within and thus renders obvious the range recited in instant claim 13.
In an exemplary formulation (Pages 17-18, Table 5, Example 14), the composition comprises the following 6 ingredients: 20.0% sodium cocoyl alaninate; 5.0% lauramidopropyl betaine; 0.35% polyquaternium-10; 1.0% perfume; citric acid to pH 6.0; and DI water.
Regarding instant claim 1, the exemplary composition of Song comprises sodium cocoyl alaninate, which reads on the claimed amino acid surfactant, and the amount of sodium cocoyl alaninate lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range. The exemplary composition also comprises water, which reads on the claimed liquid carrier. The exemplary composition does not comprise sulfated surfactants or a polymeric thickener and, therefore, meets the respective claim limitations. The pH of the exemplary composition lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range.
Regarding the glyceryl ester recited in instant claim 1, Song teaches that its compositions may include a suspending agent, such as glyceryl esters, at concentrations effective for suspending water-insoluble material in dispersed form or for modifying the viscosity of the composition (Paragraphs 0161 and 0163). Such concentrations range from about 0.1 wt.% to about 10 wt.% (Paragraph 0161). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exemplary composition of Song by further including a glyceryl ester in an amount of 0.1 wt.% to 10 wt.%, which substantially overlaps the instantly claimed range, in order to improve the solubility of the composition and/or achieve a desired viscosity. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding the triglyceride oil recited in instant claim 1, Song teaches that its compositions may include a benefit agent, such as natural oils like sunflower oil or castor oil. These natural oils contain triglycerides as evidenced by Applicant’s instant specification, which states that all natural oils contain a mixture of triglycerides and that the triglyceride oil may comprise sunflower seed oil or castor oil, among others (Instant Specification, Page 6, lines 31-33). Song further teaches that fatty esters (like triglycerides) are conditioning agents, which may be included in the composition at concentrations ranging from about 0.001 wt.% to about 10 wt.% (Paragraphs 0138-0139). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the composition of Song by including a natural oil, such as sunflower oil or castor oil, in an amount of 0.001 wt.% to 10 wt.%, which overlaps the instantly claimed range, in order to improve the conditioning effect of the composition. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding instant claim 2, Song teaches that its compositions may include antimicrobial agents and antidandruff agents, such as piroctone olamine or zinc pyrithione.
Regarding instant claim 3, because Applicant’s instant disclosure does not define the limitation “about”, under broadest reasonable interpretation the pH of 6 reads on the instantly claimed range of from about 4.5 to about 5.5. Furthermore, Song teaches that the pH of the composition may range from about pH 4 to about pH 8 (Paragraph 0050). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the pH of the composition within the range taught by Song, which overlaps the instantly claimed range, since the reference teaches that any amount between about 4 to about 8 is suitable depending on the intended use of the cleansing composition. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding instant claim 7, the composition of Song comprises lauramidopropyl betaine, which is an amphoteric surfactant (Paragraph 0043) and thus reads on the claimed zwitterionic surfactant. The amount of lauramidopropyl betaine lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range.
Regarding instant claims 10-12, the composition of Song comprises polyquaternium-10, which is a cellulose-derived cationic polymer as evidenced by Applicant’s instant specification (Page 10, lines 3-6) and thus reads on the claimed cationic deposition polymer. Both the charge density and molecular weight values of the polyquaternium-10, which corresponds to Poly JR-30M from Amerchol (Paragraph 0204), lie within and thus render obvious the instantly claimed ranges as evidenced by Geary, which states that Poly JR-30M has a charge density of 1.25 meq/g and a molecular weight of 1,800,000 (Geary, Paragraph 0022).
Regarding the sodium cocoyl alaninate recited in instant claim 14, Song further teaches that its compositions can comprise from about 8 wt.% to about 12 wt.% of an acyl alaninate (Paragraph 0029), which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range.
Regarding instant claim 15, the exemplary composition of Song does not comprise silicones and thus meets the limitation wherein the composition is free of silicones.
Regarding instant claim 16, Song teaches that its compositions may include one or more stabilizers, such as sodium benzoate, to improve the lifespan of the cleansing composition (Paragraph 0173). Another exemplary composition of Song (Pages 16-17, Table 3, Example 9), which comprises water, a cationic deposition polymer, sodium cocoyl alaninate, citric acid, an amphoteric surfactant, and a perfume, further includes 0.25% sodium benzoate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition of Song by further including sodium benzoate and using 0.25 wt.%, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range, as a starting point for routine optimization of the composition because the reference teaches this amount is useful for improving the lifespan of similar cleansing compositions.
Regarding instant claim 17, the composition of Song comprises citric acid. While Song is silent as to the concentration of citric acid within the composition, Song teaches that its compositions may comprise levels of about 0.1 wt.% or more and about 2 wt.% or fewer dispersed particles, including stabilizers such as citric acid (Paragraphs 0169 and 0173). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use 0.1 wt.% to 2 wt.% citric acid, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range, as a starting point for routine optimization of the composition in order to achieve the desired pH.
Regarding the limitation of instant claim 1 wherein the total number of ingredients in the composition is 8 or 9, because the teachings of Song and Brown do not require that all of the above disclosed elements are included in the cleansing composition at the same time, one of ordinary skill in the art could at once envisage an embodiment wherein the composition taught by the combination of Song and Brown comprises:
sodium cocoyl alaninate as the amino acid surfactant;
lauramidopropyl betaine as the zwitterionic surfactant;
polyquaternium-10 as the cationic deposition polymer;
perfume;
citric acid;
DI water as the liquid carrier;
glyceryl ester; and
triglyceride oil; and
optionally, either antidandruff agent or sodium benzoate.
Together, all of the claimed elements (amino acid surfactant, glyceryl ester, triglyceride oil, liquid carrier, antidandruff agent, zwitterionic surfactant, cationic deposition polymer, sodium benzoate, and citric acid) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Note: MPEP 2141 KSR International CO. v. Teleflex Inc. 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007).
However, Song is silent as to the yield stress of the composition and, therefore, does not expressly teach that the composition has a yield stress of from about 0.5 Pa to about 10 Pa as recited in instant claim 1, or from about 1 Pa to about 10 Pa as recited in instant claim 4. Further, Song does not expressly teach that the glyceryl ester is glyceryl caprate, glyceryl caprylate, or a mixture thereof as recited in instant claim 1, is free of polyethylene glycol (PEG), ethylene oxide/propylene oxide (EO/PO), nitrogen, dioxane, and mixtures thereof as recited in instant claim 6, or is specifically glyceryl caprylate/caprate as required by instant claim 18.
Ryklin teaches that glyceryl caprylate/caprate surprisingly imparts multifunctional performance properties, including viscosity building properties, foaming properties, improved skin-feel characteristics (e.g., skin and/or hair softness and moisturization) and mildness, to liquid cleansing compositions comprising at least one surfactant and water (Paragraphs 0006 and 0007). The thickener is also useful in combination with additional skin conditioners, rheological modifiers, fragrances, etc. (Paragraph 0008).
Brown teaches a shampoo composition, wherein the yield stress is from about 0.5 Pa to about 20 Pa in order to suspend microcapsules in the composition (Paragraph 0024).
Regarding the glyceryl ester recited in claims 1 and 18, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the glyceryl ester in the cleansing composition taught by the combination of Song by including the glyceryl caprylate/caprate taught by Ryklin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select glyceryl caprylate/caprate as the glyceryl ester in order to impart advantageous performance properties such as viscosity building properties, foaming properties, improved skin-feel characteristics, and mildness to the composition, as taught by Ryklin. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect success in modifying the cleansing composition of Song with the teachings of Ryklin as proposed because Ryklin teaches that glyceryl caprylate/caprate is particularly useful in liquid cleansing compositions comprising at least one surfactant and water, such as the cleansing composition taught by the combination of Song and Brown, and also teaches that it should be present in the composition in an amount of about 0.1 wt.% to about 10 wt.% (Ryklin, Claim 3), which aligns with the concentration of glyceryl ester permitted by Song.
Regarding instant claims 1 and 4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a yield stress of 0.5 Pa to 20 Pa as taught by Brown, which overlaps the instantly claimed ranges, as a starting point for routine optimization of the composition taught by the combination of Song and Ryklin in order to ensure sufficient suspension of oils in the composition. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note MPEP 2144.05. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect success in modifying the composition taught by the combination of Song and Ryklin with the teachings of Brown as proposed because Brown teaches that the above yield stress range is appropriate for shampoo compositions, i.e. cleansing compositions, comprising surfactants and a cationic deposition polymer (Brown, Claim 1) in order to maintain a consumer desirable appearance (Brown, Abstract), which is beneficial to the clear and stable composition of Song, which includes an insoluble natural oil as well as a suspending agent.
Regarding instant claim 6, there is no indication that the chemical component glyceryl caprylate/caprate exists with additional components. In fact, Ryklin teaches that it is beneficial for a cleansing formulation to minimize the use of EO/PO containing components due to the possibility of residual 1,4-dioxane being present from processing to make the EO/PO component (Paragraphs 0004 and 0005). Therefore, the composition taught by the combination of Song, Ryklin, and Brown meets the claim.
It is noted that the recitation “personal care” in the instant claims is an intended use of the claimed composition. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Since the structure of the composition taught by the combination of Song, Ryklin, and Brown is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Note: MPEP 2111.02.
Claims 1-8 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US20190105247A1; published: 04/11/2019; IDS of 09/20/2022) in view of Ryklin et al. (US20110092405A1; published: 04/21/2011; PTO-892 of 09/03/2025) and Brown et al. (US20200188243A1; published: 06/18/2020; PTO-892 of 10/21/2024), as applied to claims 1-7 and 10-17 above, and further in view of Naturally Thinking (webpage, <https://naturallythinking.com/lauric-acid>; archived: 08/11/2020; PTO-892 of 09/03/2025) and as evidenced by Geary et al. (US20040157754A1; published: 08/12/2004; IDS of 03/17/2023).
The combination of Song, Ryklin, and Brown as evidenced by Geary teaches the personal care composition of instant claims 1-7 and 10-17 as discussed in detail above and further incorporated herein.
Specifically, the combination of Song, Ryklin, and Brown teaches at least one embodiment comprising only 8 ingredients: sodium cocoyl alaninate as the amino acid surfactant; lauramidopropyl betaine as the zwitterionic surfactant; polyquaternium-10 as the cationic deposition polymer; perfume; citric acid; DI water as the liquid carrier; glyceryl caprylate/caprate; and triglyceride oil, which allows for the inclusion of one additional ingredient.
However, the combination of Song, Ryklin, and Brown does not teach that the composition further comprises about 0.1 wt% to about 2.5 wt% lauric acid as recited in instant claim 8.
Naturally Thinking teaches that lauric acid is an antibacterial and anti-inflammatory used in cleansing products, such as shower gel, shampoo, and face wash, for skin repairing, anti-acne, detergent, and cleansing properties (Page 2, Title and Page 3, “Products to Use in”). Preferably, it is used at a concentration of 1% to solubilize oils (Page 3, “How to use”).
Regarding instant claim 8, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition taught by the combination of Song, Ryklin, and Brown by further including the lauric acid taught by Naturally Thinking. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add lauric acid in an amount of 1 wt.%, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range, because Naturally Thinking teaches that this amount is effective at solubilizing oils in cleansing compositions while achieving skin repairing, anti-acne, detergent, and cleansing properties.
One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect success in modifying the cleansing composition taught by the combination of Song, Ryklin, and Brown with the teachings of Naturally Thinking as proposed because the ingredient is known in the art to effectively solubilize oils, which is beneficial to the clear and stable composition of Song, which includes an insoluble natural oil. Further, Song permits the inclusion of optional components, such as suspending agents and skin active agents, to tailor the properties and characteristics of the composition (Song, Paragraphs 0138 and 0139).
It is noted that the recitation “personal care” in the instant claims is an intended use of the claimed composition. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Since the structure of the composition taught by the combination of Song, Ryklin, Brown, and Naturally Thinking is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Note: MPEP 2111.02.
Claims 1-7 and 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US20190105247A1; published: 04/11/2019; IDS of 09/20/2022) in view of Ryklin et al. (US20110092405A1; published: 04/21/2011; PTO-892 of 09/03/2025) and Brown et al. (US20200188243A1; published: 06/18/2020; PTO-892 of 10/21/2024), as applied to claims 1-7 and 10-17 above, and further in view of Aprigliano Fernandes et al. (WO2015085376A1; published: 06/18/2015; PTO-892 of 10/21/2024) and as evidenced by Geary et al. (US20040157754A1; published: 08/12/2004; IDS of 03/17/2023).
The combination of Song, Ryklin, and Brown as evidenced by Geary teaches the personal care composition of instant claims 1-7 and 10-17 as discussed in detail above and further incorporated herein.
Specifically, the combination of Song and Brown teaches at least one embodiment comprising 9 ingredients: sodium cocoyl alaninate as the amino acid surfactant; lauramidopropyl betaine as the zwitterionic surfactant; polyquaternium-10 as the cationic deposition polymer; perfume; citric acid; DI water as the liquid carrier; glyceryl caprylate/caprate; triglyceride oil; and antidandruff agent.
Song notes that the clear composition, which has a percent light transmittance of greater than about 80%, remains phase stable and minimizes coacervate formation (Abstract), which reads on the limitation of instant claim 9 wherein the composition is stable with no visible signs of creaming, precipitation, tunneling, separation, or sedimentation.
However, the combination of Song, Ryklin, and Brown does not explicitly teach that the composition is stable at both 5°C and 45°C as recited in instant claim 9.
Aprigliano Fernandes teaches a cosmetic composition (Page 1, line 4), wherein the composition is stable a temperature range between 4°C and 45°C (Page 2, lines 9-10), which is important for a composition comprising an antidandruff agent, as these agents may be detrimental to the stability of the composition by leading to flocculation or sedimentation of particles (Page 1, lines 13-21). Specifically, the combination of one or more cationic surfactants, one or more antidandruff agents, one or more liquid non-siliceous fatty substances, and one or more non-polymeric thickening agents overcomes drawbacks associated with antidandruff agents, including viscosity modification, phase separation, crystallization, and/or exudation, and allows obtainment of the desired stability (Page 1, Lines 13-33).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would reasonably expect that the cleansing composition taught by the combination of Song, Ryklin, and Brown, which comprises all components taught by Aprigliano Fernandes, would also achieve composition stability with no visible signs of creaming, precipitation, tunneling, separation, or sedimentation, at a temperature range between 4°C and 45°C, thereby obtaining the invention as specified in instant claim 9.
It is noted that the recitation “personal care” in the instant claims is an intended use of the claimed composition. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Since the structure of the composition taught by the combination of Song, Ryklin, Brown, and Aprigliano Fernandes is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Note: MPEP 2111.02.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submitted on 12/02/2025 with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered in so far as they apply to the new or modified rejections of the instant Office action, but were not found to be persuasive.
Applicant argues that Song teaches away from modifying its composition by including glyceryl caprylate/caprate, which is taught by Rykin as a viscosity builder, asserting that such a modification would render Song unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not found to be persuasive.
While Song teaches that low viscosity embodiments are preferred, the reference does not teach away from including rheology modifiers and, in fact, explicitly permits viscosity modifiers and, as discussed in the Office action dated 09/03/2025, the use of any glyceryl esters as suspending agents “at concentrations effective for suspending water-insoluble material in dispersed form in the compositions or for modifying the viscosity of the composition. Such concentrations range from about 0.1% to about 10%...by weight of the composition” (emphasis added) (Song, Paragraph 0161, 0163, and 0167). Clearly, the inclusion of a rheology modifier would not render Song unsatisfactory for its intended purpose because the reference explicitly teaches that such ingredients may be included in a range that substantially overlaps Applicant’s instantly claimed range of glyceryl ester. MPEP 2123(II) states “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). ‘A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.' In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Applicant further cites Ryklin’s Paragraph 0043, which states that 3 wt.% of glyceryl caprylate/caprate within a composition comprising 12 wt.% (active) sodium salt of C12—C14 alkyl ethoxysulfate, 3 wt.% (active) cocamidopropyl betaine, and water surprisingly yields a viscosity of about 25,000 cps. Applicant construes this result to assert that, therefore, the modification of Song with the glyceryl caprylate/caprate of Ryklin would necessarily result in a composition with a viscosity that is significantly higher than that which would be satisfactory for Song’s intended purpose (e.g., a foaming composition). Applicant provides no objective evidence to support the conclusion that including glyceryl caprylate/caprate to the composition of Song, which comprises a different combination of ingredients than Ryklin, would result in a composition having viscosity outside of Song’s preferred viscosity. Further, as discussed in the Office action dated 09/03/2025, Ryklin explicitly teaches that glyceryl caprylate/caprate is particularly useful for imparting advantageous foaming properties, among other benefits, which clearly aligns with the intended purpose of Song’s foaming composition.
As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have sufficient motivation to select the glyceryl caprylate/caprate of Ryklin as the species of glyceryl ester used in composition of Song, and it is within the skillset of an ordinary artisan to determine where within the disclosed range of about 0.1 wt.% to about 10 wt.% is optimal to produce a formulation having a desired balance of properties such as viscosity, foamability, and softness.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of objective evidence to the contrary.
Applicant further argues that Naturally Thinking and Aprigliano Fernandes fail to correct the deficiencies of Song and Brown. This argument is not found to be persuasive in view of the arguments above as they relate to Song, Ryklin, and Brown.
In view of the foregoing, the prior art rejections of record are maintained.
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 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 and 12-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,607,373 B2 in view of Ryklin et al. (US20110092405A1; published: 04/21/2011; PTO-892 of 09/03/2025), Song et al. (US20190105247A1; published: 04/11/2019; IDS of 09/20/2022), Brown et al. (US20200188243A1; published: 06/18/2020; PTO-892 of 10/21/2024), Naturally Thinking (webpage, <https://naturallythinking.com/lauric-acid>; archived: 08/11/2020; PTO-892 of 09/03/2025), and Aprigliano Fernandes et al. (WO2015085376A1; published: 06/18/2015; PTO-892 of 10/21/2024).
US ‘373 claim 1 recites a clear cleansing composition comprising: about 3 wt.% to about 35 wt.% of an anionic surfactant; 5.8 wt.% to about 15 wt.% of an amphoteric surfactant; a cationic polymer; about 0.01 wt.% to about 1.0 wt.% of inorganic salts; and an aqueous carrier, wherein the composition is substantially free of sulfate-based surfactant. The amount of amphoteric surfactant overlaps and thus renders obvious the amount of zwitterionic surfactant recited in instant claim 7. The cationic polymer reads on the cationic deposition polymer recited in instant claim 10. The aqueous carrier reads on the liquid carrier recited in instant claim 1, and the composition meets the limitation wherein the composition is free of sulfated surfactants as recited in instant claim 1. The amount of inorganic salt lies within and thus renders obvious the range recited in instant claim 13. US ‘373 claim 2 recites that the anionic surfactant is selected from salts of glycinates, sarcosinates, glutamates, alaninates, and taurates, and taurates, among others, which reads on the amino acid surfactant recited in instant claim 1, and the amount of anionic surfactant recited in US ‘373 claim 1 overlaps and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed amount of amino acid surfactant. US ‘373 claim 4 recites that the cationic polymer is selected from cationic guars and cationic celluloses, among others, which reads on instant claim 11. US ‘373 claim 3 recites that the cationic polymer has a weight average molecular weight of about 300,000 g/mol to about 3,000,000 g/mol, and US ‘373 claim 20 recites that the cationic polymer has a charge density of about 0.5 meq/g to about 1.7 meq/g, which each overlap and render obvious the ranges recited in instant claim 12. US ‘373 claims 5-9, and 12-16 recite limitations which are not excluded by the instantly claimed composition. US ‘373 claims 17-19 recite a composition which reads on the instantly claimed composition for similar reasons as discussed above. The composition does not comprise a polymeric thickener or silicones and, therefore, meets the respective limitations recited in instant claims 1 and 15.
The claims of US ‘373 differ from the instant claims in that the claims of US ‘373 do not recite that the composition comprises a glyceryl ester as recited in instant claims 1 and 6, comprises a triglyceride oil as recited in instant claim 1, has a pH within the ranges recited in instant claims 1 or 3, has a yield stress within the ranges recited in instant claim 1 and 4, comprises an antidandruff agent selected from those recited in instant claim 2, comprises the amount of lauric acid recited in instant claim 8, is stable as defined in instant claim 9, comprises sodium cocoyl alaninate in the amount recited in instant claim 14, comprises the amount of sodium benzoate recited in instant claim 16, or comprises the amount of citric acid recited in instant claim 17. Further, the claims of US ‘373 do not recite a composition consisting of all elements recited in instant claim 18.
The teachings of Ryklin, Song, Brown, Naturally Thinking, and Aprigliano Fernandes are as set forth above and further incorporated herein.
Regarding the glyceryl ester recited in instant claim 1, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition recited in the claims of US ‘373 by further including the glyceryl caprylate/caprate taught by Ryklin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add glyceryl caprylate/caprate in order to impart advantageous performance properties such as viscosity building properties, foaming properties, improved skin-feel characteristics, and mildness to the composition, as taught by Ryklin.
Regarding instant claim 6, there is no indication that the chemical component glyceryl caprylate/caprate exists with additional components. In fact, Ryklin teaches that it is beneficial for a cleansing formulation to minimize the use of EO/PO containing components due to the possibility of residual 1,4-dioxane being present from processing to make the EO/PO component (Paragraphs 0004 and 0005). Therefore, the composition taught by the combination of US ‘373 claims and Ryklin meets the claim.
Regarding the triglyceride oil recited in instant claim 1, Song teaches that cleansing compositions comprising the same ingredients as those recited in the claims of US ‘373 may include a benefit agent, such as natural oils like sunflower oil or castor oil. These natural oils contain triglycerides as evidenced by Applicant’s instant specification, which states that all natural oils contain a mixture of triglycerides and that the triglyceride oil may comprise sunflower seed oil or castor oil, among others (Instant Specification, Page 6, lines 31-33). Song further teaches that fatty esters (like triglycerides) are conditioning agents, which may be included in cleansing compositions at concentrations ranging from about 0.001 wt.% to about 10 wt.% (Paragraphs 0138-0139). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the composition taught by the combination of US '373 claims and Ryklin by further including a natural oil, such as sunflower oil or castor oil, in an amount of 0.001 wt.% to 10 wt.% as taught by Song, which overlaps the instantly claimed range, in order to improve the conditioning effect of the composition. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding the pH recited in instant claims 1 and 3, Song teaches that the pH of the composition may range from about pH 4 to about pH 8 (Paragraph 0050). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the pH of the composition taught by the combination of US ‘373 claims, Ryklin, and Song within the range taught by Song, which overlaps the instantly claimed range, since the reference teaches that any amount between about 4 to about 8 is suitable depending on the intended use of the cleansing composition. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding the yield stress recited in instant claims 1 and 4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a yield stress of 0.5 Pa to 20 Pa as taught by Brown, which overlaps the instantly claimed ranges, as a starting point for routine optimization of the composition taught by the combination of US ‘373 claims, Ryklin, and Song in order to ensure sufficient suspension of oils in the composition. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding instant claim 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition taught by the combination of US ‘373 claims, Ryklin, Song, and Brown by further including either the piroctone olamine or the zinc pyrithione taught by Song. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include either compound to achieve antidandruff effects, as taught by Song.
Regarding instant claim 8, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition taught by the combination of US ‘373 claims, Ryklin, Song, and Brown by further including the lauric acid taught by Naturally Thinking. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add lauric acid in an amount of 1 wt.%, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range, because Naturally Thinking teaches that this amount is effective at solubilizing oils in cleansing compositions while achieving skin repairing, anti-acne, detergent, and cleansing properties.
Regarding instant claim 9, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would reasonably expect that the cleansing composition taught by the combination of US ‘373 claims, Ryklin, Song, and Brown, which comprises all components taught by Aprigliano Fernandes, would also achieve composition stability with no visible signs of creaming, precipitation, tunneling, separation, or sedimentation, at a temperature range between 4°C and 45°C, thereby obtaining the invention as specified in instant claim 9.
Regarding instant claim 14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition taught by the combination of US ‘373 claims, Ryklin, Song, and Brown by selecting sodium cocoyl alaninate as the anionic surfactant, as taught by Song, because the claims of US ‘373 recite that the surfactant may be a salt of an alaninate. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the sodium cocoyl alaninate at a concentration of from about 8 wt.% to about 12 wt.% (Paragraph 0029), which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range because Song teaches that this concentration of an acyl alaninate is suitable for forming similar compositions.
Regarding instant claim 16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition taught by the combination of US ‘373 claims, Ryklin, Song, and Brown by further including sodium benzoate and using 0.25 wt.% as taught by Song, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range, as a starting point for routine optimization of the composition because the reference teaches this amount is useful for improving the lifespan of similar cleansing compositions.
Regarding instant claim 17, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition taught by the combination of US ‘373 claims, Ryklin, Song, and Brown by further including citric acid and using 0.1 wt.% to 2 wt.% citric acid as taught by Song, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range, as a starting point for routine optimization of the composition in order to achieve the desired pH.
Regarding the limitation of instant claim 1 wherein the total number of ingredients in the composition is 8 or 9 and instant claim 18, because the teachings of US ‘373 claims, Ryklin, Song, and Brown do not require that all of the above disclosed elements are included in the cleansing composition at the same time, one of ordinary skill in the art could at once envisage an embodiment wherein the composition taught by the combination of US ‘373 claims, Ryklin, Song, and Brown comprises:
sodium cocoyl alaninate as the amino acid surfactant;
a zwitterionic surfactant as a co-surfactant;
a cationic deposition polymer;
citric acid;
DI water as the liquid carrier;
glyceryl caprylate/caprate as the glyceryl ester;
triglyceride oil; and
sodium benzoate; and
optionally, anti-dandruff agent.
Together, all of the claimed elements (amino acid surfactant, glyceryl ester, triglyceride oil, liquid carrier, anti-dandruff agent, zwitterionic surfactant, cationic deposition polymer, sodium benzoate, and citric acid) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Note: MPEP 2141 KSR International CO. v. Teleflex Inc. 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007).
It is noted that the recitation “personal care” in the instant claims is an intended use of the claimed composition. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Since the structure of the composition taught by the combination of US ‘373 claims, Song, Brown, and Aprigliano Fernandes is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Note: MPEP 2111.02.
Claims 1-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of copending U.S. Application No. 17/529,427 in view of Song et al. (US20190105247A1; published: 04/11/2019; IDS of 09/20/2022) as evidenced by Geary et al. (US20040157754A1; published: 08/12/2004; IDS of 03/17/2023).
App. ‘427 claim 1 recites a personal care composition comprising sodium cocoyl alaninate, a glyceryl ester, an antidandruff agent, and a liquid carrier, wherein the personal care composition is substantially free of sulfated surfactants. Sodium cocoyl alaninate reads on the amino acid surfactant recited in instant claims 1 and 14, and the amount of sodium cocoyl alaninate recited in App. ‘427 claim 2 overlaps and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed ranges. Glyceryl ester reads on the same recited in instant claim 1, and amount of glyceryl ester recited in App. ‘427 claim 3 renders obvious the instantly claimed range. The glyceryl caprylate, glyceryl caprylate, or mixture thereof recited in App. ‘427 claim 5 reads on the same recited in instant claim 1. App. ‘427 claim 6 recites that the mixture of glyceryl caprylate and glyceryl caprate is substantially free of the ingredients recited in instant claim 6. The yield stress recited in App. ‘427 claim 7 overlaps and thus renders obvious the ranges recited in instant claims 1 and 4. The amount of lauric acid recited in App. ‘427 claim 8 lies within and thus renders obvious the range recited in instant claim 8. The stability recited in App. ‘427 claim 9 reads on instant claim 9. App. ‘427 claim 4 recites a limitation which is not excluded by the instantly claimed composition. The composition does not comprise a polymeric thickener or silicones and, therefore, meets the respective limitations recited in instant claims 1 and 15. The composition does not comprise an inorganic salt, which lies within and thus renders obvious the range recited in instant claim 13.
The claims of App. ‘427 differ from the instant claims in that the claims of App. ‘427 do not recite that the composition comprises a triglyceride oil as recited in instant claim 1, has a pH within the ranges recited in instant claims 1 or 3, comprises an antidandruff agent selected from those recited in instant claim 2, comprises a the amount of zwitterionic surfactant as recited in instant claim 7, comprises the cationic deposition polymer recited in instant claims 10-12, comprises the amount of sodium benzoate recited in instant claim 16, or comprises the amount of citric acid recited in instant claim 17. Further, the claims of App. ‘427 do not recite a composition consisting of all elements recited in instant claim 18.
The teachings of Song as evidenced by Geary are as set forth above and further incorporated herein.
Regarding the triglyceride oil recited in instant claim 1, Song teaches that cleansing compositions comprising the same ingredients as those recited in the claims of App. ‘427 may include a benefit agent, such as natural oils like sunflower oil or castor oil. These natural oils contain triglycerides as evidenced by Applicant’s instant specification, which states that all natural oils contain a mixture of triglycerides and that the triglyceride oil may comprise sunflower seed oil or castor oil, among others (Instant Specification, Page 6, lines 31-33). Song further teaches that fatty esters (like triglycerides) are conditioning agents, which may be included in cleansing compositions at concentrations ranging from about 0.001 wt.% to about 10 wt.% (Paragraphs 0138-0139). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the composition recited in the claims of App. ‘427 by further including a natural oil, such as sunflower oil or castor oil, in an amount of 0.001 wt.% to 10 wt.% as taught by Song, which overlaps the instantly claimed range, in order to improve the conditioning effect of the composition. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding the pH recited in instant claims 1 and 3, Song teaches that the pH of the composition may range from about pH 4 to about pH 8 (Paragraph 0050). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the pH of the composition taught by the combination of App. ‘427 claims and Song within the range taught by Song, which overlaps the instantly claimed range, since the reference teaches that any amount between about 4 to about 8 is suitable depending on the intended use of the cleansing composition. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding instant claim 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition taught by the combination of App. ‘427 claims and Song by selecting either the piroctone olamine or the zinc pyrithione taught by Song as the antidandruff agent because Song teaches that each are known in the art as suitable for use in similar compositions to achieve antidandruff effects.
Regarding instant claim 7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition taught by the combination of App. ‘427 claims and Song by further including an amphoteric or zwitterionic surfactant in an amount ranging from about 3 wt.% to about 15 wt.% as taught by Song, which overlaps and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such a surfactant because Song teaches that they are useful co-surfactants in combination with amino-acid based anionic surfactants to form stable personal care products (Song, Paragraph 0002).
Regarding instant claims 10-12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition taught by the combination of App. ‘427 claims and Song by further including polyquaternium-10, which is a cellulose-derived cationic polymer as evidenced by Applicant’s instant specification (Page 10, lines 3-6), in order to allow formation of a coacervate, as taught by Song (Paragraphs 0049 and 0132). Both the charge density and molecular weight values of the polyquaternium-10, which corresponds to Poly JR-30M from Amerchol (Paragraph 0204), lie within and thus render obvious the instantly claimed ranges as evidenced by Geary, which states that Poly JR-30M has a charge density of 1.25 meq/g and a molecular weight of 1,800,000 (Geary, Paragraph 0022).
Regarding instant claim 16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition taught by the combination of App. ‘427 claims and Song by further including sodium benzoate and using 0.25 wt.% as taught by Song, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range, as a starting point for routine optimization of the composition because the reference teaches this amount is useful for improving the lifespan of similar cleansing compositions.
Regarding instant claim 17, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition taught by the combination of App. ‘427 claims and Song by further including citric acid and using 0.1 wt.% to 2 wt.% citric acid as taught by Song, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range, as a starting point for routine optimization of the composition in order to achieve the desired pH.
Regarding the limitation of instant claim 1 wherein the total number of ingredients in the composition is 8 or 9 and instant claim 18, because the teachings of App. ‘427 claims and Song do not require that all of the above disclosed elements are included in the cleansing composition at the same time, one of ordinary skill in the art could at once envisage an embodiment wherein the composition taught by the combination of App. ‘427 claims and Song comprises:
sodium cocoyl alaninate as the amino acid surfactant;
glyceryl caprylate/caprate as the glyceryl ester;
an anti-dandruff agent;
a liquid carrier;
triglyceride oil;
a zwitterionic surfactant as a co-surfactant;
polyquaternium-11 as a cationic deposition polymer;
citric acid; and
sodium benzoate.
Regarding the water recited in instant claim 18, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition taught by the combination of App. ‘427 claims and Song by selecting water as the liquid carrier because Song teaches that water is a suitable aqueous carrier for facilitating the formation of a cleansing composition having an appropriate viscosity and rheology (Song, Paragraph 0136).
Together, all of the claimed elements (amino acid surfactant, glyceryl ester, triglyceride oil, liquid carrier, anti-dandruff agent, zwitterionic surfactant, cationic deposition polymer, sodium benzoate, and citric acid) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Note: MPEP 2141 KSR International CO. v. Teleflex Inc. 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007).
It is noted that the recitation “personal care” in the instant claims is an intended use of the claimed composition. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Since the structure of the composition taught by the combination of App. ‘427 claims and Song is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Note: MPEP 2111.02.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submitted on 12/02/2025 with respect to rejections under nonstatutory double patenting have been fully considered in so far as they apply to the modified rejections of the instant Office action.
Applicant stated that upon indication of allowable subject matter but for the non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection, the Applicant will consider filing a terminal disclaimer if necessary. As there is no allowable subject matter indicated, the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 CLINKSCALES WISTNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7715. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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 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.
/SARAH C WISTNER/Examiner, Art Unit 1616
/Mina Haghighatian/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616