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 .
Status of Claims
Examined Herein: 1-20
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority under based upon an application filed in PRO 63/253,662 on 10/8/2021, PCT/US22/46130 on 10/8/2022, and 17/962,471 on 10/8/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/6/2023, 11/20/2023, and 7/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received on 4/11/2023 are accepted.
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 1-3 and 6-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fevola (US 2012/0157365 A1, Published 6/21/2012), in view of Bevinakatti (US 2021/0259930 A1, Filed 8/26/2021).
With respect to claim 1, Fevola discloses a formulation comprising:
Water;
Polyglyceryl-10 laurate; and
An oral care benefit agent, sodium benzoate. [Fevola, Page 10, Table 3, E6]
With respect to claim 6, Fevola discloses the formulation is substantially devoid of ethoxylates. [Fevola, Page 10, Table 3, E6]
With respect to claim 7, Fevola discloses the formulation is substantially devoid of sulfated surfactants. [Fevola, Page 10, Table 3, E6]
With respect to claim 8, Fevola discloses the formulation comprises greater than 60% by weight a biobased natural ingredient, water, according to ISO16128. [Fevola, Page 10, Table 3, E6]
With respect to claim 9, Fevola discloses the formulation has a Formulation Turbidity of less than 20 NTU (= 7.8) as measured at 22-23°C. [Fevola, 0072 & Page 10, Table 3, E6]
With respect to claim 10, Fevola discloses the formulation has a pH of 4.5. [Fevola, Page 10, Table 3, E6]
With respect to claim 11, Fevola discloses the formulation has a viscosity of less than 500 cP (= 253). [Fevola, Page 10, Table 3, E6]
With respect to claim 12, Fevola discloses the oral care benefit agent is sodium benzoate. [Fevola, Page 10, Table 2, E6] Sodium benzoate is an antimicrobial.
With respect to claim 13, Fevola discloses the formulation further comprises a pH adjuster, citric acid. [Fevola, Page 10, Table 2, Example 6]
With respect to claim 14, Fevola discloses a process for preparing a formulation, the process comprising:
Mixing water, an oral care benefit agent, sodium benzoate, and polyglyceryl-10 laurate.
With respect to claim 15, Fevola discloses the formulation has a Formulation Turbidity of less than 20 NTU (=7.8) as measured at 22-23°C. [Fevola, 0072 & Page 10, Table 3, E6]
With respect to claim 16, Fevola discloses the formulation has a pH of 4.5. [Fevola, Page 10, Table 3, E6]
With respect to claim 17, Fevola discloses the formulation has a viscosity of less than 500 cP (=253). [Fevola, Page 10, Table 3, E6]
With respect to claim 19, Fevola discloses the formulation comprises greater than 60% by weight a biobased natural ingredient, water, according to ISO16128. [Fevola, Page 10, Table 3, E6]
Fevola does not disclose the formulation or the process for preparing the formulation comprises a mixture of one or more compounds of Formula (I).
However, Fevola discloses the formulation and the process for preparing the formulation comprises the polyglyceryl nonionic surfactant, polyglyceryl-10 laurate. Fevola further discloses the polyglyceryl nonionic surfactant may be selected from polyglyceryl-4 caprylate/caprate, polyglyceryl-5 caprylate/caprate, polyglyceryl-6 caprylate/caprate, polyglyceryl-7 caprylate/caprate, polyglyceryl-8 caprylate/caprate, polyglyceryl-9 caprylate/caprate, and polyglyceryl-10 caprylate/caprate.
With respect to claim 1, 2, 3, 14, and 18, polyglyceryl-[4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10] caprylate/caprate is a mixture including one or more compounds of Formula (I);
wherein,
PG is a polyglyceryl group,
R is a linear C7 alkyl group, and
n=1.
Still, Fevola does not disclose PG is a polyglyceryl group comprising greater than 40% hexaglycerol and higher polyglycerols and less than 60% pentaglycerol and lower polyglycerols.
However, with respect to claim 1 and 14, Bevinakatti discloses polyglycerols comprise a mixture of oligoglycerols having varying oligomer distributions. For example, Bevinakatti discloses polyglycerols may comprise greater than 40% (=45%) hexaglycerol and higher polyglycerols and less than 60% (=55%) pentaglycerol and lower polyglycerols. [Bevinakatti, 0025-0036]
Modifying the formulation and process for preparing the formulation disclosed by Fevola by replacing polyglyceryl-10 laurate with polyglyceryl-[4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10] caprylate/caprate and replacing the polyglyceryl moiety with a polyglycerol that has an oligomer distribution of 45% hexaglycerol and higher polyglycerols and 55% pentaglycerol and lower polyglycerols, results in the formulation of claim 1, 2, 3, 14, and 18.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the formulation and process for preparing the formulation disclosed by Fevola by replacing polyglyceryl-10 laurate with polyglyceryl-[4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10] caprylate/caprate, and have a reasonable expectation of success because Fevola discloses a formulation comprising polyglyceryl-10 laurate, wherein polyglyceryl-10 laurate functions as the polyglyceryl nonionic surfactant. However, Fevola discloses the polyglyceryl nonionic surfactant may be selected from polyglyceryl-[4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10] caprylate/caprate. In view of this express teaching by Fevola, it is reasonable to expect the formulation disclosed by Fevola may be modified by replacing polyglyceryl-10 laurate with polyglyceryl-[4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10] caprylate/caprate. One would have been motivated to do so because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious. In the instant case, Fevola discloses the polyglyceryl nonionic surfactant of the formulation may be selected from polyglyceryl-[4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10] caprylate/caprate. So, selecting a known material, polyglyceryl-[4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10] caprylate/caprate, based on its suitability, as a nonionic polyglyceryl, for its intended use as a surfactant is prima facie obvious.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the formulation and process for preparing the formulation disclosed by Fevola by replacing the polyglyceryl moiety with a polyglycerol that has an oligomer distribution of 45% hexaglycerol and higher polyglycerols and 55% pentaglycerol and lower polyglycerols, and have a reasonable expectation of success because Fevola discloses a formulation comprising, in one embodiment, polyglyceryl-[4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10] caprylate/caprate, which contains a polyglycerol moiety. Bevinakatti discloses polyglycerols comprise a mixture of oligoglycerols having varying oligomer distributions. In one embodiment, polyglycerols may comprise 45% hexaglycerols and higher polyglycerols and 55% pentaglycerol and lower polyglycerols. So, Fevola discloses a formulation comprising polyglyceryl-[4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10] caprylate/caprate, which contains a polyglycerol moiety and Bevinakatti discloses such a moiety may have an oligomer distribution comprising 45% hexaglycerols and higher polyglycerols and 55% pentaglycerol and lower polyglycerols. Thus, the combined teachings of Fevola and Bevinakatti suggest the polyglyceryl moiety of polyglyceryl-[4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10] caprylate/caprate may have an oligomer distribution comprising 45% hexaglycerols and higher polyglycerols and 55% pentaglycerol and lower polyglycerols. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect the formulation and process for preparing the formulation disclosed by Fevola may be further modified by replacing the polyglyceryl moiety with a polyglycerol that has an oligomer distribution of 45% hexaglycerol and higher polyglycerols and 55% pentaglycerol and lower polyglycerols. One would have been motivated to do so because it is prima facie obvious to combine references when some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination. In the instant case, Bevinakatti discloses oligomer distributions can be narrow or broad while maintaining the polyglycerol number designation. For example, oligoglycerols with both narrow and broad distributions can be equally designated as polyglycerol-3, as this is the closest integer to the
mean and/or median. [Bevinakatti, 0046] So, one would have been motivated by the expectation that the aforementioned modification would enable structural variability of a polyglyceryl compound, via the oligomer distribution, within a desired polyglyceryl number designation.
Claims 1-7, 12, 14, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozel (US 2013/0344152 A1, Published 12/26/2013), in view of Rigg (US 2019/0070114 A1, Published 3/7/2019).
With respect to claim 1, 2, and 3, Kozel discloses a formulation comprising:
Water;
Polyglyceryl-10 caprylate/caprate, which is a mixture including one or more compounds of Formula (I);
wherein,
PG is a polyglyceryl group,
R is a linear C7 alkyl group, and
n=1; and
an oral care benefit agent, benzoyl peroxide. [Kozel, 0051]
With respect to claim 6, Kozel discloses the formulation is substantially devoid of ethoxylates. [Kozel, 0051]
With respect to claim 7, Kozel discloses the formulation is substantially devoid of sulfated surfactants. [Kozel, 0051]
With respect to claim 12, Kozel discloses the oral care benefit agent is benzoyl peroxide. [Kozel, 0051] Benzoyl peroxide is an antimicrobial.
With respect to claim 14 and 18, Kozel discloses a process for preparing a formulation, the process comprising:
Mixing water, an oral care benefit agent, benzoyl peroxide, and polyglyceryl-10 caprylate/caprate, which is a mixture including one or more compounds of Formula (I);
wherein,
PG is a polyglyceryl group,
R is a linear C7 alkyl group, and
n=1. [Kozel, 0052]
Kozel does not disclose R is a linear C6 alkyl group and RCO is derived from biobased n-heptanoic acid (claim 1 and 4) or PG is a polyglyceryl group comprising greater than 40% hexaglycerol and higher polyglycerols and less than 60% pentaglycerol and lower polyglycerols (claim 1).
However, with respect to claim 1 and 4, Kozel discloses the formulation and the process for preparing the formulation comprises a polyglyceryl ester, polyglyceryl-10 caprylate/caprate. [Kozel, 0051] Polyglyceryl-10 caprylate/caprate is a polyglyceryl esterified with C8 and C10 fatty acids. However, Kozel discloses suitable fatty acids that may be esterified with polyglyceryl-10 and used in the formulation, include C6-C18 fatty acids. [Kozel, 0019] A C7 fatty acid is heptanoic acid.
Still, Kozel does not disclose PG is a polyglyceryl group comprising greater than 40% hexaglycerol and higher polyglycerols and less than 60% pentaglycerol and lower polyglycerols.
However, with respect to claim 1, 5, 14, and 20, Rigg discloses “polyglyceryl-10” includes polyglyceryl-8, polyglyceryl-10 and polyglyceryl-12, with proviso that from 50-100 weight % of the polyglyceryl is polyglyceryl-10 in actuality without lower or higher levels of glycerol monomer units. [Rigg, 0011] In other words, “polyglyceryl-10,” with a distribution according to this provisio, comprises 100% (= greater than 40% and 60%) octaglycerols, decaglycerols, and dodecaglyceryls (= hexaglycerol and higher polyglycerols), and by extension, 0% (= less than 40% and 60%) higher or lower glycerols (= pentaglycerol and lower polyglycerols).
Modifying the formulation and process for preparing the formulation disclosed by Kozel by replacing the polyglyceryl-10 moiety of polyglyceryl-10 caprylate/caprate with a polyglycerol-10 moiety that has an oligomer distribution of 100% hexaglycerol and higher polyglycerols and 0% pentaglycerol and lower polyglycerols, results in the formulation of claim 1, 5, 14, and 20.
Modifying the formulation and process for preparing the formulation disclosed by Kozel by replacing polyglyceryl-10 caprylate/caprate with polyglyceryl-10 heptanoate and replacing the polyglyceryl-10 moiety thereof with a polyglycerol-10 that has an oligomer distribution of 100% hexaglycerol and higher polyglycerols and 0% pentaglycerol and lower polyglycerols, results in the formulation of claim 1 and 4.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the formulation and process for preparing the formulation disclosed by Kozel by replacing the polyglyceryl-10 moiety of polyglyceryl-10 caprylate/caprate with a polyglycerol-10 moiety that has an oligomer distribution of 100% hexaglycerol and higher polyglycerols and 0% pentaglycerol and lower polyglycerols, and have a reasonable expectation of success because Kozel discloses a formulation comprising polyglyceryl-10 caprylate/caprate. Rigg discloses “polyglyceryl-10” may have an oligomer distribution comprising 100% octaglycerols, decaglycerols, and dodecaglyceryls, and by extension, 0% higher or lower glycerols. So, Kozel discloses a formulation comprising polyglyceryl-10 caprylate/caprate, which contains a polyglyceryl-10 moiety, and Rigg discloses such a moiety may have an oligomer distribution comprising 100% octaglycerols, decaglycerols, and dodecaglyceryls, and by extension, 0% higher or lower glycerols. Thus, the combined teachings of Kozel and Rigg suggest the polyglyceryl-10 moiety of polyglyceryl-10 caprylate/caprate may have an oligomer distribution comprising 100% octaglycerols, decaglycerols, and dodecaglyceryls, and by extension, 0% higher or lower glycerols. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect the formulation and process for preparing the formulation disclosed by Kozel may be modified by replacing the polyglyceryl-10 moiety of with polyglyceryl-10 caprylate/caprate with a polyglycerol-10 moiety that has an oligomer distribution of 100% hexaglycerol and higher polyglycerols and 0% pentaglycerol and lower polyglycerols. One would have been motivated to do so because it is prima facie obvious to combine references when some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination. In the instant case, Rigg discloses the distribution of glycerol monomer units in polyglyceryl-10 may vary, while maintaining the polyglycerol-10 designation.
[Rigg, 0011] So, one would have been motivated by the expectation that the aforementioned modification would enable structural variability of polyglyceryl-10, via the distribution of the glycerol monomer units, while still maintaining the polyglyceryl-10 designation.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the formulation and process for preparing the formulation disclosed by Kozel by replacing polyglyceryl-10 caprylate/caprate with polyglyceryl-10 heptanoate, and have a reasonable expectation of success because Kozel discloses a formulation comprising polyglyceryl-10 caprylate/caprate. Polyglyceryl-10 caprylate/caprate is a polyglyceryl esterified with C8 and C10 fatty acids. However, Kozel discloses polyglyceryls esterified with C6-C18 fatty acids may be used in the formulation. A C7 fatty acid is heptanoic acid and polyglyceryl-10 esterified with heptanoic acid, yields polyglyceryl-10 heptanoate; and Kozel discloses such a compound may be used in the formulation. In view of this express teaching, it is reasonable to expect the formulation and process for preparing the formulation disclosed by Kozel may be modified by replacing polyglyceryl-10 caprylate/caprate with polyglyceryl-10 heptanoate. One would have been motivated to do so because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious. In the instant case, Kozel discloses polyglyceryls esterified with C6-C18 fatty acids may be used in the formulation. So, selecting a known material, polyglyceryl-10 heptanoate, based on its suitability, as a polyglyceryl esterified with a C7 fatty acid, for its intended use as a surfactant is prima facie obvious.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the formulation and process for preparing the formulation disclosed by Kozel by replacing the polyglyceryl-10 moiety of polyglyceryl-10 heptanoate with a polyglycerol-10 moiety that has an oligomer distribution of 100% hexaglycerol and higher polyglycerols and 0% pentaglycerol and lower polyglycerols, and have a reasonable expectation of success because Kozel discloses a formulation comprising, in one embodiment, polyglyceryl-10 heptanoate. Rigg discloses “polyglyceryl-10” may have an oligomer distribution comprising 100% octaglycerols, decaglycerols, and dodecaglyceryls, and by extension, 0% higher or lower glycerols. So, Kozel discloses a formulation comprising polyglyceryl-10 heptanoate, which contains a polyglyceryl-10 moiety, and Rigg discloses such a moiety may have an oligomer distribution comprising 100% octaglycerols, decaglycerols, and dodecaglyceryls, and by extension, 0% higher or lower glycerols. Thus, the combined teachings of Kozel and Rigg suggest the polyglyceryl-10 moiety of polyglyceryl-10 heptanoate may have an oligomer distribution comprising 100% octaglycerols, decaglycerols, and dodecaglyceryls, and by extension, 0% higher or lower glycerols. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect the formulation and process for preparing the formulation disclosed by Kozel may be further modified by replacing the polyglyceryl-10 moiety of polyglyceryl-10 heptanoate with a polyglycerol-10 moiety that has an oligomer distribution of 100% hexaglycerol and higher polyglycerols and 0% pentaglycerol and lower polyglycerols. One would have been motivated to do so because it is prima facie obvious to combine references when some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination. In the instant case, Rigg discloses the distribution of glycerol monomer units in polyglyceryl-10 may vary, while maintaining the polyglycerol-10 designation.
[Rigg, 0011] So, one would have been motivated by the expectation that the aforementioned modification would enable structural variability of polyglyceryl-10, via the distribution of the glycerol monomer units, while still maintaining the polyglyceryl-10 designation.
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, 2, 3, 4, 12, 14, and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 37 of copending Application No. 17/962,471, in view of O’Connell (US 2010/0196287 A1, Published 8/5/2010).
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 14, and 18 of the instant application are drawn to a formulation comprising water, one or more compounds of Formula (I), and at least one oral care benefit agent.
Claim 37 of the reference application is drawn to a formulation comprising water, one or more compounds of Formula (I), and glycerin.
However, O’Connell discloses glycerin is an oral care benefit agent. [O’Connell, 0148]
Modifying the reference application to recite an oral care benefit agent rather than glycerin, results in the formulation of claim 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 14, and 18.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reference application to recite an oral care benefit agent rather than glycerin and have a reasonable expectation of success because the reference application is drawn to a formulation comprising water, one or more compounds of Formula (I), and glycerin. O’Connell discloses glycerin is an oral care benefit agent. So, a POSITA would recognize glycerin as an oral care benefit agent. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect the reference application may be modified to recite an oral care benefit agent rather than glycerin. One would have been motivated to do so because the species disclosed by the reference application falls within the genus of an oral care benefit agent, which results in an inherent overlap between glycerin and an oral care benefit agent. So, the aforementioned modification would expand the scope of the reference application to include other species, like glycerin, that also fall within the genus.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 13 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 33 and 34 of copending Application No. 17/962,471, in view of Winn (US 2009/0143489 A1, Published 6/4/2009).
Claim 13 of the instant application is drawn to a formulation comprising water, one or more compounds of Formula (I), at least one oral care benefit agent, and one or more additives, such as preservatives.
Claim 33 and 34 of the reference application is drawn to a formulation comprising water, one or more compounds of Formula (I), a medium chain terminal diol, and a medium chain alkylhydroxamic acid.
However, Winn discloses medium chain terminal diols such as 1,2-pentanediol, 1,2-hexanediol, caprylyl glycol, and 1,2-decanediol are antimicrobials. [Winn, 0011] Antimicrobials are oral care benefit agents. Furthermore, Winn discloses alkylhydroxamic acid is a preservative. [Winn, 0031]
Modifying the reference application to recite an oral care benefit agent rather than a medium chain terminal diol and a preservative rather than a medium chain alkylhydroxamic acid, results in the formulation of claim 13.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reference application to recite an oral care benefit agent rather than a medium chain terminal diol and a preservative rather than a medium chain alkylhydroxamic acid, and have a reasonable expectation of success because the reference application is drawn to a formulation comprising water, one or more compounds of Formula (I), a medium chain terminal diol, and a medium chain alkylhydroxamic acid. Winn discloses medium chain terminal diols are antimicrobials, and therefore oral care benefit agents, and alkylhydroxamic acids are preservatives. So, a POSITA would recognize a medium chain terminal diol as an oral care benefit agent and an alkylhydroxamic acid as a preservative. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect the reference application may be modified to recite an oral care benefit agent rather than a medium chain terminal diol and a preservative rather than a medium chain alkylhydroxamic acid. One would have been motivated to do so because the species disclosed by the reference application falls within the genera of an oral care benefit agent and preservative, which results in an inherent overlap between a medium chain terminal diol and an oral care benefit agent and an alkylhydroxamic acid and a preservative. So, the aforementioned modification would expand the scope of the reference application to include other species, like medium chain terminal diols and alkylhydroxamic acids, that also fall within the described genera.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAILA A CRAIG whose telephone number is (703)756-4540. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0800-1600.
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, Michael Hartley can be reached at 571-272-0616. 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.
/K.A.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1618
/Michael G. Hartley/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1618