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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-3, 5-8, and 12-22, bisabolol as species A, and emulsifiers as species B in the reply filed on 6/30/2025 is acknowledged.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-2, 13-22, and 25-26 are pending. Claims 1-2 and 13-22 are under current examination. Claims 25-26 are withdrawn. Claims 3-12, 23-24, and 27 are cancelled.
Withdrawn Claim Objections Rejections
All objections and rejections pertaining to claims 3, 5-7, and 12 are moot because the claims are cancelled in the amendments filed 12/23/2025.
All rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims filed 12/23/2025.
All objections and rejections on reiterated have been withdrawn.
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.
Claims 19 and 20 are 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 19 recites the limitation "the at least one linear alkanediol" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the amended claims.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the 2,3-heptanediol or the 2,3-heptanediol of the mixture comprising 1,2-heptanediol and 2,3-heptanediol”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the amended claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 12/23/2025 have necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 13, 15-19, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baptiste (WO2018/099570, publication date: 6/7/2018, cited in the IDS filed 1/14/2023, of record), as evidenced by The Good Scents Company (1,2-Heptanediol, available 10/02/2017, of record).
Determination of the scope and the content of the prior art
(MPEP §2141.01)
Regarding claim 1, Baptiste teaches a cosmetic blend that comprises at least one 1,2-alkandiol [0013] chosen from 1,2-heptandiol, 1,2 octandiol and their mixtures [0021]. The cosmetic blend may also include anti-aging actives such as tocopherols, vitamin A palmitate, and retinoic acid [0081].
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Baptiste teaches a cosmetic blend that comprises at least one 1,2-alkandiol [0013] chosen from 1,2-heptandiol, 1,2 octandiol and their mixtures [0021]. The cosmetic blend may also include anti-aging actives such as tocopherols, vitamin A palmitate, and retinoic acid [0081] and bisabolol [0085].
Regarding claim 13, Baptiste teaches a cosmetic blend that comprises at least one 1,2-alkandiol [0013] chosen from 1,2-heptandiol, 1,2 octandiol and their mixtures [0021]. The Good Scents Company teaches that 1,2-heptanediol is insoluble in water, with a water solubility value of 8811mg/L (pg. 2, Physical Properties).
Regarding claim 15, Baptiste teaches that the cosmetic blend may also include anti-aging actives such as tocopherols, vitamin A palmitate, and retinoic acid [0081] and bisabolol [0085]. The Examiner directs attention to MPEP 2112.01(I) which states:
" Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Claims were directed to a titanium alloy containing 0.2-0.4% Mo and 0.6-0.9% Ni having corrosion resistance. A Russian article disclosed a titanium alloy containing 0.25% Mo and 0.75% Ni but was silent as to corrosion resistance. The Federal Circuit held that the claim was anticipated because the percentages of Mo and Ni were squarely within the claimed ranges. The court went on to say that it was immaterial what properties the alloys had or who discovered the properties because the composition is the same and thus must necessarily exhibit the properties.).”
In the instant case, since the lipophilic active component, bisabolol, of Baptiste is the same as the lipophilic active component of the instant claims, the logPo/w value of the lipophilic active component must be inherent in the disclosure of Baptiste.
Regarding claim 17, Baptiste teaches that the composition may include 1,2-pentandiol, 1,2-hexandiol [0021], isopropyl alcohol [00103], glycerol, propylene glycol, and butylene glycol [00103].
Regarding claim 18, Baptiste teaches that the composition may include agents against ageing of the skin, antioxidants, chelating agents, emulsifiers, surfactants, polymers, skin-cooling agents, oils, polyols [0030], anti-microbial agents [0099], and preservatives [00105].
Regarding claim 19, Baptiste teaches a cosmetic blend that comprises at least one 1,2-alkandiol [0013] chosen from 1,2-heptandiol, 1,2 octandiol and their mixtures [0021].
Regarding claim 21, Baptiste teaches that vitamin E and/or derivatives thereof and vitamin A or vitamin A derivatives may be present at 0.001 to 10% by weight [0082].
Regarding claim 22, Baptiste teaches that the composition may be in the form of a dispersion, creme, lotion, or milk [00112]. Suitable oil bodies for forming constituents of O/W emulsion include propylene glycol [0034], which is present in an exemplary cream at 2% by weight [00175].
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope of the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP §2141.02)
Regarding claims 1-2, 13, 15-18, and 21-22, Baptiste doesn’t teach a single embodiment or example meeting all limitation of the invention of claims 1-2, 13, 15-18, and 21-22.
Regarding claim 19, Baptiste does not teach a weight percentage of the mixture of the first and second linear alkanediols present in the composition.
Finding of a Prima Facie Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
Regarding claims 1-2, 13, 15-18, and 21-22, within the broader scope of Baptiste all of the limitations of the invention of claims 1-2, 13, 15-18, and 21-22 are met. It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to choose the limitations in the instant claims from those disclosed by Baptiste and arrive at this conclusion because such was contemplated by Baptiste.
Regarding claim 19, the weight percentage of first and second alkanediols present in the composition is clearly a result effective parameter that a person of ordinary skill in the art would routinely optimize. Optimization of parameters is a routine practice that would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ and would reasonably expect success. It would have been customary for an artisan of ordinary skill to determine the optimal weight percentage in order to best achieve the desired results as such would provide advantageous penetration enhancement effect. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to engage in routine experimentation to determine optimal or workable ranges that produce expected results. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, Baptiste teaches that 1,2-alkanediols cause a penetration enhancement effect [0014]. The Examiner considers it prima facie obvious to optimize the weight percentage of 1,2-alkanediols present in the composition, absent unexpectedly superior properties of the claimed invention. In the instant case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the weight percentage of 1,2-alkanediols would have a direct effect on the penetration enhancement of the active ingredients present in the composition and therefore be an optimizable variable.
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baptiste (WO2018/099570, publication date: 6/7/2018, cited in the IDS filed 1/14/2023, of record), as applied to claims 1-2, 13, 15-19, 21 and 22 above, and further in view of Faergemann (U.S. Application No. 2009/0221716, publication date: 9/3/2009, of record), as evidenced The Good Scents Company (1,2-Heptanediol, available 10/02/2017, of record).
Determination of the scope and the content of the prior art
(MPEP §2141.01)
Regarding claims 14 and 20, Baptiste discloses a moisturizing body care cream comprising 1,2-heptandiol, bisabolol, PEG-7 hydrogenated castor oil, and dipropylene glycol. 1,2-heptandiol is present at 0.2% by weight ([00188] Table 21).
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope of the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP §2141.02)
Regarding claim 14 and 20, Baptiste does not teach a weight ratio of two linear alkanediols or the inclusion of 2,3-heptanediol. However, this deficiency is cured by Faergemann.
Faergemann teaches that a pharmaceutical, cosmetic, antimicrobial or preservative composition comprising at least three different diols (Abstract). The diols may be different and selected from a group comprising heptane-1,2-diol and heptane-2,3-diol [0018]. If the composition is used as an antimicrobial composition, the number of the diols depends on which microbe is to be inactivated and may be present from about 0.35-50% v/v [0021].
Finding of a Prima Facia Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
Regarding claims 14 and 20, the ratio of linear alkanediols present in the composition is clearly a result effective parameter that a person of ordinary skill in the art would routinely optimize. Optimization of parameters is a routine practice that would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ and would reasonably expect success. It would have been customary for an artisan of ordinary skill to determine the optimal weight ratio of linear alkanediols in order to best achieve the desired results as such would provide advantageous antimicrobial effect. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to engage in routine experimentation to determine optimal or workable ranges that produce expected results. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, Faergemann teaches that the number of the diols present in an antimicrobial composition depends on which microbe is to be inactivated [0021] . The Examiner considers it prima facie obvious to optimize the weight ratio of linear alkanediols present in the composition, absent unexpectedly superior properties of the claimed invention. In the instant case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that amount of linear alkandiols present in the composition impacts the antimicrobial activity of the composition and therefore is an optimizable variable.
Regarding claim 20, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include 2,3-heptanediol in the composition disclosed by Baptiste. One would have understood in view of Faergemann that a combination of diols, including heptane-1,2-diol and heptane-2,3-diol, provide antimicrobial activity to a pharmaceutical, cosmetic, antimicrobial or preservative composition. It would have been obvious to include 2,3-heptanediol along with the 1,2-heptanediol present in the composition disclosed by Baptiste. One of ordinary skill in the art of filing would have been motivated to include the combination of the two alkanediols in order to lend an antimicrobial characteristic to the composition. The artisan of ordinary skill would have had reasonable expectation of success because Faergemann teaches that the mixture of alkanediols may be included in cream formulations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 12, Applicant argues that the composition according to the present invention surprisingly provides an increased solubility for specific lipophilic active substances which is superior to the effects of other 1,2-alkanediols. This is not found persuasive. Please refer to MPEP 716.02 (b) which details the burden on Applicant to establish that results in a side-by-side comparison to the closest prior art are unexpected and significant. Specifically, Applicant must establish that differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and are of both practical and statistical significance. Additionally, evidence of unexpected properties must be commensurate in scope with the claims.
Differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious: The unexpected results amount to an improved solubility of lipophilic ingredients in the presence of 1,2-heptanediol when compared to other 1,2-alkanediols. The results presented in examples 1.1-1.8 of the instant specification are unexpected and unobvious over the prior art.
Differences are of both practical and statistical significance: The evidence of unexpected results amounts to an increased solubility and decreased turbidity of specific lipophilic ingredients when in the presence of 1,2-heptanediol. The differences are of practical and statistical significance.
Evidence of unexpected properties must be in commensurate scope with the claims: The evidence of unexpected results amounts to an increased solubility of hydrocortisone, ethylhexylglycerin, o-Cymen-5-ol, propanediol caprylate, retinyl palmitate, glyceryl caprylate, and hydroxyacetophenone in the presence of 0.5% 1,2-heptanediol. The invention, as claimed in the instant claim 1, embraces 1,2-heptanediol at any concentration and embraces lipophilic ingredients beyond those illustrated in Examples. 1.1-1.8 of the instant specification. Thus, the full scope of the claims is an increased solubility of each and every claimed lipophilic active component at every concentration of 1,2-heptanediol. The evidence of unexpected results is therefore not in commensurate scope with the claims.
Additionally, no side-by-side comparison to the closest prior art is provided to establish unexpectedly superior performance. There is no nexus between the purportedly unexpected property and the differences between the instant invention, as claimed, and the closest prior art. Thus, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
On page 12, Applicant argues that Baptiste is silent on the solubility of lipophilic active components and therefore one of skill in the art would have to modify Baptiste so significantly, without any guidance, to arrive at the presently claimed invention that it is not possible for a prima facie case of obviousness to be established. This is not found persuasive. In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the solubility of lipophilic active components) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
On page 13, Applicant argues that one of skill in the art would need to make multiple modifications to Baptiste to arrive at the presently claimed invention that are neither taught nor suggested by Baptiste, and it follows that there would be no reasonable expectation of success to one of skill in the art in making such modifications. This is not found persuasive. As described above, the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the solubility of lipophilic active components) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). As written, Baptiste teaches each limitation as described by the instant claims. Therefore, modifications to the teachings of Baptiste are not necessary to arrive at the invention as claimed.
On page 13, Applicant argues that one of skill in the art seeking to develop compositions with improved solubility of certain lipophilic active substances would not turn to antimicrobial compositions as a starting point. This is not found persuasive. In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the solubility of lipophilic active components) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
On page 14, Applicant argues that the synergistic solubilizing effect of a combination of 1,2-heptanediol and 2,3-heptane diol and a combination of 1,2-octanediol and 2,3-octanediol constitutes superior and unexpected properties of the instant invention. This is not found persuasive. The Examiner notes that the data pertaining to the synergistic effect of 1,2-hexanediol and 2,3-hexanediol are not properly submitted on the record with an appropriate affidavit or declaration. MPEP 716.01(c) indicates that the arguments cannot take the place of evidence in the record. Examples of statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration include statements regarding unexpected results, commercial success, solution of a long-felt need, inoperability of the prior art, invention before the date of the reference, and allegations that the author(s) of the prior art derived the disclosed subject matter from the applicant. MPEP 2145 further states that “[a]n assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness” (citing in re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465,43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997). However, in the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner has considered the data in the specification as well as the data provided in the remarks.
Please refer to MPEP 716.02 (b) which details the burden on Applicant to establish that results in a side-by-side comparison to the closest prior art are unexpected and significant. Specifically, Applicant must establish that differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and are of both practical and statistical significance. Additionally, evidence of unexpected properties must be commensurate in scope with the claims.
Differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious: The unexpected results amount to a synergistic improved solubility of lipophilic ingredients in the presence of 1,2-heptanediol with 2,3-heptanediol, 1,2-octanediol with 2,3-octanediol, and 1,2-hexanediol with 2,3-hexane diol. The results presented in examples 1.9-1.14 of the instant specification and in the arguments filed 12/23/2025 are unexpected and unobvious over the prior art.
Differences are of both practical and statistical significance: The evidence of unexpected results amounts to an increased solubility and decreased turbidity of specific lipophilic ingredients when in the presence of 1,2-heptanediol with 2,3-heptanediol, 1,2-octanediol with 2,3-octanediol, and 1,2-hexanediol with 2,3-hexane diol. The differences are of practical and statistical significance.
Evidence of unexpected properties must be in commensurate scope with the claims: The evidence of unexpected results amounts to an increased solubility of bisabolol, ethylhexylglycerin, propanediol caprylate, and o-Cymen-5-ol in the presence of 1,2-heptanediol with 2,3-heptanediol, ethylhexylglycerin and propanediol caprylate in the presence of 1,2-octanediol with 2,3-octanediol, and bisabolol with 1,2-hexanediol with 2,3-hexanediol at a singular concentration of alkanediol for each example. The instant claims embraces 21 different combinations of linear alkanediols and a large list of lipophilic active ingredients. Thus, the full scope of the claims is an increased solubility of each and every claimed linear alkanediol combination at any ratio between 50:50 and 90:0.1 and at any amount between 0.001-15% by weight for every lipophilic active component listed in the instant claim 16. The evidence of unexpected results is therefore not in commensurate scope with the claims.
Additionally, no side-by-side comparison to the closest prior art is provided to establish unexpectedly superior performance. There is no nexus between the purportedly unexpected property and the differences between the instant invention, as claimed, and the closest prior art. Thus, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Double Patenting
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 12/23/2025 have necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
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 1-2 and 13-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,911,347.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims render obvious the instant claims.
Inter alia, the claims of the ‘347 patent embrace a cosmetic or pharmaceutical composition or homecare product comprising a mixture of at least one first linear alkanediol having a carbon chain of 5 to 14 carbon atoms and one or more second linear alkanediols having a carbon chain of 5 to 14 carbon atoms which is different from the at least one first alkane diol and at least one cosmetically or pharmaceutically active substance and or additive. The first and second linear alkanediols may be a mixture comprising 1,2-heptanediol and 2,3-heptanediol. The cosmetically or pharmaceutically active substance and/or additive may be selected from a group comprising an emulsifier, an anti-microbial agent, Vitamin A and its derivatives, Zingiber Officinalis extract, or mixtures of two or more substances. The at least one linear alkanediol, the first linear alkanediol or the second alkanediol is an alkanediol having a maximum water solubility of less than or equal to 10 % by weight. The at least one antioxidant may be present in an amount of 0.0001 to 10.0% by weight. The mixture comprising at least one first linear alkanediol and one or more second linear alkanediols comprises the first linear alkanediol and the second alkanediol in a ratio in a range of 50 : 50 to 99.9 : 0.1. The mixture of the first and second linear alkanediols is present in an amount of 0.001 to 15% by weight based on the total weight of the composition. The cosmetic or pharmaceutical composition or homecare product is a dispersion comprising an oil component in an amount of >1% by weight, and wherein the composition or homecare product is in the form of an emulsion, a liquid, a lotion, a suspension, a milk, an ointment, a paste, a gel, a cream-based formulation, an oil-based formulation or a liposome-based formulation.
With regards to the “log Po/w value” limitations of instant claim 15, the prior art teaches the same lipophilic active ingredients, as claimed and therefore, the log Po/w properties are necessarily present; the Examiner directs attention to MPEP 2112.01 (I) which states: “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.”
Claims 1-2 and 13-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 13-14, 16-19, 21, 23, and 32-40 of copending Application No. 18/009,288.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending claims render obvious the instant claims.
Inter alia, the claims of the ‘288 application embrace a cosmetic or pharmaceutical composition or homecare product comprising a mixture comprising 1,2-heptanediol and 2,3-heptanediol. A cosmetic or pharmaceutical composition or homecare product may also comprise at least one linear alkanediol having a carbon chain of 5 to 14 carbon atoms or a mixture comprising at least one first linear alkanediol having a carbon chain of 5 to 14 carbon atoms and one or more second linear alkanediol having a carbon chain of 5 to 14 carbon atoms which is different from the first linear alkanediol. The compositions may also contain an emulsifier, bisabolol, o-cymen-5-ol, and ethylhexylglycerin. With regards to the “hydrophilic solvents” limitations of instant claim 17, the prior art teaches the same mixture of 1,2-heptanediol and 2,3-heptanediol as claimed and therefore, the hydrophilic solvent properties are necessarily present; the Examiner directs attention to MPEP 2112.01 (II) which states: “A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.”
The claims of the ‘288 application also teach that the at least one linear alkanediol, the first linear alkanediol or the second alkanediol is an alkanediol having a maximum water solubility of less than or equal to 10 % by weight. The mixture comprising at least one first linear alkanediol and one or more second linear alkanediols comprises the first linear alkanediol and the second alkanediol in a ratio in a range of 50 : 50 to 99.9 : 0.1. The at least one linear alkanediol or the mixture comprising at least one first linear alkanediol and one or more second linear alkanediol is present in an amount of 0.3 to 3.0% by weight, based on the total weight of the composition or homecare product. The 2,3-heptanediol or the 2,3-heptanediol of the mixture comprising 1,2-heptanediol and 2,3-heptanediol is present in an amount of 0.5 to 10.0 % by weight. The cosmetic or pharmaceutical composition or homecare product is a dispersion comprising an oil component in an amount of >1% by weight, and wherein the composition or homecare product is in the form of an emulsion, a liquid, a lotion, a suspension, a milk, an ointment, a paste, a gel, a cream-based formulation, an oil-based formulation or a liposome-based formulation.
The amount of active ingredient present in the composition embraced by the claims of the ‘288 application is clearly a result effective parameter that a person of ordinary skill in the art would routinely optimize. Optimization of parameters is a routine practice that would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ and would reasonably expect success. It would have been customary for an artisan of ordinary skill to determine the optimal weight percentage of active ingredient in order to best achieve the desired results as such would provide advantageous antimicrobial effect. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to engage in routine experimentation to determine optimal or workable ranges that produce expected results. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, the claims of the ‘288 application teaches that bisabolol and ethylhexylglycerin act as an antimicrobial agent. The Examiner considers it prima facie obvious to optimize the weight percentage of bisabolol or ethylhexylglycerin present in the composition , absent unexpectedly superior properties of the claimed invention. In the instant case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the amount of bisabolol or ethylhexylglycerin present would affect the antimicrobial activity of the composition and therefore be an optimizable variable.
The Examiner directs attention to MPEP 2112.01(I) which states:
" Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Claims were directed to a titanium alloy containing 0.2-0.4% Mo and 0.6-0.9% Ni having corrosion resistance. A Russian article disclosed a titanium alloy containing 0.25% Mo and 0.75% Ni but was silent as to corrosion resistance. The Federal Circuit held that the claim was anticipated because the percentages of Mo and Ni were squarely within the claimed ranges. The court went on to say that it was immaterial what properties the alloys had or who discovered the properties because the composition is the same and thus must necessarily exhibit the properties.).”
In the instant case, since the lipophilic active components of the claims of the ‘288 application is the same as the lipophilic active components of the instant claims, the logPo/w value of the lipophilic active component must be inherent in the disclosure of the claims of the ‘288 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-2 and 13-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 13-19, 21-22, 24, and 31-38 of copending Application No. 18/009,289, in view of Kamatou et. al. (Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society, pg.1-7, publication year: 2010, of record) and Anderson (Dermatitis, pg. 291, publication year: 2012).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending claims render obvious the instant claims.
Inter alia, the claims of the ‘289 application embrace a cosmetic or pharmaceutical composition or homecare product comprising 1,2-heptanediol, 2,3-heptanediol, or a mixture comprising 1,2-heptanediol and 2,3-heptanediol. The compositions may also contain an emulsifier, antimicrobial agents, and antioxidants. With regards to the “hydrophilic solvents” limitations of instant claim 17, the prior art teaches the same mixture of 1,2-heptanediol and 2,3-heptanediol as claimed and therefore, the hydrophilic solvent properties are necessarily present; the Examiner directs attention to MPEP 2112.01 (II) which states: “A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.”
The claims of the ‘288 application also teach that the at least one linear alkanediol, the first linear alkanediol or the second alkanediol is an alkanediol having a maximum water solubility of less than or equal to 10 % by weight. The mixture comprising at least one first linear alkanediol and one or more second linear alkanediols comprises the first linear alkanediol and the second alkanediol in a ratio in a range of 50 : 50 to 99.9 : 0.1. The at least one linear alkanediol or the mixture comprising at least one first linear alkanediol and one or more second linear alkanediol is present in an amount of 0.001 to 15.0 % by weight, based on the total weight of the composition or homecare product. The cosmetic or pharmaceutical composition or homecare product is a dispersion comprising an oil component in an amount of >1% by weight, and wherein the composition or homecare product is in the form of an emulsion, a liquid, a lotion, a suspension, a milk, an ointment, a paste, a gel, a cream-based formulation, an oil-based formulation or a liposome-based formulation.
The claims of the ‘289 application do not embrace bisabolol or ethylhexylglycerin or a weight percentage of antimicrobial agent present in the composition. However, this deficiency is cured by Kamatou and Anderson. Kamatou teaches that bisabolol is widely used as an ingredient in dermatological and cosmetic formulations and that the most important biological activities of bisabolol are the anti-inflammatory, anti-irritant, antibacterial and non-allergenic properties (pg. 1, Introduction). Anderson teaches that ethylhexylglycerin is used in cosmetics and has antimicrobial properties (pg. 291 Discussion).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of filing to include bisabolol or ethylhexylglycerin in the composition embraced by the claims of the ‘289 application. The idea for combining compounds each of which is known to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a composition which is to be used for the same purpose, flows logically from their having been used individually in the prior art. See In re Kerkhoven 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). As shown by the recited teachings, the instant claims define nothing more than the concomitant use of a conventional antibacterial used in dermatological and cosmetic formulations. It would follow that the recited claims define prima facie obvious subject matter. See MPEP 2144.06.
The amount of bisabolol or ethylhexylglycerin present in the composition embraced by the claims of the ‘289 application is clearly a result effective parameter that a person of ordinary skill in the art would routinely optimize. Optimization of parameters is a routine practice that would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ and would reasonably expect success. It would have been customary for an artisan of ordinary skill to determine the optimal weight percentage of bisabolol or ethylhexylglycerin in order to best achieve the desired results as such would provide advantageous antimicrobial effect. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to engage in routine experimentation to determine optimal or workable ranges that produce expected results. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, the claims of the ‘289 application embrace the inclusion of an anti-microbial agent and Kamatou teaches that bisabolol is a conventional anti-bacterial agent in dermatological and cosmetic formulations (pg. 1 Introduction) and Anderson teaches that ethylhexylglycerin is used in cosmetics and has antimicrobial properties (pg. 291 Discussion). The Examiner considers it prima facie obvious to optimize the weight percentage of bisabolol or ethylhexylglycerin present in the composition , absent unexpectedly superior properties of the claimed invention. In the instant case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the amount of bisabolol or ethylhexylglycerin present would affect the antimicrobial activity of the composition and therefore be an optimizable variable.
With regards to the “log Po/w value” limitations of instant claim 15, the prior art teaches the same antimicrobial agents as claimed and therefore, the log Po/w properties are necessarily present; the Examiner directs attention to MPEP 2112.01 (I) which states: “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.”
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-2 and 13-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 12-21, 24-25, and 29-30 of copending Application No. 18/009,312.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending claims render obvious the instant claims.
Inter alia, the claims of the ‘312 application embrace a cosmetic or pharmaceutical composition comprising at least one linear alkanediol having a carbon chain of 5 to 14 carbon atoms or a mixture comprising at least one first linear alkanediol having a carbon chain of 5 to 14 carbon atoms and at least one second linear alkanediol having a carbon chain of 5 to 14 carbon atoms which is different from the first alkanediol, at least one antimicrobial component, and at least one cosmetically or pharmaceutically active substance and/or additive. The first and second linear alkane diols may be a mixture comprising 1,2-heptanediol and 2,3-heptanediol. The antimicrobial component may be bisabolol or ethylhexylglycerin and the cosmetically or pharmaceutically active substance may be an emulsifier. The first linear alkanediol and second linear alkanediol are present in a ratio in a range of 50:50 to 99.9:0.1 and in an amount of 0.001 to 15% by weight. The oil component of the composition is present in an amount >1% by weight and the composition is in the form of an emulsion, liquid, lotion, suspension, milk, ointment, paste, gel, cream, oil, or liposome-based formulation.
The amount of bisabolol or ethylhexylglycerin present in the composition embraced by the claims of the ‘312 application is clearly a result effective parameter that a person of ordinary skill in the art would routinely optimize. Optimization of parameters is a routine practice that would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ and would reasonably expect success. It would have been customary for an artisan of ordinary skill to determine the optimal weight percentage of bisabolol or ethylhexylglycerin in order to best achieve the desired results as such would provide advantageous antimicrobial effect. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to engage in routine experimentation to determine optimal or workable ranges that produce expected results. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, the claims of the ‘312 application embrace the inclusion of an anti-microbial agent comprising bisabolol or ethylhexylglycerin. The Examiner considers it prima facie obvious to optimize the weight percentage of bisabolol or ethylhexylglycerin present in the composition , absent unexpectedly superior properties of the claimed invention. In the instant case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the amount of bisabolol or ethylhexylglycerin present would affect the antimicrobial activity of the composition and therefore be an optimizable variable.
With regards to the “log Po/w value” and “maximum water solubility” limitations of instant claims 13 and 15, the prior art teaches the same linear alkanediols and antimicrobial agent, bisabolol, as claimed and therefore, the log Po/w and water solubility properties are necessarily present; the Examiner directs attention to MPEP 2112.01 (I) which states: “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.”
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-2 and 13-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 27-29, 31-32, 36, 39 and 40 of copending Application No. 18/301,004, in view of Kamatou et. al. (Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society, pg.1-7, publication year: 2010, of record).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending claims render obvious the instant claims.
Inter alia, the claims of the ‘004 application embrace a cosmetic or pharmaceutical composition comprising a mixture of at least one first linear alkanediol having a carbon chain of 5 to 14 carbon atoms and one or more second linear alkanediols having a carbon chain of 5 to 14 carbon atoms which is different from the at least one first alkane diol and at least one cosmetically or pharmaceutically active substance and or additive. The first and second linear alkanediols may be a mixture comprising 1,2-heptanediol and 2,3-heptanediol. The cosmetically or pharmaceutically active substance and/or additive may be selected from a group comprising an emulsifier, and anti-microbial agent, or mixtures of two or more substances. The at least one linear alkanediol, the first linear alkanediol or the second alkanediol is an alkanediol having a maximum water solubility of less than or equal to 10 % by weight. The mixture comprising at least one first linear alkanediol and one or more second linear alkanediols comprises the first linear alkanediol and the second alkanediol in a ratio in a range of 50 : 50 to 99.9 : 0.1. The mixture of the first and second linear alkanediols is present in an amount of 0.1 to 5% by weight based on the total weight of the composition. The cosmetic or pharmaceutical composition or homecare product is a dispersion comprising at least one liquid lipophilic component in an amount of >1% by weight, and wherein the composition or homecare product is in the form of an emulsion, a liquid, a lotion, a suspension, a milk, an ointment, a paste, a gel, a cream-based formulation, an oil-based formulation or a liposome-based formulation.
The claims of the ‘004 application do not embrace bisabolol or ethylhexylglycerin or a weight percentage of antimicrobial agent present in the composition. However, this deficiency is cured by Kamatou. Kamatou teaches that bisabolol is widely used as an ingredient in dermatological and cosmetic formulations and that the most important biological activities of bisabolol are the anti-inflammatory, anti-irritant, antibacterial and non-allergenic properties (pg. 1, Introduction).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of filing to include bisabolol in the composition embraced by the claims of the ‘004 application. The idea for combining compounds each of which is known to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a composition which is to be used for the same purpose, flows logically from their having been used individually in the prior art. See In re Kerkhoven 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). As shown by the recited teachings, the instant claims define nothing more than the concomitant use of a conventional antibacterial used in dermatological and cosmetic formulations. It would follow that the recited claims define prima facie obvious subject matter. See MPEP 2144.06.
The amount of bisabolol present in the composition embraced by the claims of the ‘004 application is clearly a result effective parameter that a person of ordinary skill in the art would routinely optimize. Optimization of parameters is a routine practice that would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ and would reasonably expect success. It would have been customary for an artisan of ordinary skill to determine the optimal weight percentage of bisabolol in order to best achieve the desired results as such would provide advantageous antimicrobial effect. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to engage in routine experimentation to determine optimal or workable ranges that produce expected results. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, the claims of the ‘004 application embrace the inclusion of an anti-microbial agent and Kamatou teaches that bisabolol is a conventional anti-bacterial agent in dermatological and cosmetic formulations (pg. 1 Introduction). The Examiner considers it prima facie obvious to optimize the weight percentage of bisabolol present in the composition , absent unexpectedly superior properties of the claimed invention. In the instant case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the amount of bisabolol present would affect the antimicrobial activity of the composition and therefore be an optimizable variable.
With regards to the “log Po/w value” limitations of instant claim 15, the prior art teaches the same antimicrobial agent, bisabolol, as claimed and therefore, the log Po/w properties are necessarily present; the Examiner directs attention to MPEP 2112.01 (I) which states: “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.”
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-2 and 13-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 27-29, 32, 36, and 40 of copending Application No. 18/301,090, in view of Kamatou et. al. (Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society, pg.1-7, publication year: 2010, of record) and Anderson (Dermatitis, pg. 291, publication year: 2012).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending claims render obvious the instant claims.
Inter alia, the claims of the ‘090 application embrace a composition comprising 1,2-heptanediol and 2,3-heptanediol wherein the ratio of 1,2-heptanediol and 2,3-heptanediol are in a range of 50:50 to 99.9:0.1. The 1,2-heptanediol and 2,3-heptanediol are present in an amount of 0.001 to 15.0% by weight, based on the total weight of the composition. The composition may also contain antimicrobial compounds and emulsifiers and be in the form of an intimate cream.
The claims of the ’090 application do not embrace bisabolol, a weight percentage of bisabolol present in the composition, or an oil component in an amount of >1% by weight. However, this deficiency is cured by Kamatou. Kamatou teaches that bisabolol is widely used as an ingredient in dermatological and cosmetic formulations and that the most important biological activities of bisabolol are the anti-inflammatory, anti-irritant, antibacterial and non-allergenic properties (pg. 1, Introduction). Anderson teaches that ethylhexylglycerin is used in cosmetics and has antimicrobial properties (pg. 291 Discussion).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of filing to include bisabolol in the composition embraced by the claims of the ‘090 application. The idea for combining compounds each of which is known to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a composition which is to be used for the same purpose, flows logically from their having been used individually in the prior art. See In re Kerkhoven 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). As shown by the recited teachings, the instant claims define nothing more than the concomitant use of a conventional antibacterial used in dermatological and cosmetic formulations. It would follow that the recited claims define prima facie obvious subject matter. See MPEP 2144.06.
The amount of bisabolol or ethylhexylglycerin present in the composition embraced by the claims of the ‘090 application is clearly a result effective parameter that a person of ordinary skill in the art would routinely optimize. Optimization of parameters is a routine practice that would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ and would reasonably expect success. It would have been customary for an artisan of ordinary skill to determine the optimal weight percentage of bisabolol in order to best achieve the desired results as such would provide advantageous antimicrobial effect. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to engage in routine experimentation to determine optimal or workable ranges that produce expected results. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, Kamatou teaches that bisabolol is a conventional anti-bacterial agent in dermatological and cosmetic formulations (pg. 1 Introduction) and Anderson teaches that ethylhexylglycerin is used in cosmetics and has antimicrobial properties (pg. 291 Discussion). The Examiner considers it prima facie obvious to optimize the weight percentage of bisabolol or ethylhexylglycerin present in the composition , absent unexpectedly superior properties of the claimed invention. In the instant case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the amount of bisabolol or ethylhexylglycerin present would affect the antimicrobial activity of the composition and therefore be an optimizable variable.
With regards to the “log Po/w value” and “maximum water solubility” limitations of instant claims 13 and 15, the prior art teaches the same linear alkanediols and antimicrobial agent, bisabolol, as claimed and therefore, the log Po/w and water solubility properties are necessarily present; the Examiner directs attention to MPEP 2112.01 (I) which states: “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.”
The amount of oil component present in the composition embraced by the claims of the ‘090 application is clearly a result effective parameter that a person of ordinary skill in the art would routinely optimize. Optimization of parameters is a routine practice that would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ and would reasonably expect success. It would have been customary for an artisan of ordinary skill to determine the optimal weight percentage of oil in order to best achieve the desired results as such would provide advantageous formulation effect. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to engage in routine experimentation to determine optimal or workable ranges that produce expected results. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, the claims of the ‘090 application embrace the inclusion of oil and formulation of the composition as an intimate cream. The Examiner considers it prima facie obvious to optimize the weight percentage of oil present in the composition , absent unexpectedly superior properties of the claimed invention. In the instant case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the amount of oil present would affect the cream formulation of the composition and therefore be an optimizable variable.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments with regard to double patenting rejections fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 ELIZABETH ANNE MEYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-2271. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm 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, Ali Soroush can be reached at 571-272-9925. 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.
ELIZABETH ANNE MEYERSExaminer, Art Unit 1617
/ALI SOROUSH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1614