Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Applicants’ amendments and arguments filed 12/30/2025, 01/15/2026, and 01/20/2026 have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claims 7 and 9 are canceled.
Claim 1 is amended.
Claim 14 remains withdrawn.
Claims 18-19 are newly added.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-13, and 15-19 are examined on the merits.
Claim Interpretation
As to the limitations of claims 2 and 15, applicant is reminded this is a composition/product claim and the prior art teaches a composition of quaternary ammonium compound at a concentration of 0.1-2.0%, one or more surfactant (specifically polysorbate 20) in an amount from 0.05-6.0%, and an aromatic alcohol (specifically 2-phenoxyethanol) in an amount from 0.1-1.0% thereby since a product is not separable from its physical properties then it necessarily teaches the limitation of “passes the European standard testing protocol EN13727 in 60 s or less contact time and passes the European standard testing protocol EN13624 in 60 s or less contact time” or “passes the European standard testing protocol EN13727 in 30 s or less contact time and passes the European standard testing protocol EN13624 in 30 s or less contact time”.
In regards to claim 19, as to the limitation of 'is dilutable' it is noted that the instant claims are composition claims and future intended use, such as diluting the composition, is not given patentable weight. Thus any composition meeting the limitations of claim 1 from which claim 19 depends will meet this limitation.
New Rejections Necessitated By Amendments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 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 1 has been amended to recite “a. a non-alcoholic solvent b. one or more quaternary ammonium compounds dissolved in the non-alcoholic solvent, the one or more quaternary ammonium compounds present in an amount of from 0.1 to 2.0 wt% based upon the total weight of the composition, wherein said one or more quaternary ammonium compounds are a dimethyl dialkyl ammonium chloride, wherein each alkyl group contains 8 to 12 carbon atoms; c. one or more surfactants dissolved in the non-alcoholic solvent, the one or more surfactants present in an amount of from 0.05 to 6.0 wt% based upon the total weight of the composition, wherein said one or more surfactants are selected from the group consisting of non- ionic surfactants, amphoteric surfactants, and mixtures thereof, wherein the non-ionic surfactant is selected from the group consisting of polyglyceryl-10 caprylate/caprate, polysorbate 20, polysorbate 80, decyl glucoside, polyethylene glycol (23) lauryl ether, C9-11 hexaethylene glycol alkyl ethers and polyoxyethylene (21) stearyl ether, and wherein the amphoteric surfactant is selected from the group consisting of octyldimethyl amine oxide, decyldimethyl amine oxide, lauryldimethyl amine oxide, isoalkyl dimethyl amine oxide, tetradecyldimethyl amine oxide, cetyldimethyl amine oxide, cocoamidopropyl betaine and 13-Alanine, N-(2-carboxyethyl)-, N-coco alkyl derivatives; and d. an aromatic alcohol dissolved in the non-alcoholic solvent, the aromatic alcohol present in an amount of from 0.1 to 1.0 wt% based upon the total weight of the composition, wherein the aromatic alcohol is selected from the group consisting of 2-phenoxyethanol, benzyl alcohol, phenoxyisopropanol, chlorocresol, 2-phenylphenol and 5-chloro-2-(4- chlorphenoxy)phenol, andwherein the composition does not contain an anionic surfactant.” which is unclear as to when the ingredients are mixed together. For example, is each component b through d mixed individually in a non-alcoholic solvent and then the mixtures are combined to make the claimed composition or is every component a-d mixed together at the same time to create the claimed composition.
For the purpose of moving prosecution forward, the examiner broadly interprets any composition comprising a non-alcoholic solvent to meet this limitation.
Claim 17 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 17 recites component “d. one or more quaternary ammonium compounds selected from didecylimethylammonium chloride in an amount of from 0.1 to 0.7 wt% base upon the total weight of the composition”. Claim 17 is dependent upon claim 1 which recites “d. an aromatic alcohol dissolved in the non-alcoholic solvent, the aromatic alcohol…”. Therefore, it is unclear is the claim 17 component “d.” is an additional component added to the “d.” of claim 1 or if it is meant to be a separate component all together.
For the purpose of moving prosecution forward, the examiner broadly interprets “d.” of claim 17 to be a separate component to the “d.” component of claim 1.
Claim 17 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 17 recites components d. through f. which are the same components of b. through d. of instant claim 1, respectively, but the claim 17 components further define those components. It is unclear if d. through f. is just further defining components b. through d. or if d. through f. constitutes components in addition to b. through d.
For the purpose of moving prosecution forward, the examiner broadly interprets d. through f. to be further defining the components b. through d. of claim 1.
Maintained Rejections Updated to Account for Amendments and Newly Added Claims
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 10-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker et al. (US20090269394A1, published 10/29/2009, hereafter Baker) in view of Modak et al. (WO1995026134A1, published 10/05/1995, hereafter Modak), and in view of Effendy et al. (Isaak Effendy, Howard I. Maibach, Detergent and skin irritation, Clinics in Dermatology, Volume 14, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 15-21, ISSN 0738-081X, https://doi.org/10.1016/0738-081X(95)00103-M. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0738081X9500103M), hereafter Effendy).
Baker claims a method of treating and/or preventing onychomycosis in a human subject by topically or intradermally administering to a nail and the skin surrounding the nail a nanoemulsion (claim 1; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Baker teaches the nanoemulsion comprises high energy droplets that permeate skin pores and hair follicles to enter the epidermis and dermis where they kill fungi, virus, bacteria, etc. ([0055]; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Claim 8 of Baker teaches the nanoemulsion comprises at least one non-ionic surfactant at a concentration of about 0.1-10% and at least one cationic agent at a concentration of about 0.01-2% (according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 3-6, 8, 12, and 16-17) . Claim 20 further teaches the non-ionic surfactant is polysorbate 20 or polysorbate 80 and comprises from about 0.05 to about 10% then further limits the range to about 0.5-4% (according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 3-4, 8, 10, 12, and 17). Claim 17 of Baker claims the cationic surfactant to is a selected from the group consisting of: quaternary ammonium compound, an alkyl trimethyl ammonium chloride compound, a dialkyl dimethyl ammonium chloride compound, benzalkonium chloride, benzyldimethylhexadecylammonium chloride, benzyldimethyltetradecylammonium chloride, benzyldodecyldimethylammonium bromide, benzyltrimethylammonium tetrachloroiodate, cetylpyridinium chloride, dimethyldioctadecylammonium bromide, dodecylethyldimethylammonium bromide, dodecyltrimethylammonium bromide, ethylhexadecyldimethylammonium bromide, Girard's reagent T, hexadecyltrimethylammonium bromide, n,n′,n′-polyoxyethylene(10)-n-tallow-1,3-diaminopropane, thonzonium bromide, trimethyl(tetradecyl)ammonium bromide, 1,3,5-triazine-1,3,5(2h,4h,6h)-triethanol, 1-decanaminium, n-decyl-n,n-dimethyl-chloride, didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride, 2-(2-(p-(diisobutyl)cresosxy)ethoxy)ethyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride, 2-(2-(p-(diisobutyl)phenoxy)ethoxy)ethyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride, alkyl 1 or 3 benzyl-1-(2-hydroxethyl)-2-imidazolinium chloride, alkyl bis(2-hydroxyethyl)benzyl ammonium chloride, alkyl demethyl benzyl ammonium chloride, alkyl dimethyl 3,4-dichlorobenzyl ammonium chloride (100% c12), alkyl dimethyl 3,4-dichlorobenzyl ammonium chloride (50% c14, 40% c12, 10% c16), alkyl dimethyl 3,4-dichlorobenzyl ammonium chloride (55% c14, 23% c12, 20% c16), alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride, alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride (100% c14), alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride (100% c16), alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride (41% c14, 28% c12), alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride (47% c12, 18% c14), alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride (55% c16, 20% c14), alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride (58% c14, 28% c16), alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride (60% c14, 25% c12), alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride (61% c11, 23% c14), alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride (61% c12, 23% c14), alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride (65% c12, 25% c14), alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride (67% c12, 24% c14), alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride (67% c12, 25% c14), alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride (90% c14, 5% c12), alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride (93% c14, 4% c12), alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride (95% c16, 5% c18), alkyl didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride, alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride (c12-16), alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride (c12-18), dialkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride, alkyl dimethyl dimethybenzyl ammonium chloride, alkyl dimethyl ethyl ammonium bromide (90% c14, 5% c16, 5% c12), alkyl dimethyl ethyl ammonium bromide (mixed alkyl and alkenyl groups as in the fatty acids of soybean oil), alkyl dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride, alkyl dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride (60% c14), alkyl dimethyl isopropylbenzyl ammonium chloride (50% c12,30% c14, 17% c16, 3% c18), alkyl trimethyl ammonium chloride (58% c18, 40% c16, 1% c14, 1% c12), alkyl trimethyl ammonium chloride (90% c18, 10% c16), alkyldimethyl(ethylbenzyl) ammonium chloride (c12-18), di-(c8-10)-alkyl dimethyl ammonium chlorides, dialkyl dimethyl ammonium chloride, dialkyl methyl benzyl ammonium chloride, didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride, diisodecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride, dioctyl dimethyl ammonium chloride, dodecyl bis(2-hydroxyethyl) octyl hydrogen ammonium chloride, dodecyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride, dodecylcarbamoyl methyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride, heptadecyl hydroxyethylimidazolinium chloride, hexahydro-1,3,5-tris(2-hydroxyethyl)-s-triazine, myristalkonium chloride, n,n-dimethyl-2-hydroxypropylammonium chloride polymer, n-tetradecyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride monohydrate, octyl decyl dimethyl ammonium chloride, octyl dodecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride, octyphenoxyethoxyethyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride, oxydiethylenebis(alkyl dimethyl ammonium chloride), trimethoxysily propyl dimethyl octadecyl ammonium chloride, trimethoxysilyl quats, trimethyl dodecylbenzyl ammonium chloride, semi-synthetic derivatives thereof, and combinations thereof (according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 7, 9, 12, and 17). Baker further teaches the composition comprising a preservative in which the preservative is selected from a group consisting of: phenoxyethanol, benzyl alcohol, and chlorocresol (claims 15-16; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 11, and 17). Baker teaches the composition further comprises soluble oils to include vitamins ([0110]) and at least one organic solvent (claim 1) (according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 13). Additionally, Baker teaches the nanoemulsions are also used in methods of inactivating Gram-positive bacteria, a bacterial spore, or Gram-negative bacteria ([0014]). Baker teaches the nanoemulsion comprises water, at least one oil, at least one surfactant, and at least one organic solvent (claim 1 and [0018]; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 18). Baker teaches the term “dilution” refers to dilution of the nanoemulsions of the presents invention or those derived from the nanoemulsions of the present invention using, for example, an aqueous system comprised of PBS or water to the desired final concentration ([0075]; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 18-19). Lastly, Baker teaches cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) is made into an aqueous CPC solution by prepared by simple weighing of the CPC and addition the water until the CPC was dissolved in the water phase ([0255]; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1).
Baker fails to teach the concentration of the preservative, specifically phenoxyethanol. Modak remedies this deficiency.
Modak teaches a composition for inactivating irritants in fluids, specifically comprising an antimicrobial agent as an irritant inactivating agent (title and claims 1-2; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Modak claims the composition to be a cream, lotion, or spray and claims the composition is applied to a physical barrier to include mammalian skin (claims 33, 40, and 42; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Modak claims the irritant-inactivating agent, specifically the anti-microbial agent, is selected from a group to include phenoxyethanol (claims 2 and 4; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 11, and 17). Modak further claims the composition to contain an anti-microbial synergist and teaches the synergist to be didecyldimethylammonium chloride (claims 30-31; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 7, 9, 12, and 17). Modak claims the anti-microbial agent is in an amount of 0.5-10% (claim 27; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 4, 8, 12, and 17). Modak provides two working examples containing phenoxyethanol at concentrations 1% (page 32, lines 15-25; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 4, 8, 12, and 17). Furthermore, Modak teaches three embodiments directed towards a skin surface composition comprising 0.2% polyquaternium (a quaternary ammonium compound) and 0.5% phenoxyethanol (parge 22-23, lines 12-35 and lines 1-3 respectively; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 16-17).
Although both Baker and Modak teach the option of compositions without anionic surfactants, they fail to teach the explicit exclusion of an anionic surfactant as in instant claim 1.
Effendy teaches that anionic surfactants prove to be potent primary irritants to human and animal skin (page 16, paragraph 5). Effendy further teaches that nonionic surfactant is believed to have the lowest irritation potential (page 16, paragraph 5).
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to claim an anti-fungal, bacterial, and viral composition comprising a quaternary ammonium compound, polysorbate 20 or 80, and a preservative such as phenoxyethanol as outlined by Baker with the ready for improvement with the known technique of adjusting the concentration of the phenoxyethanol as outlined by Modak. Adjusting the forementioned components of a disinfectant composition comprising quaternary ammonium compound, polysorbate 20 or 80, and a preservative such as phenoxyethanol as claimed by instant claims 1-13 and 15-17 would yield predictable results thus making them of obviousness as modification of a known product with a known technique is within the purview of the skilled artisan. Furthermore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to selectively adjust an anti-fungal, bacterial, and viral composition comprising a quaternary ammonium compound, polysorbate 20 or 80, and a preservative such as phenoxyethanol as outlined by Baker in view of Modak by selecting the use of a nonionic surfactant as opposed to an anionic surfactant as outlined by Effendy under TSM, see MPEP 2143(G). As outlined by Effendy, nonionic surfactants have the lowest irritation potential and anionic surfactants are potent irritants to humans which would motivate someone skilled in the art to advantageously omit anionic surfactants from the composition of Baker in view of Modak, as it would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submitted on 12/30/2025 have been fully considered by the examiner.
Arguments in Regards to the Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103:
Applicant argues that Baker is directed towards methods for treating and completely curing fungal, yeast, and/or mold infections. Applicant further argues that Baker is directed towards a nanoemulsion and argues that the cationic surfactant is not dissolved in the water or the oil. Applicant then quotes one paragraph of Baker stating Baker notes that the cationic surfactant (cetylpyridinium chloride) “resides at the interface between the oil and water phases” and claims this is teaching the cationic surfactant is not dissolved in the water or the oil. Applicant furthers this argument by stating that instant claim 1 has been amended to recite “a non-alcoholic solvent”, “one or more quaternary ammonium compounds dissolved in the non-alcoholic solvent”, “one or more surfactants dissolved in the non-alcoholic solvent”, and “an aromatic alcohol dissolved in the non-alcoholic solvent”. Applicant continues this argument by stating that Baker’s nanoemulsions are not dissolved in an non-alcoholic solvent and that a non-alcoholic solvent would destroy the nanoemulsions of Baker. Further, Applicant argues that the instant application has various benefits, such as bacterial activity during handwashing, over the nanoemulsions of Baker and directs the examiner to the example section of instant specification. In regards to Modak, Applicant argues that Modak is directed to a composition for applying to a surface which comprises an irritant-inactivating substance which is to prevent the irrirant-inactivating agent from binding to the surface. Applicant furthers this argument by saying nothing in Modak teaches the composition of the independent claim 1. Lastly, Applicant argues that there is no evidence that Baker would pass the EN13727 or the EN13624 European standard testing protocol as in instant claim 2.
First it is noted that Applicant is arguing against Baker alone and in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It is further noted that Applicant’s instant claims are directed towards a “a skin disinfectant composition” broadly, thus encompassing fungus. Further, it is noted that all of Applicant’s examples found in the instant specification are directed towards treating candida albicans (pages 34-44, tables 2-10). Further, it is noted that Baker teaches treating Candida spp. (claim 4), specifically candida albicans ([0012]). Additionally, it is noted that Baker teaches the nanoemulsions are also used in methods of inactivating Gram-positive bacteria, a bacterial spore, or Gram-negative bacteria ([0014]).
In regards to Applicant’s argument that that a non-alcoholic solvent would destroy the nanoemulsion, it is first noted that Baker does not teach water destroying the emulsion. Further, Applicant’s quote of “resides at the interface between the oil and water phases”, is taken from paragraph [0254] which further defines this interface as part of the surfactant is distributed in the oil core and part resides in the water. Next, it is further noted that Baker more broadly teaches cetylpyridinum chloride (CPC) was prepared in an aqueous solution and was dissolved in the water phase ([0255]). Therefore, in contrast, Baker teaches the cetylpyridinum chloride is dissolved in water. The MPEP 2111.03(III) states “applicant has the burden of showing that the introduction of additional steps or specific components which would materially change the characteristics of the claimed invention.” In summary, Applicants have failed to properly demonstrate how and which additional components, such as water, materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed composition. Also, it is noted that under 35 USC § 103 the prior art is taken as whole and a reference to a single example is an improper rebuttal.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that Baker does not show the same benefits as the instant application, noted that Applicant’s instant claims are directed towards a “a skin disinfectant composition” broadly, thus encompassing fungus. Further, it is noted that all of Applicant’s examples found in the instant specification are directed towards treating candida albicans (pages 34-44, tables 2-10). Further, it is noted that Baker teaches treating Candida spp. (claim 4), specifically candida albicans ([0012]). Additionally, it is noted that Baker teaches the nanoemulsions are also used in methods of inactivating Gram-positive bacteria, a bacterial spore, or Gram-negative bacteria ([0014]). Further, it is noted that the instant claims are composition claims and future intended use, such as handwashing, is not given patentable weight. Also, it is noted that Baker in view of Modak teaches the same composition with the same ingredients and amounts as the instantly claimed composition, thereby since a product is not separable from its physical properties then it necessarily teaches bacterial activity during handwashing. Applicants observation that it also has ‘bacterial activity during handwashing’ does not give it patentable weight, since it is the same composition, as adding a characterization to a prior art patented invention is not patentable. Lastly, it is noted that Applicant’s examples provided in the specifications recite additional elements that are not found in the instant claims such as hydrogen peroxide, trisodium dicarboxymethyl alaninate, lactic acid, sodium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, Trilon M, hydroxyethylcellulose, and glycerin (page 34-44, tables 2-10). Therefore, it is unclear what components are causing the desired effects and the claims are not commensurate with the data.
In regards to Applicant’s argument over Modak, it is again noted that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further, Applicant is reminded that Modak is a secondary reference, referenced to cure the deficiencies of Baker. Lastly, it is noted that both Baker and Modak are directed towards antimicrobial compositions applied to the skin.
In regards to Applicant’s final argument that Baker would not pass the European standard test, it is again noted that the instant claims are composition/product claims and the prior art teaches a composition of quaternary ammonium compound at a concentration of 0.1-2.0%, one or more surfactant (specifically polysorbate 20) in an amount from 0.05-6.0%, and an aromatic alcohol (specifically 2-phenoxyethanol) in an amount from 0.1-1.0% thereby since a product is not separable from its physical properties then it necessarily teaches the limitation of “passes the European standard testing protocol EN13727 in 60 s or less contact time and passes the European standard testing protocol EN13624 in 60 s or less contact time” or “passes the European standard testing protocol EN13727 in 30 s or less contact time and passes the European standard testing protocol EN13624 in 30 s or less contact time”. Applicants observation that it also ‘passes the European standard test” does not give it patentable weight, since it is the same composition, as adding a characterization to a prior art patented invention is not patentable.
In summary, the examiner is not persuaded by Applicant’s arguments. The rejection is maintained and updated to account for claim amendments and newly added claims.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA NICOLE ISNOR whose telephone number is (703)756-5561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 5:30am-3pm PST.
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, Bethany Barham can be reached at (571) 272-6175. 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.
/BETHANY P BARHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1611
/A.N.I./ Examiner, Art Unit 1611
Prosecution Insights