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 .
Status of the Claims
Amendments to the Claims and Arguments/Remarks filed 28 October 2025, in response to the Office Correspondence dated 28 July 2025, are acknowledged.
The listing of Claims filed 28 October 2025, have been examined. Claims 1-5, 7, and 8 are pending. Claims 1 and 7 are amended and are supported by the originally-filed disclosure. Claim 6 is canceled and no new claims have been added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement, filed 25 August 2025, is acknowledged and has been considered.
Response to Amendment
The Applicant’s remarks filed in response to the prior Office Action have been fully considered. The Examiner has reconsidered the application in view of the Applicant’s remarks and the amended claims.
Claims 1 and 7 have been amended to recite that the compositions are “in the form of a single aqueous phase” and claim 1 has been amended to clarify the weight basis for percentage limitations.
The rejection of claims 1-5 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite is withdrawn. The amendment adding the phrase “based on the total weight of the composition” to claims 1 and 7 has cured the indefiniteness noted in the previous Office Action. Accordingly, dependent claims 2-5 and 8 are no longer indefinite for this reason. Since claim 6 has been cancelled, the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection is moot.
However, claims 1 and 7 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention. The addition of the phrase “single aqueous phase” to amended claims 1 and 7 is a relative and a functional phrase that lacks clear boundaries in the context of the claims.
The prior claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8 rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and claims 1, 3, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn based on the addition of the new limitation requiring a single aqueous phase in amended claims 1, in which claims 2-5 and 8 depend, and amended claim 7. However, a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is made for claims 1-5, 7 and 8, as necessitated by the amendment to adding the limitation “in the form of a single aqueous phase”. The prior art of record, Hernandez (US20210401682A1), discloses or suggests all limitations of the instant claimed invention. The amendments and arguments presented have not advanced the claims to patentability. The arguments of the Remarks are addressed below in the Response to Arguments.
New Rejections
The following new rejections are made from the previous Office Correspondence dated 28 July 2025, as the Applicant's amendment adding the new limitation of “in the form of a single aqueous phase” to claims 1 and 7 necessitated the new 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 103 grounds of rejection presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 Applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 7 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, regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 7 are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention. The phrase “single aqueous phase” is a relative and functional term that lacks clear boundaries in the context of the claims. The specification inconsistently describes compositions that are: “single phase aqueous compositions” (¶[0043]), yet optionally contain oils, emollients, esters, silicone oils, alkyl esters, and other hydrophobic materials (¶[0045]–[0052]), which would ordinarily form separate phases or require emulsification or solubilization. The claims do not specify whether trace oils, oil-soluble actives, or emulsifiers are excluded; whether solubilized hydrophobic components are permitted; or how phase determination is assessed (visual inspection, centrifugation, microscopy, storage conditions, etc.). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of “single aqueous phase,” rendering the claims indefinite (see MPEP §§ 2173.02 and 2173.05(b)). To overcome this rejection, the Applicant may amend the claim to clarify the metes and bounds of “single aqueous phase”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-5, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez (US20210401682A1; publication date: 30 December 2021).
Regarding instant claims 1, 2 and 4, Hernandez teaches a topical composition (claim 1) comprising from about 2-30 wt. % ascorbic acid (claim 4), epigallocatechin gallate antioxidant system comprises green tea polyphenols (claim 7) from about 0-0.5 wt. % (claim 14), cosmetically acceptable excipient(s) (claims 16 and 17) including from about 5-95 wt. % water (¶[0060]) and from about 2-25 wt. % propanediol (¶[0058]), all relative to the total weight of the topical composition.
In Table 1 (¶[0166]), Hernandez teaches to composition with 50–60 wt.% water and 5–15 wt.% propanediol. The weight ratio of water to propanediol in Hernandez is at least 3.3 (50/15), which inherently meets the claimed ratios of at least 0.6 and 0.8.
Hernadez teaches, “The cosmetic sunscreen compositions, for example creams, gels, lotions, alcoholic and aqueous/alcoholic solutions, emulsions, wax/fat compositions, stick preparations, powders or ointments, may in addition contain..." (¶[0092]), however, Hernadez primarily describes and claims the composition as an emulsion (claim 1).
While Hernandez describes certain embodiments as emulsions, Hernandez does not limit all embodiments to emulsions, nor does he require the presence of an oily phase in every composition. The disclosure broadly teaches solvent-based topical compositions (e.g., (¶[0092]) and explicitly contemplates formulation variation of components (¶[0165] and ¶[0196]). Hernandez describes compositions as including "cosmetically acceptable excipients" which constitute "from about 5-95 wt. % water and about 2-25 wt. % propanediol" (see ¶[0060], ¶[0058]). In its broadest teaching, Hernandez encompasses compositions consisting solely of water, propanediol, ascorbic acid, and green tea polyphenols (EGCG) within the claimed ranges, which would innately be a single aqueous phase. The property of being a "single aqueous phase" would be a resultant physical state of a mixture of disclosed ingredients in disclosed amounts. A skilled artisan would understand that a stable solution of the aqueous components disclosed by Hernandez (e.g., water, propanediol, ascorbic acid, EGCG) could be made without any oil phase. There is no disclosure in Hernandez that requires the presence of an oily phase or emulsifier in every possible formulation within its scope.
Further, Hernandez expressly acknowledges phase separation issues in emulsions (¶[0162]) and broadly teaches formulation flexibility and explicitly contemplates formulation variation of components (¶[0165] and ¶[0196]). Omitting oil-phase components to produce an aqueous-only formulation represents a predictable variation to the example embodiments of the invention outlined in Table 1 by Hernandez, motivated by the desire to avoid phase separation issues in emulsions noted by Hernandez, to improve stability, reduce formulation complexity, and avoid the use of potential irritants (e.g., emulsifiers). Such modification would have been within the ordinary skill of a cosmetic formulator with a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP §§ 2143 and 2144). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in creating a stable single-phase solution, as the aqueous phase components (water, propanediol, ascorbic acid, EGCG) are all soluble and compatible. Such compositional serums are a common and well-known product form in cosmetics for delivering active ingredients like vitamin C (see the Background of the instant application at ¶[0003]-[0004] discussing aqueous systems). Therefore, the “single aqueous phase” limitation does not render the claims nonobvious. The instant claims also do not exclude solubilized oil-soluble components, nor do they define “single aqueous phase” in a manner that would clearly distinguish over the solvent-based aqueous formulations indicated by Hernandez. Thus, the combination of these components in the disclosed ranges renders instant claims 1, 2 and 4 obvious.
Hernandez teaches a topical composition (claim 1) comprising a cosmetically acceptable excipient including epidermal penetration enhancer, solvent, solubilizers, or combinations thereof (claims 16-18), wherein 1,3-propanediol is an ingredient used in cosmetics and personal care products serving these functions. Further, Hernandez teaches that each solvent individually or all solvents together may be present at a concentration ranging from about 0.5-95 wt. %, and the concentration of all solvents, excluding water, in the topical composition ranges from about 0.5-50 wt. %, based on total weight of the topical composition (¶[0057]).
While Hernandez discloses narrower ranges for alkanediols in certain embodiments (¶[0058]), Hernandez also expressly teaches that solvents individually or collectively may be present up to 50 wt.% excluding water (¶[0057]) and formulation changes and substitutions are within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art (¶[0165] and ¶[0196]). Thus, instant claim 3 is rejected as obvious.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instant effective filing date to increase the propanediol to 40 wt.% of more with a reasonable expectation of success, as this solvent range is openly taught by Hernandez. Selecting a higher proportion of 1,3-propanediol within the disclosed solvent ranges represents a routine optimization of a result-effective variable (see MPEP § 2144.05). One would be motivated to make the change to improve long-term stability and shelf life and skin penetration of an ascorbic acid formulation.
Regarding instant claim 5, Hernandez teaches a pH range of from about 2.0–4.0 (¶[0076]), wherein he defines about to include ±10% (¶[0195]), effectively teaching a pH range of 1.8-4.4 for the composition, and therefore anticipating the instant claim.
Regarding instant claim 7, Hernandez discloses the topical composition comprising 10-30 wt. % ascorbic acid, >0-0.5 wt. % green tea polyphenols (which can include epigallocatechin gallate per claim 7), all relative to the total weight of the topical composition, and water, wherein the weight ratio of water to propanediol in the composition is at least 0.6 (Table 1, ¶[0166]). While this specific example only includes 5-15 wt. % propanediol, Hernandez teaches that solvents individually or collectively may be present up to 50 wt.% excluding water (¶[0057]) and formulation changes and substitutions are within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art (¶[0165] and ¶[0196]). Increasing 1,3-propanediol to at least 40% by weight based on the total weight of the composition would be obvious based on the concentration ranges disclosed for solvents disclosed by Hernandez elsewhere in the Specification, as described above for instant claim 3 above.
Hernandez does not explicitly specify the composition containing feverfew extract or gluconolactone. However, Hernandez does teach the composition comprising additional antioxidants and biogenic active ingredients (claim 17), including plant extracts (¶[0097]). Further, regarding feverfew extract, Hernandez teaches plants composed of a high content of polyphenols with antioxidant properties are included in any of the topical compositions described herein (¶[0042]; specifically exemplifies green tea but also applies to feverfew). Hernandez also specifies the use of additional antioxidants selected from luteolin, quercetin, kaempferol, apigenin, equivalent derivatives thereof, and combinations thereof (claim 10; claims 11 and 12 also apply specifically for apigenin), wherein feverfew plants contain these flavonoids as evidence by Michalak et al. (evidentiary reference: Michalak et al., Chemical Composition of Extracts from Various Parts of Feverfew (Tanacetum parthenium L.) and Their Antioxidant, Protective, and Antimicrobial Activities. Int J Mol Sci. 2024 Nov 13;25(22):12179).
Regarding gluconolactone, Hernandez teaches the composition comprising biogenic active ingredients (claim 17), including AHA [alpha-hydroxy acid] acids (¶[0097]), additional antioxidants (claims 17 and 18) and glucose derivatives (¶[0089]). Wherein, gluconolactone is a naturally occurring polyhydroxy acid derived from glucose that exhibits free radical scavenging antioxidant properties.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instant effective filing date to add the missing limitations of propanediol (≥40 wt.%) as addressed under instant claim 3, and feverfew extract and gluconolactone to the invention of Hernandez with a reasonable expectation of success. The additions of feverfew extract and gluconolactone to the composition would be obvious because Hernandez teaches the composition comprising biogenic active ingredients including plant extracts and additional antioxidants, specifically including main active ingredients contained in feverfew extract (i.e., flavonoids apigenin and luteolin). Hernandez also teaches the composition comprising glucose derivatives and AHA [alpha-hydroxy acid] acids. While gluconolactone is a recognized antioxidant and glucose derivative used as a skincare additive, it is not a AHA acid, however it is a polyhydroxy acid, which is often used as a milder alternative to AHAs like glycolic acid.
Thus, Hernandez discloses broader types of ingredients which include the more specific kind of ingredients of the instant invention and the specific inclusion of feverfew extract and gluconolactone, used in the same manner for the same purpose, would be an obvious variation of the invention disclosed by Hernandez. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make these modifications to create an optimized formulation by adding complementary antioxidant power while also providing gentle exfoliation and hydration (i.e., gluconolactone), and reducing potential irritation caused by higher concentrations of ascorbic acid (i.e., anti-inflammatory properties feverfew extract) to improve the overall appearance of skin. No unexpected results or critical limitations are demonstrated to overcome prima facie obviousness.
Regarding instant claim 8, Hernandez expressly discloses “the instant disclosure is directed to a method of treating the skin of a subject for effects of radical-induced damage, a method of brightening the skin of a subject… These methods include administering, to the skin of the subject, any of the topical compositions described herein.” (¶[0011]; see also claim 44), additionally, he also discloses wherein the instant disclosure is directed to composition and method of treating skin of a subject for enhancing radiance (¶[0017]) and improving hyperpigmentation (¶[0020]). As the composition of instant claim 1 is anticipated, the method of instant claim 8 using that composition is likewise anticipated. Applying the composition topically for cosmetic skin brightening or lightening purposes is explicitly taught and anticipates instant claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant Arguments/Remarks of the reply, filed 28 October 2025, have been fully considered.
The Applicant argues that amendment of claim 1 and 7 to require a “single aqueous phase” renders the respective anticipation and obviousness rejections moot. The Examiner acknowledges that while Hernadez teaches, “The cosmetic sunscreen compositions, for example creams, gels, lotions, alcoholic and aqueous/alcoholic solutions, emulsions, wax/fat compositions, stick preparations, powders or ointments, may in addition contain..." (¶[0092]), Hernadez primarily describes and claims the composition as an emulsion (claim 1). Hence, the anticipation and obviousness rejections of the previous Office Action have been withdrawn on the basis of the new limitation and new obviousness rejections have been issued for the claims.
Hernandez discloses topical compositions comprising ascorbic acid (2–30 wt.%), green tea polyphenols including EGCG, water, propanediol, all relative to the total weight of the composition (¶[0058], ¶[0060], and ¶[0166]). While Hernandez describes certain embodiments as emulsions, Hernandez does not limit all embodiments to emulsions, nor does he require the presence of an oily phase in every composition. The disclosure broadly teaches solvent-based topical compositions (e.g., (¶[0092]) and explicitly contemplates formulation variation of components (¶[0165] and ¶[0196]). Further, the instant claims do not exclude solubilized oil-soluble components, nor do they define “single aqueous phase” in a manner that would clearly distinguish over the solvent-based aqueous formulations indicated by Hernandez.
The Applicant contends that converting Hernandez’s emulsion into a single aqueous phase would be “nonsensical” and contrary to cosmetic formulation practice. This argument is not persuasive as Hernandez explicitly describes its compositions as including "cosmetically acceptable excipients" which constitute "from about 5-95 wt. % water and about 2-25 wt. % propanediol" (see ¶[0060], ¶[0058]). In its broadest teaching, Hernandez encompasses compositions consisting solely of water, propanediol, ascorbic acid, and green tea polyphenols (EGCG) within the claimed ranges, which would inherently be a single aqueous phase. There is no disclosure in the specification of Hernandez that requires the presence of an oily phase or emulsifier in every possible formulation within its scope.
The Examiner's citation to Table 1 was to demonstrate that a specific, working example within Hernandez falls within the claimed ranges for ascorbic acid, EGCG, water, and propanediol ratio. The embodiment of Table 1 meets all limitations of original claim 1, but does not meet the newly added “single aqueous phase” limitation. However, as argued above, the broader disclosure of Hernandez includes the components in amounts that would form a single aqueous phase. A skilled artisan reading Hernandez would understand that a stable solution of its disclosed aqueous components (e.g., water, propanediol, ascorbic acid, EGCG) could be made without any oil phase.
The Applicant contends Hernandez is “silent as to how the composition of Table 1 was made.” However, anticipation and obviousness do not require the prior art to specify a manufacturing method, it requires that the prior art disclose the claimed composition or the teachings render the claimed composition obvious to try. The composition itself, defined by its components in the disclosed amounts, is taught and the physical state as a single aqueous phase solution is an innate property of a mixture of components in those proportions, absent any emulsifying agents or oils to create a separate phase. The property of being a "single aqueous phase" is not a novel component or compositional relationship, but a resultant physical state of a mixture of disclosed ingredients in disclosed amounts.
Further, Hernandez expressly acknowledges phase separation issues in emulsions (¶[0162]) and broadly teaches formulation flexibility. An aqueous-only formulation represents a predictable variation of the invention embodiments exemplified by Hernandez in Table1. The motivation to do so is explicitly provided by Hernandez itself at ¶[0162], which notes that emulsions may separate and require shaking. Avoiding phase separation, simplifying manufacturing, and reducing potential irritants (e.g., emulsifiers) are well-established and sufficient motivations for a formulator. Such composition serums are a common and well-known product form in cosmetics for delivering active ingredients like vitamin C (see the Background of the instant application at ¶[0003]-[0004] discussing aqueous systems).
There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in creating a stable single-phase solution, as the aqueous phase components (water, propanediol, ascorbic acid, EGCG) are all soluble and compatible. Such modification would have been within the ordinary skill of a cosmetic formulator with a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP §§ 2143 and 2144). Therefore, the “single aqueous phase” limitation of instant claim 1 does not render the claims nonobvious. The Applicant has not provided any evidence that such a modification would be unexpectedly difficult or would destroy the stability or efficacy demonstrated by Hernandez.
The Applicant argues that “conversion from one format to another is not a simple thing.” However, obviousness does not require that the modification be simple, only that it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success to one of ordinary skill.
Instant claims 2, 4, and 5 are directed to specific concentrations and ratios (i.e., 0.1% EGCG, water:propanediol ratio of at least 0.8, pH 3.6-4.2) all taught or suggested by Hernandez (see Table 1 for ratios, ¶[0076] for pH encompassing the claimed range, and claim 14 for EGCG content). Instant claim 8 recites a method of applying the composition of claim 1 for skin brightening, wherein Hernandez explicitly discloses methods of brightening skin by administering the disclosed topical compositions (¶[0011]). As the composition of instant claim 1 is obvious in view of the teachings by Hernandez, the method of instant claim 8 using that composition is likewise obvious.
The Applicant also argues that Hernandez teaches away from the use of ≥40 wt.% 1,3-propanediol as in the limitation of instant claim 3 and that Hernandez’s alkanediol disclosure is limited to lower ranges. The argument is not persuasive.
While Hernandez discloses narrower ranges for alkanediols in certain embodiments (¶[0058]), Hernandez also expressly teaches that solvents individually or collectively may be present up to 50 wt.% excluding water (¶[0057]) and formulation changes and substitutions are within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art (¶[0165] and ¶[0196]). Selecting a higher proportion of 1,3-propanediol within the disclosed solvent ranges represents a routine optimization of a result-effective variable (see MPEP § 2144.05).
The Applicant incorrectly asserts Hernandez “teaches away” from using at least 40% propanediol by citing ¶[0058]. Paragraph [0058] provides preferred ranges for an alkanediol (e.g., propylene glycol which may also be referred to as propanediol). It does not prohibit higher amounts. Critically, ¶[0057] provides a broader, enabling range for “all solvents, excluding water” of “about 0.5 wt. %... to any of about ... 40 wt. %, about 45 wt. %, or about 50 wt. %.” A formulator, seeking to maximize solvent capacity for ascorbic acid and improve stability, would have been motivated to use propanediol at the higher end of this broadly disclosed range (e.g., 40-50%). The motivation to increase solvent content to dissolve and stabilize a challenging active like high-concentration ascorbic acid is inherent in the art. The fact that 1,2-propanediol (propylene glycol) is exemplified does not render the use of its isomer, 1,3-propanediol, non-obvious. Both are common, commercially available glycol solvents with similar properties used in cosmetic formulations.
Further, the Applicant’s evidence in Example 1 demonstrates that compositions across a continuum of water:1,3-propanediol ratios exhibit varying stability, but does not establish criticality of the ≥40 wt.% threshold itself relative to the teachings of Hernandez. The Applicant relies on Example 1 to allege unexpected stability associated with a water:1,3-propanediol ratio of at least 0.6. While the data show differences among tested formulations, the evidence: does not compare the claimed invention to the closest Hernandez embodiments; does not establish that Hernandez-like formulations fall outside the claimed stability window; does not demonstrate criticality of a single aqueous phase relative to emulsions. Therefore, the evidence is insufficient to overcome the prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP § 716.02). Thus, it would have been obvious to increase the propanediol content to this level based on the broad solvent ranges (0.5-95 wt.%) disclosed in Hernandez (¶[0057]), particularly for the purpose of enhancing solubility and stability of ascorbic acid.
Instant claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hernandez, as the Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the prima facie case of obviousness for the reasons stated above regarding the “single aqueous phase” limitation of instant claim 1.
Instant claim 7 further recites feverfew extract and gluconolactone, wherein Hernandez teaches inclusion of plant extracts and polyphenol-rich antioxidants (¶[0042] and ¶[0097]), including flavonoids such as apigenin and luteolin (claims 10–12) and glucose derivatives and hydroxy acids (¶[0089] and ¶[0097]). Feverfew extract, a known anti-inflammatory botanical, is a known source of apigenin and luteolin. Gluconolactone is a known glucose-derived polyhydroxy acid used for antioxidant, gentle exfoliating and moisturizing purposes.
The addition of these ingredients represents the predictable use of known equivalents for the same purpose taught by Hernandez. No evidence of unexpected results attributable specifically to feverfew extract or gluconolactone has been provided or evidence of an unexpected synergy arising from the combination of these specific ingredients with the Hernandez base formulation. It would have been obvious to a formulator to incorporate a known anti-inflammatory botanical, feverfew extract, and a known antioxidant and gentle exfoliant/moisturizer, gluconolactone, into the Hernandez composition to provide complementary skin benefits (e.g., soothing, exfoliation) for an anti-aging/brightening compositions.
In summary, instant claims 1-5, 7, and 8 are obvious over Hernandez and therefore are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The new grounds of rejection are necessitated by the newly cited limitations to the amended instant claims 1 and 7.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 (87 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 REBECCA L. SCOTLAND whose telephone number is (571) 272-2979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’ s supervisor, Robert A. Wax can be reached at (571) 272-0623. 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:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent- center for more information about Patent Center and https:/Awww.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.
/RL Scotland/
Examiner, Art Unit 1615
/Robert A Wax/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1615