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 .
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.
Claim Status
Applicant’s amendment of 09/15/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1 and 15 are amended. Claims 1-15 are currently pending and are examined on the merits herein.
Priority
The instant application does not claim domestic benefit or foreign priority, as reflected on the filing receipt dated on 07/06/2023.
Withdrawn Objections and Rejections
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome/rendered moot the previous 112(b) rejection. Thus, the rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome/rendered moot the previous 103 rejections. Thus, the rejections are hereby withdrawn. Applicant’s amendment to the claims have prompted the new/revised grounds of rejection presented herein.
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.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (US20110070273A1; published: 03/24/2011; PTO-892 of instant action) in view of Oda et al. (JP2020132616A; 08/31/2020; PTO-892 of 06/16/2025) as evidenced by JIT Silicones (webpage, <https://www.jitsiliconesplus.com/xiameter-pmx-200-fluid-by-dow-corning/>; archived: 03/07/2021 of instant action).
Zheng, throughout the reference, teaches cosmetic compositions such as foundations and lip products comprising at least one matte-finished interference pigment, or MIP, in combination with one or more elastomers and one or more microspheres, which provides a natural look while allowing a high level of coverage (Paragraphs 0015 and Claims). An exemplary formulation comprises: 3 wt.% of the MIP Ronaflair balance/red/gold/blue, 2 wt.% of the microsphere nylon powder extra fine, 1 wt% of the microsphere cellulose beads, 3 wt.% of the elastomer Y-17843, 51 wt.% of the vehicle Dow Corning 200 Fluid, 15 wt.% of the vehicle Silicone Fluid SF-96-5, and 25 wt.% of the vehicle cyclomethicone pentamer (Paragraph 0073, Table 1, Example 5). “Vehicle” refers to a typical formulation to which the elastomer, microsphere, and/or MIP are added (Paragraph 0072).
Regarding claim 1: The formulation does not comprise water and therefore meets the instant limitation wherein the cosmetic composition is “anhydrous”. Nylon powder, which is present in 2 wt.% of the composition, reads on the instantly claimed synthetic polyamide in an amount of greater than 0 wt.% and no more than 4 wt.% of the composition. Cellulose beads read on the instantly claimed cellulose particles. MIP Ronaflair balance/red/gold/blue reads on the instantly claimed colorant. Dow Corning 200 Fluid, which is a polydimethylsiloxane polymer as evidenced by JIT Silicones (Page 4), Silicone Fluid SF-96-5, and cyclomethicone pentamer are volatile and non-volatile silicone oils as evidenced by the preferred embodiment disclosed by Zheng in Paragraph 0012 and, thus, read on the instantly claimed one or more oils. The elastomer Y-17483, which is a blend of dimethicone, cetearyl dimethicone crosspolymer, PEG/PPG-20/23 dimethicone, and BHT-BL (Paragraph 0028), does not comprise silsesquioxane and therefore meets the instant limitation wherein the composition is “free of a silsesquioxane elastomer”.
However, Zheng is silent as to the particle size of the cellulose beads. Further, Zheng does not explicitly teach that the cellulose particles are treated with a salt or an ester having a particle size of 15 µm as recited in claim 1, that the salt is a metal salt of a fatty acid as recited in claim 2, or that the metal salt of a fatty acid is magnesium stearate as recited in claim 3.
Oda, throughout the reference, teaches oily cosmetic preparations containing surface-treated spherical cellulose powder with an average particle size of 1.0 to 30.0 µm (Abstract).
Regarding the cellulose particles of claims 1-3: Oda teaches that when magnesium stearate-treated spherical cellulose powder is uniformly mixed with pigment, it improves dispersibility of the pigment within a cosmetic preparation (Paragraph 0029 and Table 2, Example 2). Oda further teaches that the Cellulobeads D-5 of Example 2 have an average particle size of 8.7 µm (Table 2 and Paragraph 0008). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the cellulose beads of Zheng with the Cellulobeads D-5 of Oda, which has a particle size that lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range, according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an oil-based cosmetic composition with improved dispersibility of pigment/colorant.
One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect success in modifying the anhydrous cosmetic composition of Zheng with the teachings of Oda as proposed because Oda teaches that the surface-treated cellulose can be used at any concentration ranging from 0.1 wt.% to 30.0 wt.% of a cosmetic preparation (Claim 2), which can include foundation, lipstick, etc. (Paragraph 0020). Additionally, Oda teaches compatibility of the surface-treated cellulose with other cosmetic powders, including nylon powder (Paragraph 0011).
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (US20110070273A1; published: 03/24/2011; PTO-892 of instant action) in view of Oda et al. (JP2020132616A; 08/31/2020; PTO-892 of 06/16/2025), as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Bekele et al. (US20050025793A1; published: 02/03/2005; PTO-892 of instant action) as evidenced by JIT Silicones (webpage, <https://www.jitsiliconesplus.com/xiameter-pmx-200-fluid-by-dow-corning/>; archived: 03/07/2021; PTO-892 of instant action).
The combination of Zheng and Oda as evidenced by JIT Silicones teaches the invention(s) of claims 1-3 as discussed in detail above and further incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 5: The silicone oils present in the anhydrous cosmetic composition taught by the combination of Zheng and Oda meet the claim.
Regarding claim 7: Zheng further teaches that the vehicle may comprise an oil phase or a silicone phase individually or as a mixture (Paragraph 0050), wherein the oil phase may comprise one or more of waxes (Paragraph 0053). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition taught by the combination of Zheng and Oda by further including a wax because Zheng teaches that a skilled person would select any of the disclosed vehicles in order to impart a high-coverage yet natural look (Paragraph 0054).
However, the combination of Zheng and Oda does not explicitly teach that the composition comprises a hydrocarbon-based oil as recited in instant claim 4, from which claims 5 and 7 ultimately depend, or the relative amounts of the silicone and hydrocarbon oils recited in claim 6.
Bekele, throughout the reference, teaches anhydrous cosmetic compositions such as lip compositions comprising a mixture of silicones and a volatile carrier, which provides a durable film after application and resists degradation over time (Abstract and Paragraph 0002).
Regarding claim 4: Bekele explicitly teaches that hydrocarbon oils are useful volatile carriers for delivering organosiloxanes to the skin surface (Paragraph 0033). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anhydrous cosmetic composition taught by the combination of Zheng and Oda by further including a hydrocarbon oil as a volatile carrier of the existing silicone oils, which as discussed above comprise organosiloxanes, because Bekele teaches that it improves delivery of silicone-based anhydrous cosmetics and leaves a thin durable film, which is resistant to transfer upon contact with objects such as clothing, towels, cups, handkerchiefs, and tissues (Paragraphs 0002 and 0033-0038).
Regarding claim 6: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the amount of hydrocarbon oil using 10 wt.%, which is less than the total amount of silicone oil present, as a starting point for routine optimization of the composition because Bekele teaches that this amount is suitable for achieving easy transfer of organosiloxanes to the skin surface (Paragraphs 0034-0035).
Together, the combination of Zheng, Oda, and Bekele teach all limitations of instant claims 1-7.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the anhydrous cosmetic composition taught by the combination of Zheng and Oda with the teachings of Bekele as proposed because hydrocarbon oils are known in the art to be useful carriers of organosiloxanes, Zheng supports the formulation of vehicles comprising both oils and silicones, and Zheng further teaches that forming a film to conceal imperfections is a particularly advantageous property (Paragraphs 0038 and 0067).
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (US20110070273A1; published: 03/24/2011; PTO-892 of instant action) in view of Oda et al. (JP2020132616A; 08/31/2020; PTO-892 of 06/16/2025) and Bekele et al. (US20050025793A1; published: 02/03/2005; PTO-892 of instant action), as applied to claims 1-7 above, and further in view of School of Natural Skincare (webpage, <https://www.schoolofnaturalskincare.com/what-ingredients-quantities-skincare-recipes/>; archived: 10/27/2020) as evidenced by JIT Silicones (webpage, <https://www.jitsiliconesplus.com/xiameter-pmx-200-fluid-by-dow-corning/>; archived: 03/07/2021; PTO-892 of instant action) and International Federation of Societies of Cosmetic Chemists (Cosmetic Raw Material Analysis and Quality, vol. 1, p. 1-150; published: 1994).
The combination of Zheng, Oda, and Bekele as evidenced by JIT Silicones teaches the invention(s) of claims 1-7 as discussed in detail above and further incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 9: Zheng teaches that the composition may comprise additional microspheres as fillers to provide smooth feel and soft-focus effect (Paragraphs 0023). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anhydrous cosmetic composition taught by the combination of Zheng, Oda, and Bekele by further including an additional microsphere filler in order to achieve a desired feel or look.
Regarding claim 10: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the amount of cellulose beads in the composition taught by the combination of Zheng, Oda, and Bekele using 4 wt.% as a starting point for routine optimization because Zheng exemplifies that this amount is also useful for producing compositions that provide increased coverage and naturalness (Paragraph 0073, Table 1, Example 3). The modified amount of cellulose lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range and would result in a ratio of synthetic polyamide to cellulose particles of 2:4 (also written as 1:2) which lies within and renders obvious the instantly claimed ratio.
Regarding claim 12: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the amount of additional microsphere filler using 9 wt.%, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range, as a starting point for routine optimization because Zheng teaches that 15 wt.% of microsphere (including the 2 wt.% nylon powder and the 4 wt.% cellulose beads) is the preferred maximum amount used to achieve a desired coverage and naturalness (Paragraph 0010).
However, the combination of Zheng, Oda, and Bekele does not explicitly teach that the composition comprises a fatty ester as recited in instant claim 8, from which claims 9 and 10 ultimately depend; the further concentration limitations recited in claim 11, from which claims 12 and 13 ultimately depend; or the specific formulation recited in claim 13.
School of Natural Skincare, throughout the reference, teaches formulations for anhydrous skincare products (Page 2).
Regarding claim 8: School of Natural Skincare teaches that anhydrous cosmetics such as lip balms are routinely made with a reasonable amount of butter (Page 7), wherein butter is primarily comprised of glycerides and esters of fatty acids as evidenced by International Federation of Societies of Cosmetic Chemists (Page 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anhydrous cosmetic composition taught by the combination of Zheng, Oda, and Bekele by further including a butter because International Federation of Societies of Cosmetic Chemists teaches that the ingredient is routinely incorporated into anhydrous cosmetics to achieve a desired texture, skin feel, thickness, etc. (Page 7).
Regarding claim 11: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the total amounts of hydrocarbon-based oil and silicone oil, fatty ester, and wax using approximately 49.5%, 20%, and 30%, respectively, which each lie within and thus render obvious the claimed ranges, as a starting point for routine optimization of the cosmetic composition because School of Natural Skincare Cosmetics teaches that these amounts of carrier oil, butter, and wax are typically used to formulate anhydrous cosmetic compositions such as lip balms, wherein quantities are adjusted according to desired formulation type and properties (Page 7). As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that the amounts should be optimized to account for additional ingredients such as fillers, pigments, etc. School of Natural Skincare Cosmetics is silent on the unit of measure of the concentrations, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that anhydrous compositions are most commonly formulated by weight due to the presence of solid powders and lipids that solidify.
Regarding claim 13: The claim uses the transitional phrase “consists of”, which excludes any element, step, or ingredient not specified in the claim. Note: MPEP 2111.03(II). As discussed above, the composition taught by the combination of Zheng, Oda, Bekele, and School of Natural Skincare consists only of synthetic polyamide, cellulose particles, colorant, hydrocarbon-based oil, silicone oil, wax, fatty ester, filler, and elastomer. While the composition comprises 3 wt.% elastomer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the amount of elastomer using 0.1 wt.%, which lies within and thus renders obvious the claimed range of “all other materials”, as a starting point for routine optimization because Zheng teaches that this is the preferred minimum amount of elastomer used to achieve a desired coverage and naturalness (Paragraph 0010). As such, the anhydrous cosmetic composition taught by the combination of Zheng, Oda, Bekele, and School of Natural Skincare meets all limitations as instantly claimed.
It is generally noted that differences in concentrations do not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Given that Applicant did not point out the criticality of the concentrations of the invention, it is concluded that the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known would provide the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of ranges is the optimum concentration. NOTE: MPEP 2144.05.
Together, the combination of Zheng, Oda, Bekele, and School of Natural Skincare teach all limitations of instant claims 1-13.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the anhydrous cosmetic composition taught by the combination of Zheng, Oda, and Bekele with the teachings of School of Natural Skincare as proposed because all ingredients and concentrations are known in the art to be useful in formulating anhydrous cosmetics according to desired texture, skin feel, thickness, etc., and Zheng teaches that fatty esters are suitable vehicles for use in its compositions (Paragraph 0049), which may be formulated as lip products.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (US20110070273A1; published: 03/24/2011; PTO-892 of instant action) in view of Oda et al. (JP2020132616A; 08/31/2020; PTO-892 of 06/16/2025), Bekele et al. (US20050025793A1; published: 02/03/2005; PTO-892 of instant action), and School of Natural Skincare (webpage, <https://www.schoolofnaturalskincare.com/what-ingredients-quantities-skincare-recipes/>; archived: 10/27/2020), as applied to claims 1-13 above, and further in view of de Clermont-Gallerande et al. (OCL, vol. 27, p. 1-13; published: 07/01/2020; PTO-892 of 06/16/2025) as evidenced by JIT Silicones (webpage, <https://www.jitsiliconesplus.com/xiameter-pmx-200-fluid-by-dow-corning/>; archived: 03/07/2021; PTO-892 of instant action) and International Federation of Societies of Cosmetic Chemists (Cosmetic Raw Material Analysis and Quality, vol. 1, p. 1-150; published: 1994).
The combination of Zheng, Oda, Bekele, and School of Natural Skincare as evidenced by JIT Silicones and International Federation of Societies of Cosmetic Chemists teaches the invention(s) of claims 1-13 as discussed in detail above and further incorporated herein.
The combination of references is silent as to the hardness of the composition over six months as it relates to claim 14.
de Clermont-Gallerande, throughout the reference, teaches functional roles of lipids in make-up products, including anhydrous products (Abstract and Pages 2-4).
Regarding claim 14: de Clermont-Gallerande teaches that adjusting the wax content of an anhydrous cosmetic such as a lipstick within the range of 10 – 25 wt% allows for an anhydrous composition that does not break on its first application (Pages 2-3 and Table 1), suggesting that the wax content is critical in controlling the stability of a cosmetic’s hardness from the time of manufacture to the time of use by the consumer. Therefore, hardness stability is a parameter that a person of ordinary skill in the art would routinely optimize through manipulation of the cosmetic’s wax content in order to ensure that the cosmetic’s hardness remains the same from the time of manufacture to the time of use, whether that timeframe be a number of weeks, months, or even years.
One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect success in modifying the anhydrous cosmetic composition taught by the combination of Zheng, Oda, Bekele, and School of Natural Skincare with the teachings of de Clermont-Gallerande as proposed because de Clermont-Gallerande teaches that wax contents are routinely optimized to impart desired characteristics to anhydrous cosmetic compositions.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (US20110070273A1; published: 03/24/2011; PTO-892 of instant action) in view of Oda et al. (JP2020132616A; 08/31/2020; PTO-892 of 06/16/2025), Bekele et al. (US20050025793A1; published: 02/03/2005; PTO-892 of instant action), School of Natural Skincare (webpage, <https://www.schoolofnaturalskincare.com/what-ingredients-quantities-skincare-recipes/>; archived: 10/27/2020), and de Clermont-Gallerande et al. (OCL, vol. 27, p. 1-13; published: 07/01/2020; PTO-892 of 06/16/2025), as applied to claims 1-14 above, and further in view of Rica et al. (EP0566442B1; published: 01/03/1996; PTO-892 of 06/16/2025) and Kobayashi (US20200299488A1; published: 09/24/2020; PTO-892 of 06/16/2025) as evidenced by JIT Silicones (webpage, <https://www.jitsiliconesplus.com/xiameter-pmx-200-fluid-by-dow-corning/>; archived: 03/07/2021; PTO-892 of instant action) and International Federation of Societies of Cosmetic Chemists (Cosmetic Raw Material Analysis and Quality, vol. 1, p. 1-150; published: 1994).
The combination of Zheng, Oda, Bekele, School of Natural Skincare, and de Clermont-Gallerande as evidenced by JIT Silicones and International Federation of Societies of Cosmetic Chemists teaches the invention(s) of claims 1-14 as discussed in detail above and further incorporated herein.
However, the combination of Zheng, Oda, Bekele, School of Natural Skincare, and de Clermont-Gallerande does not explicitly teach a method comprising the active steps of providing an anhydrous lipstick composition base comprising one or more colorants and adding a synthetic polyamide and cellulose particles to the composition base as recited in claim 15.
Rica, throughout the reference, teaches a process for the preparation of a matte lipstick composition, which comprises the addition of a matting agent, namely spheres of a polyvinylidene copolymer, to a lipstick base so as to obtain a matte appearance as well as homogenous and creamy texture (Paragraphs 0010-0011). More specifically, the base is produced by grinding the pigments into the oily ingredients, followed by the addition of melted waxy ingredients, then addition of other solid substances, then addition of the hollow microspheres of the polyvinylidene copolymer (Paragraph 0021).
Regarding instant claim 15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the process for preparing a matte lipstick taught by Rica to manufacture the anhydrous cosmetic composition taught by the combination of Zheng, Oda, Bekele, School of Natural Skincare, and de Clermont-Gallerande, which as discussed above may be a lip product, to ultimately provide matte color delivery with a lipstick having stable hardness. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the method of Rica because the reference teaches that the addition of synthetic polymer microspheres to a lipstick base comprising pigments, oily ingredients, and waxy ingredients produces a homogenous and creamy texture without resulting in an undesirable shiny effect (Paragraph 0009).
While Rica teaches the use of polyvinylidene microspheres to produce the mattifying effect, Kobayashi teaches cellulose and cellulose derivatives as natural alternatives to synthetic polymer microspheres used in cosmetics for the purpose of imparting a blurring effect and improving the spread of the cosmetic (Paragraphs 0002, 0005, and 0008). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that applying the method of Rica to the teachings of Zheng, Oda, Bekele, School of Natural Skincare, and de Clermont-Gallerande would not change the properties of the lipstick composition. Further, because the cellulose and nylon microspheres are both included within the powder component of the composition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the nylon at the same time as the cellulose when applying the method of Rica.
The lipstick composition base taught by the combination of Zheng, Oda, Bekele, School of Natural Skincare, de Clermont-Gallerande, Rica, and Kobayashi does not contain water, which meets the limitation wherein the base is anhydrous, and does not contain a silsesquioxane elastomer, thus meeting the limitation wherein the base is free of a silsesquioxane elastomer as recited in claim 15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submitted on 09/15/2025 with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH CLINKSCALES WISTNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7715. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Sue Liu can be reached at (571)272-5539. 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.
/SARAH C WISTNER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1616
/SUE X LIU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1616