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 Claims
Receipt of Remarks/Amendments filed on 03/10/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 17, and 21 are amended and claims 2, 9-10, and 20 are cancelled. Claims 22-24 are new. Claims 1, 3-8, 11-19, and 21-24 are currently pending and are examined on the merits herein.
Priority
The instant application filed 04/06/2023, is a 371 filing of PCT/EP2021/077250, filed 10/04/2021, which claims foreign priority to EP20200973.4, filed 10/09/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/25/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Withdrawn Rejections
Claims 1, 4-12, 15-16, 18-19, and 21 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Majka. Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 has overcome the rejection and the rejection is withdrawn.
Claims 1-9, 11-12, 15-17, 19, and 21 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee. Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 has overcome the rejection and the rejection is withdrawn.
The following rejections are maintained and new, with new rejections being necessitated by amendment:
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.
1. Claims 1, 3-8, 11-19, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majka, Z., (WO 2018024662 A1, 02/08/2018, on record), hereinafter Majka, in view of Kitaoka, H, (JP 2015174840 A, 10/05/2015, IDS dated 11/17/2025), hereinafter Kitaoka, as evidenced by SK-INFLUX ® Product Data Record, Evonik Nutrition& Care GmbH. (02/26/2016). Edition 20, (on record), hereinafter Evonik, and Tego® Care PBS 6. myChem. (2016, October 11). (on record), hereinafter myChem.
Majka discloses a skin composition in the form of a spray, as well as the use of such a skin composition and spray (abstract).
Regarding claim 1: Majka teaches sprays comprising the skin composition of the invention (Examples). The spray of Example 2 (p. 7-8) comprises 3% of TEGO Care PBS 6 and 3% of SK-Influx. SK-Influx comprises ceramide 3, ceramide 6 II, and ceramide 1, which read on A) of claim 1. TEGO Care PBS 6 comprises polyglyceryl-6 stearate (and) polyglyceryl-6 behenate which reads on B) of claim 1. SK-Influx also comprises cholesterol which reads on C) of claim 1. SK-Influx comprises essentially 1.5% of ceramides and 0.5% of cholesterol as evidenced by Evonik. Thus, the ratio of the ceramides to the cholesterol is 1:0.33, which falls within the range of claim 1 (i.e., 1:0.1 to 1:0.9). As evidenced by their names, the polyglycerols of Majka contain the fatty acids, stearic acid and behenic acid, neither of which are dicarboxylic acids, and a polyglycerol backbone consisting only of polyglycerol. Given that only stearic acid and behenic acid are present as polyglycerol fatty acid esters, they account for 100% by weight, based on all fatty acids present in the mixture, which falls within the instantly claimed range (i.e., at least 60%). As such, polyglyceryl-6 stearate and polyglyceryl-6 behenate read on the at least one polyglycerol carboxylic acid ester as defined in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4: The spray of Example 2 comprises up to 100% water. The other components total to an amount of 26.3%. Thus, the amount of water in the spray composition can be estimated to be around 73% which falls within the instantly claimed range.
Regarding claim 5: As established above, the spray of Example 2 comprises 3% of SK-Influx which further comprises 1.5% of ceramides as evidenced by Evonik. As such, the spray composition of Majka comprises ceramides at an amount of 0.045% based on the total composition (i.e., 0.03 x 0.015 x 100). SK-Influx further comprises 0.5% of cholesterol as evidenced by Evonik. As such, the spray composition of Majka comprises cholesterol at an amount of 0.015% based on the total composition (i.e., 0.03 x 0.005 x 100). Thus, the composition comprises 0.045% of ceramides, 3% polyglycerol carboxylic acid ester, and 0.015% of cholesterol, totaling to 3.06% which falls within the instantly claimed range (i.e., 1 to 25%).
Regarding claim 6 and 18: The spray comprises ceramide 3, ceramide 6 II, and ceramide 1. Thus, the composition comprises three ceramides.
Regarding claim 7, 19, and 23: Ceramides 3, 6 II, and 1 are also known as ceramides NP, AP and EOP as evidenced by Evonik.
Regarding claim 8: The spray comprises polyglyceryl-6 stearate and polyglyceryl-6 behenate, both of which comprise a polyglycerol having a degree of polymerization of 6 as evidenced by the name. A degree of polymerization of 6 falls within the instantly claimed range (i.e., 2 to 25).
Regarding claim 11: TEGO care PBS 6 has a saponification number of 85 to 105 mg KOH/g as evidenced by myChem, which falls within the instantly claimed range (i.e., 20 to 199).
Regarding claim 12: The compositions of Majka are skin compositions comprising various active agents (abstract), thereby reading on a cosmetic, pharmaceutical, or dermatological formulation.
Regarding claim 15: The compositions of Majka are in any form suitable for application on the skin (p. 3, para. 7). Notably, sprays enable easy application of the composition as well as easy and convenient spreading of the composition without additional irritation of the affected skin area (p. 6, para 2). Thus, Majka teaches applying the spray compositions, such as that of Example 2, to the skin. Regarding the recitation of “for increasing barrier function of skin”, such a recitation is simple a statement of intended purpose. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See MPEP 2111.02.
Regarding claim 16: As discussed above, the ratio of the ceramides to the cholesterol is 1:0.33, which falls within the instantly claimed range (i.e., 1:0.2 to 1:0.7). Regarding claim 21: The polyglyceryl-6 stearate (and) polyglyceryl-6 behenate of Majka consist of a polyglycerol base skeleton (i.e., polyglyceryl-6) and at least one fatty acid (i.e., stearic and behenic acid).
The teachings of Majka differ from that of the instantly claimed invention in that Majka does not explicitly teach the instantly claimed ratio of ceramide to polyglycerol carboxylic acid ester as defined in claims 1 and 17, nor does Majka teach the amount of cholesterol in claim 3, the total amount of components A-C of claim 13, or the specific pH of claim 14. Majka also fails to explicitly disclose polyglycerol carboxylic acid esters composed of the specific fatty acid mixtures defined in claims 22-24.
Kitaoka teaches a ceramide dispersion composition which has temporal stability allowing long-term storage compared to the prior art when stored under high-temperature conditions, and has an excellent skin care effect when applied to skin external preparations such as cosmetics (abstract).
The composition comprises a nonionic surfactant preferably selected from polyglyceric fatty acid ester from the viewpoint of finer dispersion particles and dispersion stability, and particularly a polyglycerin fatty acid ester having an HLB of 10 to 16 (p. 8, para. 11). The content of the nonionic surfactant in the ceramide dispersion composition is preferably 5 to 20 times the mass of the ceramide (p. 9, para. 7), which reads on the instantly claimed ratio of claims 2 and 17 (i.e., 1 to 30 times and 2 to 20 times).
The ceramide dispersion composition may further contain cholesterol (p. 10, para. 9). The content of cholesterol in the ceramide dispersion composition can be appropriately set in consideration of the effect expected from containing cholesterol. As a content of cholesterol, it is most preferably 0.001 mass%-1 mass% with respect to ceramide dispersion composition total mass (p. 11, para. 1). Such an amount overlaps with the range of claim 3.
The pH of the ceramide dispersion composition is appropriately set according to the application form of the composition. For example, when the ceramide dispersion composition is used as a skin external preparation, the pH of the ceramide dispersion composition is most preferably 5 to 9 from the viewpoint of skin irritation and the like, which overlaps with the pH range of claim 14. By setting the pH within this range, the skin irritation is alleviated and a favorable feeling of use can be obtained (p. 3-4, bridge paragraph).
For the polyglycerol fatty acid ester, fatty acids are selected form those having 8 to 18 carbon atoms such as caprylic acid, capric acid, lauric acid, myristic acid, palmitic acid, stearic acid (p. 8, final paragraph). Preferred examples of such polyglycerin fatty acid esters include hexaglycerin monopalmitate. Other examples include monostearic acid ester, decaglycerin monopalmitic acid ester, and the like. These HLBs are all 10 or more and 16 or less (p. 9, first paragraph). Thus, Kitaoka teaches polyglycerol carboxylic acid esters comprising palmitic acid, stearic acid, caprylic acid, or caprylic acid, all of which overlap with the various fatty acids defined in new claims 22-24.
Regarding the ratio of the ceramide to the polyglycerol carboxylic acid ester of claims 1 and 17: Majka teaches a ratio of the ceramides (0.045% of the total composition) to the polyglycerol carboxylic acid ester (3% of the total composition) of 1:66. While 1:66 does not fall within the instantly claimed ranges it is well within the abilities of an ordinary artisan to optimize the ratio of ceramide to surfactant in the composition depending on the desired properties and stability of the final product. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the instantly claimed ratios of claims 1 and 17 through no more than routine experimentation. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature 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). Furthermore, Kitaoka discloses a ceramide dispersion composition with improved temporal stability and an excellent skin care effect wherein the ratio of the ceramide to the nonionic surfactant (i.e., a polyglycerol fatty acid ester) is 1:5 to 1:20. Therefore, it would have also been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adjust the ratio of ceramide to polyglycerol in the composition of Majka to a ratio within the range of Kitaoka (i.e., 1:5 to 1:20) since such a ratio is known and routine in the art. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide the composition of Majka with the ratio of Kitaoka since the composition of Kitaoka has excellent temporal stability and skin care effect.
Regarding claim 3: The spray composition of Majka comprises cholesterol at an amount of 0.015% based on the total composition (i.e., 3% x 0.005). While 0.015% does not fall within the instantly claimed range it is well within the abilities of an ordinary artisan to optimize the amount of cholesterol in the composition depending on the desired skincare properties (i.e., moisturizing, consistency, etc.) of the final product. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the instantly claimed amount of cholesterol through no more than routine experimentation. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature 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). Furthermore, Kitaoka teaches a ceramide dispersion composition with improved temporal stability and an excellent skin care effect wherein the amount of cholesterol present is 0.001 mass%-1 mass%. Therefore, it would have also been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, adjust the amount of cholesterol in the composition of Majka according to the range of Kitaoka (i.e., 0.001-1 mass%) since such an amount is known and routine for cholesterol in the art. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide the composition of Majka with the cholesterol concentration of Kitaoka since the composition of Kitaoka has excellent temporal stability and skin care effect. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 13: The spray composition of Majka comprises 0.045% of ceramides, 3% polyglycerol carboxylic acid ester, and 0.015% of cholesterol, totaling to 3.06%. While 3.06% does not fall within the instantly claimed range it is well within the abilities of an ordinary artisan to optimize the total amount of these components in the composition depending on the desired properties and stability of the final product. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the instantly claimed amount of ceramide + polyglycerol + cholesterol through no more than routine experimentation. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature 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).
Regarding claim 14: Majka further teaches that when the barrier functions of the skin are impaired, the cleansing agent must not cause excessive drying of the skin or affect its natural pH (p. 1, para. 5). Kitaoka teaches that ceramide compositions for external skin use should have a pH within the range of 5 to 9 from the viewpoint of skin irritation. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adjust the pH of the Majka composition to within the range of Kitaoka (i.e., 5-9) since such a pH is known and routine in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been specifically motivated to provide the composition of Majka with the pH of Kitaoka since a pH in that range is preferred in products for external skin use and for limiting skin irradiation as taught by Kitaoka. While a pH of 5-9 does not fall within the instantly claimed range of 4-8, a prima facie case of obviousness exists when where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art". See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 22 and 23: Majka teaches polyglyceryl-6 stearate and polyglyceryl-6 behenate, as discussed above. As evidenced by their names, these polyglycerols contain the fatty acids, stearic acid and behenic acid. It would have been prima facie obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add in a polyglycerol carboxylic acid ester comprising palmitic acid, such as hexaglycerin monopalmitate (i.e., polyglyceryl-6 palmitate), since these polyglycerols are known and routine in the art for stabilizing a dispersion comprising ceramides and cholesterol as taught by Kitaoka. One of ordinary skill in the art could have added a polyglycerol carboxylic acid ester of palmitic acid, as taught by Kitaoka, into the composition of Majka, also containing ceramides and cholesterol, to predictably yield the instantly claimed composition. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide the composition of Majka with the hexaglycerin monopalmitate of Kitaoka since such a surfactant is preferred for providing a composition with excellent temporal stability and skin care effect. As discussed above, the spray of Majka comprises ceramide 3, ceramide 6 II, and ceramide 1, which read on ceramide NP, AP, and EOP, respectively. Since claim 23 defines component B) as composed of a mixture of at least palmitic acid and stearic acid, a composition comprising each of palmitic, stearic, and behenic acid reads on this limitation.
Regarding claim 24: It would have been further prima facie obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add in a polyglycerol carboxylic acid ester comprising caprylic or capric acid, since polyglycerols of these fatty acids are known and routine in the art for stabilizing a dispersion comprising ceramides and cholesterol as taught by Kitaoka. One of ordinary skill in the art could have added a polyglycerol carboxylic acid ester of caprylic and capric acid, as taught by Kitaoka, into the combined composition above to predictably yield the instantly claimed composition. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide the composition of Majka with the polyglycerol carboxylic acid esters of caprylic or capric acid taught by Kitaoka since these surfactants are known and effective for providing a composition with excellent temporal stability and skin care effect.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the above modifications since both Majka and Kitaoka teach compositions comprising ceramides, polyglycerol fatty acid ester surfactants, and cholesterol. Both compositions are used as external skincare compositions. Furthermore, it is within the skills of the ordinary artisan to optimize and adjust amounts, ratios, and the pH of a given formulation.
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, 3-8, 11-19, and 21-24 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of copending Application No. 16/826,599 in view of Majka. The Obviousness Double Patenting rejection is appropriate because while the conflicting claims are not identical, the examined claims are not patentably distinct from the reference claims and would have been obvious over the reference claims in view of Majka.
The copending claims are drawn to a physically stable ceramide-containing composition comprising A) various ceramides; D) from 0.1% to 3.0% by weight of cholesterol; and E) an emulsifier (copending claims 1 and 8). The copending claims differ from the instant claims in that they do not recite a polyglycerol carboxylic acid ester according to claim 1 nor wherein the weight ratio of the ceramide to the cholesterol is 1:01 to 1:0.9 or the weight ratio of the ceramide to the polyglycerol is 1:1 to 1:30, as defined in claim 1. Majka discloses a skin composition in the form of a spray, as well as the use of such a skin composition and spray (abstract). The sprays comprise TEGO Care PBS 6 and SK-Influx. SK-Influx comprises ceramide 3, ceramide 6 II, and ceramide 1, and cholesterol, wherein the ratio of the ceramides to the cholesterol is 1:0.33 as evidenced by Evonik above. TEGO Care PBS 6 comprises polyglyceryl-6 stearate (and) polyglyceryl-6 behenate which comprises no dicarboxylic acid and comprises a polyglycerol backbone consisting only of polyglycerol. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Majka into the composition of the copending claims by formulating the copending composition to have the ratio of Majka and using the TEGO Care PBS 6 emulsifier of Majka as the copending emulsifier, since these elements are known and routine in the art. Regarding the ratio of the ceramide to the polyglycerol carboxylic acid ester, it is well within the abilities of an ordinary artisan to optimize the ratio of ceramide to surfactant in the composition depending on the desired properties and stability of the final product. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the instantly claimed ratio through no more than routine experimentation. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature 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). Lastly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the combined composition to the skin since Majka teaches a composition comprising similar ingredients to the copending claims which is applied externally to the skin.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Applicant argues that the combination of prior art does not teach or suggest that the ratio by weight of the ceramide to the polyglycerol carboxylic acid ester is from 1:1 to 1:30 as claimed. Applicant asserts that Majka’s teaching of 1:66 would not be obvious to optimize and reducing said ratio to the claimed ratio would destroy the teachings of the primary reference.
In response to this argument, Applicant has provided no evidence nor pointed to any specific teachings in Majka indicating that optimizing the ratio from 1:66 to be within the instantly claimed range would render the invention of Majka inoperable. Additionally, more than optimization is relied on in the above rejection. As discussed above, Kitaoka explicitly teaches improved temporal stability and an excellent skin care effect when the ratio of the ceramide to the nonionic surfactant, such as polyglycerol fatty acid esters, is 1:5 to 1:20. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the ratio of ceramide to polyglycerol in the composition of Majka to a ratio within the range of Kitaoka (i.e., 1:5 to 1:20) since such a ratio is known and effective in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide the composition of Majka with the ratio of Kitaoka since the composition of Kitaoka has excellent temporal stability and skin care effect.
Conclusion
No claims 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 SUSANNAH S ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)272-0112. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5 (Flex).
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 X 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.
/SUSANNAH S ARMSTRONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1616
/Mina Haghighatian/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616