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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 01/20/2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments are in response to in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/20/2025. Applicant’s claims have been amended in the following manner: independent claim 1 and 5 have been modified by inclusion of limitations (i.e., including the specific compound species and 0.2-1.0 wt% antioxidant amount) from claims 9 and 11 (which are now cancelled). This requires a rearrangement and addressing the narrower limitation of 0.2-1.0 wt% in claim 1 of the previous 103 rejection, which still relies on the same ground of rejection found in the prior Office Action. No new claims are added (only claims 9 and 11 were cancelled compared to the previous claim set). Note evidentiary references are provided in the ‘response to arguments’ against claims of results and synergy. The following objections/rejections are withdrawn: 112a, 112b rejections.
The Examiner further acknowledges the following:
Claims 1, 5-8, 12, 15-17, 20-22, 31, 33-34, 37, and 40-41 are pending.
Claims 33-34, 37, and 40-41 are withdrawn from consideration as directed to non-elected inventions.
Claims 1, 5-8, 12, 15-17, 20-22, and 31 are presented for examination and rejected as set forth below.
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, 5-8, 12, 15-17, 20-22, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vromen (US20040081681A1), as evidenced by Terrisse (US20140031305A1), and in further view of Vishnupad (US20020111281A1), White (Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity, 2012), and Applechem (Sensogel 200, 2018).
Applicant’s claims are directed to a topical composition comprising an occlusion forming agent comprising glycerin and a binding agent; one or more proteolytic enzymes; and an antioxidant system comprising green tea polyphenols species, wherein the antioxidant system is 0.2-1.0 wt% based on the total weight of the composition; wherein the topical composition has less than 10 wt.% added water, based on total weight of the topical composition.
Notably the antioxidant system goes from 0-1.0 wt% in the previous claim set (previous claim 11) to 0.2-1.0 wt% in the current claim set (instant claim 1), and different sections of the Art of record are referenced to address this minor change. Further note that the “antioxidant system” may contain one or more than one of the listed species of instant claim 1.
In claims 1 and 5, note that the topical composition is considered to comprise glycerin and/or a binding agent, generally (i.e., these ingredients do not need to be pre-associated before incorporation into composition) because a composition’s patentable weight is based on the product and not the process in which it forms. The “occlusion forming agent” only requires something with occlusive function within the composition as a limitation. Similarly, the “antioxidant system” is considered a mixture comprising green tea polyphenols that overall imparts antioxidant function to the “topical composition” of claims 1 and 5 (where Applicant describes that the polyphenols have antioxidant activity in the Specification [0062]).
Note the requirement of use on a scar (i.e., an intended use), as specified in instant claim 5, is not a meaningful limitation in terms of the instant composition (where the composition itself defines patentability).
Vromen teaches topical delivery of bioactive agents that is non-irritating to the skin (abstract) for the treatment of a wide variety of dermatological conditions (i.e., any abnormality of the skin, which would include scars) such as scabs and wounds [0037].
Regarding claim 1, 5-8, 15-17, and 20: Vromen discloses anhydrous (<10 wt% water) compositions (Vromen – claim 1), comprising the carrier glycerin (reads on claim 15 and 16), polyols, and/or propylene glycol (Vromen – claim 4), compounds from green tea in an amount of 1-10 wt% [0032], and papain (reads on proteolytic enzyme of instant claims 1, 5-6, etc.)) in 1-7 wt% [0035]. Furthermore, Vromen demonstrates formulations where 0.3% or 0.6% antioxidant amount in a composition is obvious (Table 1, [046]).
With respect to the amount of papain and green tea compounds, a prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art (see 2144.05(I)). See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“A prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art.”). Furthermore, papain and bromelain are enzymes that behave as an exfoliant to eliminate dead cells without killing living cells [0035], which is cosmetically desirable for scars and wound healing.
With respect to claim 17 and 22, Vromen teaches the carrier ([0021]) propylene glycol in 10 wt% (Table 1, [0046]). As evidenced by Terrisse, propylene glycol and polyols are considered binding agents [0122-0125]; thus, meeting the binding agent requirement of claim 1 and 17.
Vromen also teaches the beneficial use of occlusive agents as obvious to prevent the formulation from escaping the exterior of the skin (Vromen – claims 68-71), reading on the occlusive functionality within the composition.
Regarding claim 12: Vromen teaches the antioxidant d-tocopherol in 0.6 wt% [0046] (Vromen – claim 108). Vromen teaches this antioxidant within a larger discussion of antioxidants as “bioactive substances” (Vromen – claim 34-37), (where a subset is “biological additives”, where green tea compounds are found within that subset [0032]), where the purpose of Vromen’s formulation is to topically deliver bioactive substances to the skin in a non-irritating way (abstract).
In summary, Vromen teaches the elements of the instant invention (within the context of a topical formulation to deliver bioactive agents for percutaneous absorption and is non-irritating to the skin) except for the specific compounds of the green tea (i.e., the polyphenols) (instant claims 1 and 5), the glycerin amount (instant claim 16), the carrier (solvent) dimethicone (instant claim 21), and the specified viscosity (instant claim 31).
White teaches green tea to contain various polyphenols such as epigallocatechin-3-gallate and epicatechin-3-gallate (reads on claim 1 and 5) that can be extracted from green tea and function as antioxidants (abstract, Figure 1). White teaches the green tea polyphenols have protective effects with topical application to skin (abstract, pg 1, ‘introduction’).
Vishnupad teaches anhydrous compositions (similarly to Applicant’s compositions, as stated in the Specification [0074] and Table 1, [0175]), where Vishnupad demonstrates the combination of 97-99 wt% glycerin (reads on the glycerin amount of instant claim 16) in combination with a viscosity enhancing ingredient (Table 6), teaching this combination provides substantially anhydrous compositions having a viscosity greater than 1000 centipoise (e.g., a viscosity of 10,000 to 1,000,000 cps (reads on claim 31) (Vishnupad – claim 12)) that can deliver beneficial agents unstable in aqueous systems and provide a cosmetic with desired viscosity and thickness [0005-0006].
Applechem teaches dimethicone (reads on claim 21) and Sensogel 200 (pg 8), in which Sensogel is a demonstrated as a binding agent in Applicant’s specification (Table 1, [0175]). Applechem teaches Sensogel 200 to make thin spray formulas to thick butter cosmetics by adjusting the usage rate (pg 1) (or amount of ingredient), thus causing it to be an ingredient as person of ordinary skill in the art would optimize the amount of in order to obtain the desired final product consistency. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (indicating that 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). Applechem also teaches high viscosity butters at 620,000 cps (reads on claim 31) (pg 8), and Sensogel 200 contributes to the rich look of a thick smoothie and has better feel compared to traditional body butters (pg 8).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Vromen to use the specific polyphenols taught by White in place of the general teachings of Vromen of using compounds from green tea and/or antioxidants. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Not only does Vromen have a teaching of using bioactive substances from green tea [0032], but Vromen also teaches the general value of incorporating antioxidants as bioactive substances into topical formulations (Vromen – claims 34-37). These green tea polyphenols that protect the skin are taught by White as antioxidants in topical application (abstract, introduction).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Vromen to apply high amounts of glycerin, as taught by Vishnupad, because this allows stable delivery of beneficial active agents, while maintaining a desired viscosity and thickness [0005-0006].
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Vromen to incorporate Sensogel 200, dimethicone, and a high viscosity because that would allow for design of the appropriate final formulation based on viscosity with improvements on formulations on the market (i.e., Sensogel 200 is discussed as a superior ingredient vs. popular thickeners to achieve this on pg 1, and in comparison to acrylamide thickeners and competitor B thickening agent on pg 6), as taught by Applechem, and Vromen generally teaches topical formulations (abstract) that can include viscosity modifying agents and carriers (Table 1).
Note, to argue non-obviousness, Applicant may consider: To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). Data can be provided in the Specification or by Affidavit/Declaration.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 5-8, 12, 15-17, 20-22, and 31 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over, and in further view of Vishnupad (US20020111281A1), as evidenced by Terrisse (US20140031305A1), and Applechem (Sensogel 200, 2018):
claims 1-5, 7-9, 11, 21-22, 25, 29, 31-33, 35-36, 43, 51 of copending Application No. 18/038,576 (reference application)
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all claim sets teach a composition comprising an occlusion forming agent, proteolytic enzymes, and an antioxidant system comprising green tea polyphenols. The copending applications differ only by the specific occlusion forming agent.
This is remedied by Vishnupad teaches an anhydrous composition comprising solvents such as glycerin and propylene glycol or PEG (Vishnupad – claim 15) in amounts of 97-99%, etc. (Table 7), but generally without limitation in amount [0010]. As evidenced by Terrisse, propylene glycol or PEG are considered binding agents [0122-0125]. Also, Applechem teaches Sensogel 200, which is a thickener (pg 8), in which Sensogel is an appropriate binding agent according to Applicant’s specification (Table 1, [0175]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the teachings of the copending application because glycerin works with binding agents in viscous and thickened anhydrous formulations, and Sensogel 200 can thicken topical formulations for better feel and appearance (i.e., similarly to the logic used to combined references in the 103 rejections above).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments, see pg 6-14, filed 01/20/2026, with respect to the 112a and 112b rejections of claims 1, 5-9, 11-12, 15-17, 20-22, and 31 under rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 112a and 112b rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicants arguments, see pg 6-14, filed 01/20/2026, with respect to the 103 rejection of claims 1, 5-9, 11-12, 15-17, 20-22, and 31 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The 103 rejection has been slightly modified with respect to amendments made to the claim set. However, the thrust of the rejection remains the same as before, relying on the same references.
The Examiner notes Xiang (CN105769702A - machine translation provided) from the recently filed IDS (filed 10/30/2025) contains > 10 wt% added water (Xiang – claims 1 and 2), and thus, is not incorporated into a rejection (where instant claim 1 specifies less than 10 wt% added water). However, the Examiner makes note of Xiang’s general teachings, where green tea polyphenols not only complex and stabilize enzymes like bromelain, but also have antioxidant effects, and also teach synergy between green tea polyphenols and bromelain that enhances a beautifying effect [0025].
On pg 6, Applicant cancels claim 9 to render the 112a rejection as moot. This is acceptable.
On page 6-7, Applicant argues that the term “about” has been appropriately defined in the Specification [0209] of the companion publication US20240108556A1. This argument is persuasive, and the 112b rejection is removed (without requiring the deletion of the term “about” in the instant claim set).
On page 7-11, Applicant argues Vromen fails to recognize the valued effects of green tea polyphenols in a topical composition (whereas the instant application identifies green tea polyphenols as soothing the skin under an occlusion). Note in an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings.”); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). Thus, Vromen identifies compounds from green tea [0032] as biological additives that has medicinal or otherwise beneficial effect when topically applied to skin [0032], where these topical compositions are useful for dermatological conditions such as scabs [0037]. Note that Vromen clearly teaches “biological additive” as ‘any compound obtained from a natural source… (which has a medicinal or otherwise beneficial effect when topically applied to the skin)…Thea Sinensis (green tea)’ [0032]. White further teaches green tea to contain various polyphenols such as epigallocatechin-3-gallate and epicatechin-3-gallate (reads on claim 1 and 5) that can be extracted from green tea and function as antioxidants (abstract, Figure 1). White teaches the green tea polyphenols have protective effects with topical application to skin (abstract, pg 1, ‘introduction’). Also, note that the arguments on pg 7-11 are piecemeal, where an obviousness analysis relies on the teachings of the combined Prior Art.
Furthermore, Applicant argues White, Vishnupad, and Applechem do not cure this deficiency. However, there are no specific arguments linked to this statement in this particular section of the document. Proper rationale is provided in the 103 rejection above to include the additional references.
Applicant then suggest green tea is one choice of a long list of possible bioactive substances. Note that it is well settled that it is a matter of obviousness for one of ordinary skill in the art to select a particular component from among many disclosed by the prior art as long as it is taught that the selection will result in the disclosed effect, even when the possible selections number 1200 or in the thousands. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Here, Vromen teaches compounds obtained…from Thea Sinensis (green tea), as a biological additive [0032] useful for a variety of dermatological conditions such as scabs (another word for scars), etc. [0037].
On page 11-12, Applicant argues Vromen does not teach the specific green tea polyphenols. This is a piecewise argument, which is per se unpersuasive, where White is brought in to address the specific instant species of the more general teaching of Vromen, who incorporates compounds of green tea plants [0032]. White teaches green tea to contain various polyphenols such as epigallocatechin-3-gallate and epicatechin-3-gallate (reads on claim 1 and 5) that can be extracted from green tea and function as antioxidants (abstract, Figure 1). White teaches the green tea polyphenols have protective effects with topical application to skin (abstract, pg 1, ‘introduction’). Thus, it’s prima facie obvious to select the green tea polyphenols specified by White (abstract, Figure 1), as representatives of the larger green tea compounds taught by Vromen, which have medicinal or otherwise beneficial effect when topically applied to the skin [0032].
On page 12-13, Applicant argues White does not teach green tea polyphenols for the treatment of scars or to mitigate irritation caused by proteolytic enzymes. Note that treatment of scars or to mitigate irritation is an intended use that does not provide patentable weight in an obviousness analysis: Particularly, a recitation of an intended use will not limit the scope of the claim because it merely defines a context in which the invention may operate. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Also, in an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings.”); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). Thus, both Vromen and White teach an advantage of incorporating compounds from green tea (including the instant species) into topical composition for dermatological benefit.
Regarding the proposed effects of the instant invention, if Applicant suggests unexpected results for the combination of these specific compounds with proteolytic enzymes (i.e., this specific configuration provides a synergistic and/or soothing effect), Applicant would need to provide evidence (possibly including concentration ranges and data showing soothing/synergistic effects), demonstrating the unexpected advantage of this specific combination and provide arguments persuasive to this objective data (as present in the Specification or Affidavit/Declaration). Note that Xiang’s general teachings, where green tea polyphenols not only complex and stabilize enzymes like bromelain, but also have antioxidant effects, and also teach synergy between green tea polyphenols and bromelain that enhances a beautifying effect [0025]. Additionally, Higuera (Healthline, 2019) teaches the soothing effect of green tea polyphenols generally, as information known to a PHOSITA (pg 2).
Also, note that one cannot merely demonstrate non-obviousness on argument alone. It should be remembered that “a showing of unexpected results must be based on evidence, not argument or speculation. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343-44, 41 USPQ2d 1451, 1455-56 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (conclusory statements regarding unusually low immune response or unexpected biological activity that were unsupported by comparative data held insufficient to overcome prima facie case of obviousness).” There is no evidence provided to support unexpected results with respect to the Prior Art. Furthermore, note that to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). Finally, Vromen already generally teaches green tea compounds [0032] and proteolytic enzymes [0035] for scab treatment [0037], as obvious.
If Applicant decides to point to objective data in support of arguments, if it is determined that Applicant has merely discovered an unknown property of a previously disclosed composition, the Application would not be entitled to patent protection: “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property, which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). As stated before, Higuera teaches the soothing effect of green tea polyphenols generally (pg 2), where Applicant claims “this specific configuration provides a synergistic and/or soothing effect”, which would be expected of a topical composition containing green tea polyphenols, based on the Prior Art.
On page 13-14, Applicant requests double patenting rejection be held in abeyance until later prosecution, which is acceptable, and then concludes.
Correspondence
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 RAJAN PRAGANI whose telephone number is (703)756-5319. The examiner can normally be reached 7a-5p EST (M-Th).
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 on 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.
/R.P./Examiner, Art Unit 1614 2/19/2026
/SEAN M BASQUILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1614