DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending and represent all claims currently under consideration.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 08/06/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-3, 9-13, 16, and 19-20 were amended. No new material was added.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous objections to the claims and specification, and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
The rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been modified to address the amendment and maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 08/06/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Bchir, Chodorowski-Kimmes, and Kadir, further in view of Salvemini (US 9474700 B2). Bchir, Chodorowski-Kimmes, and Kadir were cited previously by the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 08/13/2025 has been considered.
New Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, the word “and” should precede the final item in each list (e.g., “A, A’, A’’, A’’’ and A’’’’ independently represent a linear or branched divalent C1-C20 alkylene group” should read “A, A’, A’’, A’’’ and A’’’’ independently represent a linear or branched divalent C1-C20 alkylene group, and”).
New 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bchir (WO 2017063821 A1), further in view of Salvemini (US 9474700 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Bchir teaches a composition comprising a pigment and a tri(C1-C4)alkoxy(C1-C12)alkylsilane (Bchir, claim 18) and can further comprise decyl glucoside (i.e., an alkylpolyglycoside; Bchir, page 23, line 10), and which can be in the form of an aqueous suspension (Bchir, page 18, lines 7-9). Bchir does not specify an organic alkoxysilane of formula (S-I) or (S-II), but does teach a tri(C1-C4)alkoxy(C1-C12)alkylsilane (Bchir, claim 18). Salvemini teaches compositions for altering hair color (Salvemini, abstract), wherein the composition comprises pigments (Salvemini, column 10, line 6), and at least one silane which can be a methyltriethoxysilane (i.e., a tri(C1-C4)alkoxy(C1-C12)alkylsilane) or an aminopropyltriethoxysilane (Salvemini, column 37, lines 16-21), specifically 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane (i.e., a particularly well-suited organic compound of formula S-I according to the instant specification, page 21, paragraph 0092; Salvemini, column 40, line 62).
Bchir and Salvemini are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because Bchir, Salvemini, and the current invention are in the same field of cosmetic compositions for treating keratinous materials. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composition of Bchir to substitute an aminopropyltriethoxysilane in place of the alkylsilane, because Salvemini teaches the two types of silanes as alternative embodiments (Salvemini, column 37, lines 16-21), while Bchir teaches it is routine for those skilled in the art to adjust the nature of the additives present in the composition (Bchir, page 26, lines 36-39).
Regarding claim 2, Bchir and Salvemini together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Bchir teaches the pigment can be chosen from a group of iron oxides (Bchir, page 13, lines 14-16).
Regarding claim 3, Bchir and Salvemini together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 2. Bchir teaches the pigment can be chosen from a group of iron oxides including yellow, black, and red (Bchir, page 13, lines 14-16).
Regarding claim 4, Bchir and Salvemini together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Bchir teaches the pigment can be an aluminum oxide particle with an average size of less than or equal to 15 micrometers, preferably less than 0.5 micrometers (i.e., less than 500 nm; Bchir, page 11, lines 3-5), overlapping the claimed range of 100-1000 nm. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 5, Bchir and Salvemini together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Bchir teaches the pigment can be an organic particle (Bchir, page 4, line 5).
Regarding claim 7, Bchir and Salvemini together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Bchir teaches decyl glucoside (i.e., an alkylpolyglycoside of formula APG-1 wherein Z is glucose, x is 1, and n is 9; Bchir, page 23, line 10).
Regarding claim 8, Bchir and Salvemini together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Bchir teaches decyl glucoside (i.e., an alkylpolyglycoside of formula APG-2 wherein x is 1, and n is 9; Bchir, page 23, line 10).
Regarding claim 9, Bchir and Salvemini together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Bchir teaches decyl glucoside (i.e., an alkylpolyglycoside of formula APG-2 wherein x is 1 which is about 1.1 as claimed, and n is 9; Bchir, page 23, line 10).
Regarding claim 10, Bchir and Salvemini together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. As above, Bchir does not specify an organic alkoxysilane of formula (S-I), but does teach a tri(C1-C4)alkoxy(C1-C12)alkylsilane (Bchir, claim 18). Salvemini teaches at least one silane which can be a methyltriethoxysilane (i.e., a tri(C1-C4)alkoxy(C1-C12)alkylsilane) or an aminopropyltriethoxysilane (Salvemini, column 37, lines 16-21), specifically 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane (i.e., a particularly well-suited organic compound of formula S-I according to the instant specification, page 21, paragraph 0092; Salvemini, column 40, line 62). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composition of Bchir to substitute an aminopropyltriethoxysilane in place of the alkylsilane, because Salvemini teaches the two types of silanes as alternative embodiments (Salvemini, column 37, lines 16-21), while Bchir teaches it is routine for those skilled in the art to adjust the nature of the additives present in the composition (Bchir, page 26, lines 36-39).
Regarding claim 11, Bchir and Salvemini together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. As above, Bchir does not specify an organic alkoxysilane of formula (S-II), but does teach a tri(C1-C4)alkoxy(C1-C12)alkylsilane (Bchir, claim 18). Salvemini teaches at least one silane which can be a methyltriethoxysilane (i.e., a tri(C1-C4)alkoxy(C1-C12)alkylsilane), aminopropyltriethoxysilane, or derivatives thereof (Salvemini, column 37, lines 16-21). Salvemini teaches the alkoxysilane can be a compound of the following formula: (R21O)x(R22)Si-(A)p-[NR23-(A’)p’]q-[NR’23-(A’’)p’’]q’-Si-(R’22)y’(OR’21)x’ wherein R21, R22, R’21, and R’22 can each be a linear, saturated hydrocarbon chain, which would include the C1-C6 alkyl group of the corresponding groups R5, R6, R5’, and R6’ as claimed; wherein R23 and R’23 can be a hydrogen, which matches the corresponding groups R7 and R8 as claimed; wherein x and x’ are each an integer from 1-3, matching the corresponding c and c’ as claimed; wherein y and y’ are each equal to 3-x or 3-x’, matching the corresponding d and d’ as claimed; wherein A, A’, and A’’ may each be a linear or branched C1-C20 alkylene divalent radical, matching A, A’, and A’’ as claimed; wherein p, q, and q’ can each be 0 or 1, matching the corresponding e, f, and g as claimed; wherein p’ and p’’ can each be 1, fully matching the structure as claimed when h equal to 0 (Salvemini, column 39, lines 5-35). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composition of Bchir to substitute the silane of Salvemini in place of the alkylsilane, because Salvemini teaches the silanes as alternative embodiments (Salvemini, column 37, lines 16-21) and specifically teaches a silane of formula S-II includes solubilizing groups (Salvemini, column 39, line 2), while Bchir teaches it is routine for those skilled in the art to adjust the nature of the additives present in the composition (Bchir, page 26, lines 36-39).
Regarding claim 12, Bchir and Salvemini together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Bchir teaches the use of mixtures of hydrophobic surface treatment agents from the group comprising triethoxycaprylylsilane (i.e., a preferred C1-C6 alkoxysilane of formula (S-IV) according to the instant specification, page 35, paragraph 0126).
Regarding claim 14, Bchir and Salvemini together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Bchir teaches the pigment is an aluminum oxide particle with an average size of less than or equal to 15 micrometers, preferably less than 0.5 micrometers (i.e., less than 500 nm; Bchir, page 11, lines 3-5), overlapping the claimed range of about 150-700 nm. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 15, Bchir and Salvemini together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 7. Bchir teaches decyl glucoside (i.e., an alkylpolyglycoside of formula APG-1 wherein x is 1; Bchir, page 23, line 10).
Regarding claim 17, Bchir and Salvemini together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 7. Bchir teaches decyl glucoside (i.e., an alkylpolyglycoside of formula APG-1 wherein n is 9; Bchir, page 23, line 10).
Regarding claim 18, Bchir and Salvemini together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 7. Bchir teaches decyl glucoside (i.e., an alkylpolyglycoside of formula APG-1 wherein n is 9; Bchir, page 23, line 10).
Claims 1-2, 4-11, 14-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chodorowski-Kimmes (WO 2018185335 A1), further in view of Salvemini (US 9474700 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Chodorowski-Kimmes teaches an aqueous dispersion (i.e., suspension) comprising a surfactant in water (page 44, examples 1-11), wherein the surfactant can be an alkyl(poly)glycoside (Chodorowski-Kimmes; page 31, line 29) and the composition further comprises at least one pigment (Chodorowski-Kimmes, page 35, line 35) and an alkoxysilane (Chodorowski-Kimmes, page 39, line 20). Salvemini teaches compositions for altering hair color (Salvemini, abstract), wherein the composition comprises pigments (Salvemini, column 10, line 6), and at least one silane which can be an aminopropyltriethoxysilane (Salvemini, column 37, lines 16-21), specifically 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane (i.e., a particularly well-suited organic compound of formula S-I according to the instant specification, page 21, paragraph 0092; Salvemini, column 40, line 62).
Chodorowski-Kimmes and Salvemini are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because Chodorowski-Kimmes, Salvemini, and the current invention are in the same field of cosmetic compositions for dying keratinous materials. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composition of Chodorowski-Kimmes to utilize an aminopropyltriethoxysilane as the alkoxysilane, because Chodorowski-Kimmes teaches alkoxysilanes in general as surface treatment agents (Chodorowski-Kimmes, page 39, line 5), while Salvemini specifically teaches 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane as a useful alkoxysilane (Salvemini, column 40, lines 61-65).
Regarding claim 2, Chodorowski-Kimmes and Salvemini together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Chodorowski-Kimmes teaches the pigment can be a special-effect pigment which is coated with iron oxide (Chodorowski-Kimmes, page 37, line 16).
Regarding claim 4, Chodorowski-Kimmes and Salvemini together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Chodorowski-Kimmes teaches the size of the pigment is preferably between 30 nm to 50 micrometers (Chodorowski-Kimmes, page 38, lines 22-24), which encompasses the claimed range of 100-1000 nm. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 5, Chodorowski-Kimmes and Salvemini together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Chodorowski-Kimmes teaches the pigment can be an organic pigment (Chodorowski-Kimmes, page 36, line 1).
Regarding claim 6, Chodorowski-Kimmes and Salvemini together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Chodorowski-Kimmes teaches the pigment can be an organic pigment such as carmine (Chodorowski-Kimmes, page 36, line 16).
Regarding claim 7, Chodorowski-Kimmes and Salvemini together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Chodorowski-Kimmes teaches the alkyl polyglycoside surfactant is preferably a decyl glucoside (i.e., formula APG-1 wherein Z is glucose, x is 1, and n is 9; Chodorowski-Kimmes, page 32, line 8).
Regarding claim 8, Chodorowski-Kimmes and Salvemini together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Chodorowski-Kimmes teaches the alkyl polyglycoside surfactant is preferably a decyl glucoside (i.e., formula APG-2 wherein x is 1, and n is 9; Chodorowski-Kimmes, page 32, line 8).
Regarding claim 9, Chodorowski-Kimmes and Salvemini together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Chodorowski-Kimmes teaches the alkyl polyglycoside surfactant is preferably a decyl glucoside (i.e., formula APG-2 wherein n is 9; Chodorowski-Kimmes, page 32, line 8). Chodorowski-Kimmes further teaches the degree of polymerization (i.e., x) is preferably between 1-2 (Chodorowski-Kimmes, page 32, lines 2-4), which closely matches the claimed range of about 1.1 to about 1.8. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 10, Chodorowski-Kimmes and Salvemini together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. As above, Chodorowski-Kimmes does not specify an organic alkoxysilane of formula (S-I), but does teach an alkoxysilane (Chodorowski-Kimmes, page 39, line 20). Salvemini teaches at least one silane which can be an aminopropyltriethoxysilane (Salvemini, column 37, lines 16-21), specifically 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane (i.e., a particularly well-suited organic compound of formula S-I according to the instant specification, page 21, paragraph 0092; Salvemini, column 40, line 62). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composition of Chodorowski-Kimmes to utilize an aminopropyltriethoxysilane as the alkoxysilane, because Chodorowski-Kimmes teaches alkoxysilanes in general as surface treatment agents (Chodorowski-Kimmes, page 39, line 5), while Salvemini specifically teaches 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane as a useful alkoxysilane (Salvemini, column 40, lines 61-65).
Regarding claim 11, Chodorowski-Kimmes and Salvemini together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. As above, Chodorowski-Kimmes does not specify an organic alkoxysilane of formula (S-I), but does teach an alkoxysilane (Chodorowski-Kimmes, page 39, line 20). Salvemini teaches at least one silane which can be an aminopropyltriethoxysilane or derivatives thereof (Salvemini, column 37, lines 16-21). Salvemini teaches the alkoxysilane can be a compound of the following formula: (R21O)x(R22)Si-(A)p-[NR23-(A’)p’]q-[NR’23-(A’’)p’’]q’-Si-(R’22)y’(OR’21)x’ wherein R21, R22, R’21, and R’22 can each be a linear, saturated hydrocarbon chain, which would include the C1-C6 alkyl group of the corresponding groups R5, R6, R5’, and R6’ as claimed; wherein R23 and R’23 can be a hydrogen, which matches the corresponding groups R7 and R8 as claimed; wherein x and x’ are each an integer from 1-3, matching the corresponding c and c’ as claimed; wherein y and y’ are each equal to 3-x or 3-x’, matching the corresponding d and d’ as claimed; wherein A, A’, and A’’ may each be a linear or branched C1-C20 alkylene divalent radical, matching A, A’, and A’’ as claimed; wherein p, q, and q’ can each be 0 or 1, matching the corresponding e, f, and g as claimed; wherein p’ and p’’ can each be 1, fully matching the structure as claimed when h equal to 0 (Salvemini, column 39, lines 5-35). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composition of Chodorowski-Kimmes to utilize an aminopropyltriethoxysilane as the alkoxysilane, because Chodorowski-Kimmes teaches alkoxysilanes in general as surface treatment agents (Chodorowski-Kimmes, page 39, line 5), while Salvemini specifically teaches a silane of formula S-II includes solubilizing groups (Salvemini, column 39, line 2).
Regarding claim 14, Chodorowski-Kimmes and Salvemini together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Chodorowski-Kimmes teaches the size of the pigment is preferably between 30 nm to 50 micrometers (Chodorowski-Kimmes, page 38, lines 22-24), which encompasses the claimed range of 150-700 nm. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 15, Chodorowski-Kimmes and Salvemini together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 7. Chodorowski-Kimmes teaches the alkyl polyglycoside surfactant is preferably a decyl glucoside (i.e., formula APG-1 wherein n is 9; Chodorowski-Kimmes, page 32, line 8). Chodorowski-Kimmes further teaches the degree of polymerization (i.e., x) is preferably between 1-2 (Chodorowski-Kimmes, page 32, lines 2-4), which lies within the claimed range of 1-5.
Regarding claim 17, Chodorowski-Kimmes and Salvemini together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 7. Chodorowski-Kimmes teaches the alkyl polyglycoside surfactant is preferably a decyl glucoside (i.e., formula APG-1 wherein n is 9; Chodorowski-Kimmes, page 32, line 8).
Regarding claim 18, Chodorowski-Kimmes and Salvemini together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 7. Chodorowski-Kimmes teaches the alkyl polyglycoside surfactant is preferably a decyl glucoside (i.e., formula APG-1 wherein n is 9; Chodorowski-Kimmes, page 32, line 8).
Claims 13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadir (US 20210154120 A1), further in view of Salvemini (US 9474700 B2).
Regarding claim 13, Kadir teaches a hair care kit comprising at least two containers (Kadir, claim 21) wherein the various components of the composition can be separately packaged in the two or more containers or mixed (Kadir, page 4, paragraph 0044). Kadir teaches the components include an emulsifier which can be decyl glucoside (i.e., a preferred organic C1-C6 according to the instant specification, page 35, paragraph 0126; Kadir, page 20, paragraph 0205), pigments (Kadir, page 23, paragraph 0228) which are particulates that can be in suspension (Kadir, page 23, paragraph 0227), a solvent which can be water (Kadir, page 6, paragraph 0073), and silanes (Kadir, page 14, paragraph 0147). Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to package any of the above mentioned components together or separately as taught by Kadir, thereby arriving at the claimed first and second containers. Kadir does not specify the silicone is a C1-C6-alkoxysilane.
Salvemini teaches compositions for altering hair color (Salvemini, abstract), wherein the composition comprises pigments (Salvemini, column 10, line 6), and at least one silane which can be an aminopropyltriethoxysilane (Salvemini, column 37, lines 16-21), specifically 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane (i.e., a particularly well-suited organic compound of formula S-I according to the instant specification, page 21, paragraph 0092; Salvemini, column 40, line 62).
Kadir and Salvemini are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because Kadir, Salvemini, and the current invention are in the same field of cosmetic compositions for treating keratinous materials. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the kit taught by Kadir to include the silane taught by Salvemini, because Kadir teaches silanes in general as conditioning agents (Kadir, page 14, paragraph 0147), while Salvemini specifically teaches 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane as a useful alkoxysilane (Salvemini, column 40, lines 61-65).
Regarding claim 19, Kadir and Salvemini together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 13. Kadir does not specify the silane is an alkoxysilane of the claimed formula S-IV. Salvemini, however, teaches at least one silane which can be a methyltriethoxysilane (i.e., a particularly suitable organic compound of formula S-IV according to the instant specification, page 32, paragraph 0126) or an aminopropyltriethoxysilane (Salvemini, column 37, lines 16-21), suggesting both can be used simultaneously (i.e., the composition further comprises the compound of formula S-IV). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the kit taught by Kadir to include the silane taught by Salvemini, because Kadir teaches silanes in general as conditioning agents (Kadir, page 14, paragraph 0147), while Salvemini teaches specific alkoxysilane (Salvemini, column 37, lines 16-21).
Regarding claim 20, Kadir and Salvemini together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 13. Kadir teaches the pigment can be carmine (i.e., an organic pigment as defined by the instant specification, page 6, paragraph 0036; Kadir, page 23, paragraph 0229).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadir (US 20210154120 A1) and Salvemini (US 9474700 B2) as applied to claims 13 and 19-20, further in view of Bchir (WO 2017063821 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Kadir and Salvemini together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 13. Kadir teaches the pigment can be aluminum oxide (Kadir, page 23, paragraph 0228), but does not specify a particle size. Bchir, however, teaches the pigment is an aluminum oxide particle with an average size of less than or equal to 15 micrometers, preferably less than 0.5 micrometers (i.e., less than 500 nm; Bchir, page 11, lines 3-5), overlapping the claimed range of about 150-700 nm. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Kadir, Salvemini, and Bchir are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because Kadir, Salvemini, Bchir and the current invention are in the same field of cosmetic compositions for treating keratinous materials. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the kit taught by Kadir and Salvemini to utilize the specific size of aluminum oxide pigment taught by Bchir to be preferable for use in pigments (Bchir, page 11, line 5).
Conclusion
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 CHASITY P JANOSKO whose telephone number is (703)756-5307. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-3:30 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, Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached at (571)272-0581. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.P.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1613
/JENNIFER A BERRIOS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613