Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Reissue Oath/Declaration
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective because it fails to identify at least one error which is relied upon to support the reissue application. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414.
37 CFR 1.175(a) instructs that the reissue oath or declaration must state at least one error being relied upon as the basis for reissue.” MPEP 1414 elaborates:
[T]he oath/declaration must specifically identify an error. In addition, it is not sufficient to merely reproduce the claims with brackets and underlining and state that such will identify the error. Any error in the claims must be identified by reference to the specific claim(s) and the specific claim language wherein lies the error.
The declaration merely states:
PNG
media_image1.png
138
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This is insufficient because it does not identify an error in the patented claims sought to be corrected by reissue. “Any error in the claims must be identified by reference to the specific claim(s) and the specific claim language wherein lies the error.” MPEP 1414(II)(C). Here, applicant has not pointed out what the other claims lacked that the newly added claims have, or vice versa.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
Claims 1-25 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
Claim Objections
The examiner objects to claim 3 for omitting the word “skin” after “dehydrated at column 60, line 26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 depends from claim 1 and refers to “the extracting solvent.” Claim 1 does not recite an extracting solvent, so antecedent basis is unclear. See MPEP 2173.05(e). Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1, 8-10, and 22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Grønhaug et al. (2008, Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 4: 26; 4/11/23 1-page IDS reference C2) as evidenced by Healthline (https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/foods/lemons#nutrition; reference U).
Grønhaug teaches combining pounded P. biglobosa bark with lemon juice, then applying it to sores and ulcers on the skin. (Sentence bridging columns on page 7/11.) Healthline is cited solely as evidence that lemon juice is mostly water. (Page 2.) Grønhaug therefore inherently applies an aqueous extract of P. biglobosa to skin.
MPEP 2112.02(II) instructs: “The discovery of a new use for an old structure based on unknown properties of the structure might be patentable to the discoverer as a process of using. However, when the claim recites using an old composition or structure and the ‘use’ is directed to a result or property of that composition or structure, then the claim is anticipated.” In this case, when Grønhaug applies an aqueous extract of P. biglobosa to skin, the effect of moisturization necessarily flows from that step. There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized this inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. MPEP 2112(II).
Regarding claims 8-10, the biological effects in the skin would necessarily flow from the application of the aqueous extract of P. biglobosa to skin. MPEP 2112.02(II).
Regarding claim 22, lemon juice contains water. (See Healthline.) As such, a lemon-juice extract of P. biglobosa is an aqueous extract.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 11-17, 20, 21, and 25 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garnier et al. (WO 2011/012612; reference N) in view of Tringali et al. (2000, Filoterapia 71: 118-125; reference V). US 20120121743 (reference A) is the publication of the US national-stage entry of the Garnier ’612 WO document and therefore serves as an English-language translation. This rejection refers to that translation.
Garnier teaches a cosmetic composition for moisturizing skin by topical application. (Abstract; paragraphs 99-102, 154, 168, 183.) Garnier’s active agent is Schisandra sphenanthera fruit extract, but Garnier teaches that the composition can contain at least one other active compound. (Paragraph 100.) Specifically, Garnier teaches that the composition can contain an agent that cicatrizes/repairs the barrier function and stimulate the synthesis of the key lipids of the epidermis, for example lupeol. (Paragraphs 112, 146.) Garnier discloses that the active compound may be from a natural plant extract. (Paragraph 104.) Garnier discloses that the composition may further comprise moisturizing active agents, emollients, and keratin-synthesis activators. (Paragraphs 102 and 105.)
Garnier does not teach including P. biglobosa extract in the composition.
Tringali teaches that ethanol extracts of P. biglobosa bark contain lupeol. (Abstract; sections 2.1, 2.2, 3.) Tringali teaches that P. biglobosa extracts are known for medicinal uses. (Section 1.)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to include Tringali’s P. biglobosa bark ethanol extract in Garnier’s skin-moisturizing composition in order to provide the lupeol Garnier discloses as being helpful for repairing the skin’s barrier function. The skilled artisan would have found it obvious to include Tringali’s P. biglobosa bark ethanol extract in a composition for application to the skin because Tringali teaches that the extract is known to be compatible with administration to humans and Garnier specifically discloses providing active agents from plant extracts to the skin.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Garnier teaches that the composition may be supplied as an emulsion, for example an oil-in-water emulsion. (Paragraphs 159 and 183.)
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Garnier teaches that the composition may be supplied as a cream, lotion, or solution. (Paragraph 159.)
Regarding claims 15 and 25, Garnier teaches that lupeol functions to repair the skin’s barrier function. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that achieving that function would depend on the amount of lupeol supplied in the composition and would have found it obvious to optimize the amount of lupeol supplied via Tringali’s P. biglobosa ethanol extract. Garnier also expressly contemplates optimizing the contents of the composition. (Paragraph 166.)
Further, the current record does not support a finding that the claimed amount of the extract is critical. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 716.02 - § 716.02(g). 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).
Regarding claim 16 element (a), Garnier discloses that the composition may be a solution, i.e. that it contains water (paragraph 159) and exemplifies numerous compositions containing water (paragraph 183). Regarding element (b), Garnier teaches including a copper chelator such as EDTA as a depigmenting agent. (Paragraph 135.) Regarding element (c), Garnier discloses including moisturizing agents. (Paragraphs 102, 154, and 166.) Regarding element (d), Garnier discloses including a preservative. (Paragraph 103.) Regarding element (e), Garnier discloses including a thickener. (Paragraph 166.) It would therefore have been obvious to include water, a chelating agent, a moisturizing agent, a preservative, and a thickener in Garnier’s composition for topical application to skin.
Regarding claim 17, Tringali teaches a liquid ethanolic extract of P. biglobosa bark. (Section 2.2.)
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Tringali teaches an alcoholic extract, specifically an ethanolic extract.
Claims 2-7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garnier et al. (WO 2011/012612) in view of Tringali et al. (2000, Filoterapia 71: 118-125) as applied to claims 1, 11-17, 20, 21, and 25, above, further in view of Belfer (US 20070048245; reference B).
The teachings of Garnier and Tringali are applied as above.
Garnier and Tringali do not teach that the composition is applied to dehydrated skin in need of increased moisture content, for example sagging or loose skin, skin with fine lines or wrinkles, or skin requiring increased elasticity and firmness.
Belfer teaches using plant extracts to moisturize skin to improve skin hydration and firmness, for example skin with expression lines. (Paragraph 60.)
It would have been obvious to apply the composition of Garnier in view of Tringali to skin in need of increased moisture content, for example sagging or loose skin, skin with fine lines or wrinkles, or skin requiring increased elasticity and firmness because Garnier and Tringali suggest moisturizing the skin with this composition and Belfer teaches using plant extracts to address the underlying conditions recited in claims 2-7.
Claim 18 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garnier et al. (WO 2011/012612) in view of Tringali et al. (2000, Filoterapia 71: 118-125) as applied to claims 1, 11-17, 20, 21, and 25, above, further in view of Mongiorgi (US 20040146594; reference C).
The teachings of Garnier and Tringali are applied as above.
Garnier and Tringali do not teach that the extract is lyophilized.
Mongiorgi teaches that lyophilizing plant extracts concentrates and/or purifies the active ingredients from plants, making a composition suitable for administration in a galenical, pharmaceutical or cosmetic form. (Paragraph 20.)
It would have been obvious to provide the extract of Garnier in view of Tringali in lyophilized form because Mongiorgi teaches that plant extracts can be lyophilized and that doing so concentrates and/or purifies the active ingredients within them.
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.
US Patent 8,833,224
Claims 1, 11-17, 20, 21, and 25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 8-10 of U.S. Patent No. 8,883,224 in view of Garnier et al. (WO 2011/012612) and Tringali et al. (2000, Filoterapia 71: 118-125).
The ’224 patent claims a composition comprising aqueous extracts of Polygonum multiflorum and Lonicera japonica that can be a moisturizer product and further comprise a moisturization agent and an emulsifier. (Claims 1 and 2.) The ’224 patent claims a method of applying the moisturizer product to the skin. (Claim 8.) The ’224 patent claims that applying the composition inhibits TNF-[Symbol font/0x61] and tyrosinase activity in the skin. (Claims 1 and 9.) The ’224 patent claims that the composition may comprise one additional botanical species. (Claim 10.)
The ’224 patent does not claim that the moisturization agent or additional botanical species is P. biglobosa extract.
Garnier teaches a cosmetic composition for moisturizing skin by topical application. (Abstract; paragraphs 99-102, 154, 168, 183.) Garnier’s active agent is Schisandra sphenanthera fruit extract, but Garnier teaches that the composition can contain at least one other active compound. (Paragraph 100.) Specifically, Garnier teaches that the composition can contain an agent that cicatrizes/repairs the barrier function and stimulate the synthesis of the key lipids of the epidermis, for example lupeol. (Paragraphs 112, 146.) Garnier discloses that the active compound may be from a natural plant extract. (Paragraph 104.) Garnier discloses that the composition may further comprise moisturizing active agents, emollients, and keratin-synthesis activators. (Paragraphs 102 and 105.)
Tringali teaches that ethanol extracts of P. biglobosa bark contain lupeol. (Abstract; sections 2.1, 2.2, 3.) Tringali teaches that P. biglobosa extracts are known for medicinal uses. (Section 1.)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to include Tringali’s P. biglobosa bark ethanol extract as the moisturizer in the ’224 patent’s composition in order to provide the lupeol Garnier discloses as being helpful for repairing the skin’s barrier function. The skilled artisan would have found it obvious to include Tringali’s P. biglobosa bark ethanol extract in a composition for application to the skin because Tringali teaches that the extract is known to be compatible with administration to humans and both the ’224 patent and Garnier specifically disclose providing active agents from plant extracts to the skin.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the ’224 patent claims including an emulsifier (claim 2), and Garnier teaches that botanical-extract skin compositions may be supplied as emulsions, for example oil-in-water emulsions. (Paragraphs 159 and 183.)
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Garnier teaches that a botanical-extract skin composition may be supplied as a cream, lotion, or solution. (Paragraph 159.)
Regarding claims 15 and 25, Garnier teaches that lupeol functions to repair the skin’s barrier function. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that achieving that function would depend on the amount of lupeol supplied in the composition and would have found it obvious to optimize the amount of lupeol supplied via Tringali’s P. biglobosa ethanol extract. Garnier also expressly contemplates optimizing the contents of extracts within botanical-extract skin compositions. (Paragraph 166.)
Regarding claim 16 element (a), the ’224 patent’s composition contains at least 50% water. (Claim 1.) Regarding element (b), Garnier teaches including a copper chelator such as EDTA as a depigmenting agent. (Paragraph 135.) Regarding element (c), the ’224 patent claims including moisturizing agents. (Claims 1 and 2.) Regarding element (d), Garnier discloses including a preservative. (Paragraph 103.) Regarding element (e), the ’224 patent claims including a structuring or thickening agent. (Claim 2.) It would therefore have been obvious to include water, a chelating agent, a moisturizing agent, a preservative, and a thickener in the ’224 patent’s composition for topical application to skin.
Regarding claim 17, Tringali teaches a liquid ethanolic extract of P. biglobosa bark. (Section 2.2.)
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Tringali teaches an alcoholic extract, specifically an ethanolic extract.
Claims 2-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 8-10 of U.S. Patent No. 8,883,224 in view of Garnier and Tringali as applied to claims 1, 11-17, 20, 21, and 25, above, further in view of Belfer (US 20070048245).
The claims of the ’224 patent and the teachings of Garnier and Tringali are applied as above.
The ’224 patent does not claim, and Garnier and Tringali do not teach, that the composition is applied to dehydrated skin in need of increased moisture content, for example sagging or loose skin, skin with fine lines or wrinkles, or skin requiring increased elasticity and firmness.
Belfer teaches using plant extracts to moisturize skin to improve skin hydration and firmness, for example skin with expression lines. (Paragraph 60.)
It would have been obvious to apply the composition of the ’224 patent in view of Garnier and Tringali to skin in need of increased moisture content, for example sagging or loose skin, skin with fine lines or wrinkles, or skin requiring increased elasticity and firmness because the ’224 patent claims, and Garnier and Tringali suggest, moisturizing the skin with this composition and Belfer teaches using plant extracts to address the underlying conditions recited in claims 2-7.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 8-10 of U.S. Patent No. 8,883,224 in view of Garnier and Tringali as applied to claims 1, 11-17, 20, 21, and 25, above, further in view of Mongiorgi (US 20040146594).
The claims of the ’224 patent and the teachings of Garnier and Tringali are applied as above.
The ’224 patent does not claim, and Garnier and Tringali do not teach, that the extract is lyophilized.
Mongiorgi teaches that lyophilizing plant extracts concentrates and/or purifies the active ingredients from plants, making a composition suitable for administration in a galenical, pharmaceutical or cosmetic form. (Paragraph 20.)
It would have been obvious to provide the extract of Garnier in view of Tringali in lyophilized form because Mongiorgi teaches that plant extracts can be lyophilized and that doing so concentrates and/or purifies the active ingredients within them.
US Patent 10,328,019
Claims 1, 7, 8, 11-18, 20, 21, and 25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10, 11, 12, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,328,019 in view of Garnier et al. (WO 2011/012612) and Tringali et al. (2000, Filoterapia 71: 118-125).
The ’019 patent claims a method of applying a composition comprising an extract of Elaeagnus bockii to the skin, wherein TNF-[Symbol font/0x61] activity and oxidation are reduced. (Claims 1 and 4.) Regarding claim 7, the ’019 patent claims that the skin has a fine line or wrinkle. (Claim 2.) Regarding claim 8, the ’019 patent claims reducing TNF-[Symbol font/0x61] activity. (Claims 1 and 4.) Regarding claims 11 and 12, the ’019 patent claims providing the extract in an emulsion, for example an oil-in-water emulsion. (Claims 5 and 6.) Regarding claims 13 and 14, the ’019 patent claims providing the extract as a cream, lotion, or solution. (Claims 7 and 8.) Regarding claim 10, the ’019 patent claims providing 0.001-5% extract. (Claim 10.) Claim 11 of the ’019 patent requires all of the elements required by examined claim 16. Regarding claim 13, the ’019 patent claims a providing the extract in liquid form including the extracting solvent. (Claim 13.)
The ’019 patent does not claim including P. biglobosa extract in the composition.
Garnier teaches a cosmetic composition for moisturizing skin by topical application. (Abstract; paragraphs 99-102, 154, 168, 183.) Garnier’s active agent is Schisandra sphenanthera fruit extract, but Garnier teaches that the composition can contain at least one other active compound. (Paragraph 100.) Specifically, Garnier teaches that the composition can contain an agent that cicatrizes/repairs the barrier function and stimulate the synthesis of the key lipids of the epidermis, for example lupeol. (Paragraphs 112, 146.) Garnier discloses that the active compound may be from a natural plant extract. (Paragraph 104.) Garnier discloses that the composition may further comprise moisturizing active agents, emollients, and keratin-synthesis activators. (Paragraphs 102 and 105.)
Tringali teaches that ethanol extracts of P. biglobosa bark contain lupeol. (Abstract; sections 2.1, 2.2, 3.) Tringali teaches that P. biglobosa extracts are known for medicinal uses. (Section 1.)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to include Tringali’s P. biglobosa bark ethanol extract in the ’019 patent’s composition in order to provide the lupeol Garnier discloses as being helpful for repairing the skin’s barrier function. The skilled artisan would have found it obvious to include Tringali’s P. biglobosa bark ethanol extract in a composition for application to the skin because Tringali teaches that the extract is known to be compatible with administration to humans and both the ’019 patent and Garnier specifically disclose providing active agents from plant extracts to the skin.
Regarding claims 15 and 25, Garnier teaches that lupeol functions to repair the skin’s barrier function. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that achieving that function would depend on the amount of lupeol supplied in the composition and would have found it obvious to optimize the amount of lupeol supplied via Tringali’s P. biglobosa ethanol extract. Garnier also expressly contemplates optimizing the contents of extracts within botanical-extract skin compositions. (Paragraph 166.)
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Tringali teaches an alcoholic extract, specifically an ethanolic extract, contains luteol.
Claims 2-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10, 11, 12, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,328,019 in view of Garnier and Tringali as applied to claims 1, 7, 8, 11-18, 20, 21, and 25, above, further in view of Belfer (US 20070048245).
The claims of the ’019 patent and the teachings of Garnier and Tringali are applied as above.
The ’019 patent does not claim, and Garnier and Tringali do not teach, that the composition is applied to dehydrated skin in need of increased moisture content, for example sagging or loose skin, or skin requiring increased elasticity and firmness.
Belfer teaches using plant extracts to moisturize skin to improve skin hydration and firmness, for example skin with expression lines. (Paragraph 60.)
It would have been obvious to apply the composition of the ’224 patent in view of Garnier and Tringali to skin in need of increased moisture content, for example sagging or loose skin, skin with fine lines or wrinkles, or skin requiring increased elasticity and firmness because Garnier and Tringali suggest, moisturizing the skin with this composition and Belfer teaches using plant extracts to address the underlying conditions recited in claims 2-6.
Relevant Art
Aiyelaagbe et al. (1996, Plant Foods for Human Nutrition 49: 229-233; reference W) teach that the seeds of P. biglobosa contain saturated fatty acids including arachidic, behenic, and stearic acid, all of which are useful cutaneous-barrier agents in moisturizers. (See da Luz Moreira, WO 2010/060171; reference O; at page 8.)
Maintenance Fees
Applicant is reminded of the requirement to pay all applicable maintenance fees on the original patent. See MPEP 1415.01.
Duty to Disclose
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 11,576,854 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORA E BARNHART DRISCOLL, whose telephone number is (571)272-1928. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 p.m. 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, Patricia Engle, can be reached at 571-272-6660. 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.
/Lora E Barnhart Driscoll/Patent Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3991
Conferees:
/KSO/Patent Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3991
/Patricia L Engle/SPRS, Art Unit 3991