DETAILED ACTION
Previous Rejections
Applicant’s arguments, filed March 23, 2026, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Status
Claims 2, 8, 12 – 13, 15, 17, 19 – 20, 23, 25, 27, 29 – 35, 37, 38, 40, and 46 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 3 – 7, 9 – 11, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, 36, 39, 41 – 45, and 47 – 58 are examined here-in.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (New, Necessitated by Amendment)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 39, 41 – 45, and 47 – 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 39 and 41 introduce new matter as the claims recite the limitation: "greater than 50 wt. % of a water-immiscible hydrophobic compound”. There is no support in the specification for this limitation. The limitation of: "greater than 50 wt. % of a water-immiscible hydrophobic compound" was not described in the specification as filed, and person skilled in the art would not recognize in the applicant' s disclosure a description of the invention as presently claimed.
Applicant indicates that support for the amendments can be found in paragraphs 0001, 0012, 013, 0060, the abstract, and the original claims (Remarks page 10), however, these paragraphs, the abstract, nor claims dated 5/31/2023 or 4/12/2024 support the limitation of “greater than 50 wt.% of a water-immiscible hydrophobic compound”.
The specification discloses various amounts of water-immiscible compound, but does not describe water-immiscible compound in the amount of greater than 50 wt.%. For example, Table 1 includes fatty acids in the amount of 0 to 15%, terpenes in the amount of 0 to 10%, and plant essential oils in the amount of 0 to 10%, which is a sum of 0 to 45% (Table 1 specification pages 38 – 43). The embodiments include water-immiscible compounds in the amount of 14.5% (paragraph 0111), 11% (paragraph 0112), 13.5% (paragraph 0113), 15% (paragraph 0114), 12% (paragraph 0115), 13% (paragraph 0116), 11.5% (paragraph 0117), 6.2% (paragraph 0118), 5.5% (paragraph 0119), 0.3% (paragraph 0120), 0.3% (paragraph 0121), 5.2% (paragraph 0122), 5% (paragraph 0123), 5% (paragraph 0124), 2.25% (paragraph 0125), 3% (paragraph 0126), 7% (paragraph 0127), 1.1% (paragraph 0128), 1.05% (paragraph 0129), 0.3% (paragraph 0130), 0.32% (paragraph 0131), 2.5% (paragraph 0132), 0.6% (paragraph 0133), 1% (paragraph 0134), 10% (paragraph 0137), 9.2% (paragraph 0138), 8.2% (paragraph 0139). Clause 3 (paragraph 0143) includes water-immiscible phase in the amount of 0.1 to 50%. There is no guidance in the specification to select “greater than 50 wt. % of a water-immiscible hydrophobic compound”.
According to MPEP 2163.06: “Applicant should therefore specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.” Applicant has not directed the Examiner to the support in the specification for the limitation “greater than 50 wt.% of a water-immiscible hydrophobic compound”. Therefore, it is the Examiner's position that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of filing of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (New, Necessitated by Amendment)
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 3 – 6, 9, 14, 18, 21, 24, 26, 28, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glatter (US 2011/0275519 A1).
Glatter teaches a dispersion with a continuous aqueous phase for pest control (abstract).
Glatter teaches the aqueous composition comprises water and a stabilizing surfactant, among other common ingredients (paragraph 0017).
Glatter teaches sulfates are suitable anionic surfactants (paragraph 0062). Glatter teaches surfactant in an amount from 5 to 30 wt. % (paragraph 0061).
Glatter teaches amphiphiles such as monoacylglycerols in the amount of up to 10 wt. % (paragraphs 0018 – 0019). Glatter teaches glycerol monooleate as a preferred amphiphile (paragraph 0057).
Glatter teaches water, alcohols, and ketones, among others as suitable solvents in the amount of up to 30 wt. % (paragraphs 0072).
Glatter teaches the dispersed phase contains an oil, such as mineral oil, fatty acids, vegetable oils, and essential oils, among others in the amount of less than 15 wt. % (paragraph 0013).
Glatter teaches the dispersion comprises between 10 and 70 wt. % water (paragraph 0076).
Glatter teaches bactericides such as isothiazolinone derivatives are suitable for preservation and stabilization of the composition (paragraph 0075).
Glatter does not teach a specific embodiment having each of the claimed elements, however, claims 1, 3 – 6, 9, 14, 18, 21, 24, 26, 28, and 36 are rendered prima facie obvious over the teachings of Glatter, because it is prima facie obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods, in order to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143(i)(a)). In the instant case, all the claimed elements (e.g., anionic surfactant, acylglycerol-derived emulsifier, water-soluble cosolvent, water-immiscible hydrophobic compound) were known in the prior art (e.g., dispersion and emulsions) and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results (e.g., a pesticidal emulsion with the claimed ingredients) to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Glatter’s teaching for an aqueous-based dispersion for pest control (abstract, paragraph 0017) comprising sulfates as anionic surfactants (paragraph 0062), monoacylglycerols such as glycerol monooleate (paragraphs 0018 – 0019, 0057), a solvent such as water, alcohols, and ketones (paragraphs 0072), and a dispersed phase that contains an oil, such as mineral oil, vegetable oils, and essential oils, among others in the amount of less than 15 wt. % (paragraph 0013) reads on instant claim 1.
Glatter’s teaching for a dispersed oil phase in the amount of 15 wt. % or less (paragraph 0013) overlaps on the instantly claimed amount of at least 0.1 wt. % as recited in claim 1 part d. Claimed ranges that overlap teachings of the prior art are prima facie obvious according to MPEP 2144.05(i).
Glatter’s teaching for anionic surfactant in the amount of 5 to 30 wt. % (paragraphs 0061 - 0062), amphiphiles such as monoacylglycerols in the amount of up to 10 wt. % (paragraphs 0018 – 0019), solvents in the amount of up to 30 wt. % (paragraphs 0072), water-immiscible hydrophobic compounds in the amount of less than 15 wt. % (paragraph 0013), and water in the amount of 10 and 70 wt. % (paragraph 0076) reads on instant claim 3.
Glatter teaches the composition may be a microemulsion (paragraph 0105), reading on instant claim 4. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art, would recognize that a micellar dispersion (as recited in instant claim 5 is a type of emulsion, and be able to create a micellar dispersion from an emulsion as a matter of routine experimentation. Routine experimentation is prima facie obvious according to MPEP 2144.05(II)(a).
Glatter’s teaching for anionic surfactant in the amount of 5 to 30 wt. % (paragraphs 0061 - 0062), amphiphiles such as monoacylglycerols in the amount of up to 10 wt. % (paragraphs 0018 – 0019), solvents in the amount of up to 30 wt. % (paragraphs 0072), water-immiscible hydrophobic compounds in the amount of less than 15 wt. % (paragraph 0013), reads on the range of ratios recited in instant claim 6. For example, water-immiscible hydrophobic compound in the amount of 15 wt. %, anionic surfactant in the amount of 30 wt. %, amphiphile in the amount of 10 wt. %, and solvent in the amount of 30 wt. % is a 15:70, or 1:4.7 weight ratio overlapping on the range of 1:100 to about 1:1 as recited in claim 6.
Glatter teaches auxillaries such as solid carriers, dispersants or emulsifiers, thickeners, bactericides, anti-freeze agents, anti-foam agents, colorants, tackifiers, and binders (paragraph 0071), reading on instant claim 9.
Glatter’s teaching for bactericides such as isothiazolinone derivatives as suitable for preservation and stabilization of the composition (paragraph 0075) reads on instant claim 14.
Glatter teaches xanthan gum and methyl cellulose as thickeners (paragraph 0074), reading on instant claim 18.
Glatter teaches polysorbate80 as an amphiphile suitable for the composition (paragraph 0057), reading on instant claim 21.
Glatter’s teaching for a fatty acid as the dispersed phase (paragraph 0013) reads on instant claim 24.
Glatter teaches the composition includes pesticides, including those from the group of fungicides, insecticides, nematicides, and herbicides, among others (paragraph 0067), reading on instant claim 26.
Glatter’s teaching for an essential oil as the dispersed phase (paragraph 0013) reads on instant claim 28.
Glatter’s teaching that the composition contains an aqueous continuous phase and a dispersed phase reads on claim 36 because an emulsion has continuous and dispersed phases.
Claims 16 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glatter (US 2011/0275519 A1, as cited above) in view of Kennedy (US 2016/0029625 A1).
Glatter’s teachings are discussed above.
Glatter does not teach the composition comprises and antioxidant selected from the group consisting of ascorbates, tocopherols, phenols, hydroquinones, quinolines, and combinations of two or more thereof, or that the water-immiscible hydrophobic compound comprises a terpene and a plant essential oil.
Kennedy teaches the missing elements of Glatter.
Kennedy teaches a composition with plant essential oils for the control of arthropods (abstract, paragraphs 0087 - 0090).
Kennedy teaches the composition can have various formulation types, including as an emulsion (paragraphs 0015, 0090, 0093, 0094).
Kennedy teaches that the combination of plant essential oils can have a synergistic effect (paragraphs 0037, 0117). Kennedy teaches the composition includes plant essential oils and monoterpenoids of plant essential oils (paragraphs 0045, 0057). Furthermore, Kennedy teaches terpenes are constituents of essential oils (paragraph 0057).
Kennedy teaches antioxidants such as tocopherol, ascorbate salts, and hydroquinones are suitable for inclusion in the acaricidal composition (paragraph 0122).
In one example, Kennedy’s “TT Personal Repellant” includes geraniol, vanillin, and vitamin E (Table 3, Figure 3).
The combination of Glatter and Kennedy’s teachings renders instant claims 16 and 22 prima facie obvious as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the composition of Glatter to include a combination of essential oils or essential oil derivatives because Kennedy teaches that the combination of these ingredients can have a synergistic effect against pests (paragraphs 0037, 0117). The combination of prior art elements (i.e. Glatter’s emulsion composition with Kennedy’s teaching to include plant essential oils, terpenes, and antioxidants) according to known methods to yield predictable results (i.e. an emulsion composition that has pesticidal effects) is prima facie obvious according to MPEP 2143(i)(a).
Glatter’s teachings for an aqueous-based dispersion for pest control (abstract, paragraph 0017) comprising sulfates as anionic surfactants (paragraph 0062), monoacylglycerols such as glycerol monooleate (paragraphs 0018 – 0019, 0057), a solvent such as water, alcohols, and ketones (paragraphs 0072), and a dispersed phase that contains an oil, such as mineral oil, vegetable oils, and essential oils, among others in the amount of less than 15 wt. % (paragraph 0013) in combination with Kennedy’s teachings to include antioxidants such as tocopherol, ascorbate salts, and hydroquinones in an acaricidal composition (paragraph 0122) reads on instant claim 16.
Kennedy’s teachings to include plant essential oils in an acaricidal composition (paragraphs 0045, 0057) read on instant claim 22. Kennedy’s teaching that terpenes are constituents of essential oils (paragraph 0057) reads on the limitation of “terpene and a plant essential oil”.
Claims 1, 3 – 7, 9 – 11, 14, 18, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, 36, 39, 41 – 45, and 47 – 50, and 52 - 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bratescu (US 6,528,070 B1).
Bratescu teaches emulsion compositions comprising a blend of surfactants (abstract).
Bratescu teaches mixed surfactant systems show synergistic improvements, i.e. a combination of anionic and cationic surfactants show greater surfactant properties (column 2 lines 51 – 56).
Bratescu teaches an emulsion composition that is stable which contains 0.1 to 8% by weight an anionic surfactant, about 3 to 70% by weight of an oil, and about 15 to about 97% by weight water (column 4 lines 48 - 64).
Bratescu teaches anionic surfactants that are sulfate and sulfonates (column 18 lines 3 – 7).
Bratescu teaches the emulsion composition may also contain additional ingredients such as preservatives, thickeners, viscosity modifiers, pH adjusting agents, antioxidants, or auxiliary surfactants, among others (column 7 lines 13 – 23, column 29 lines 55 – 61, column 30 lines 1 – 10, column 34 lines 59 – 63).
Bratescu teaches glycerol esters such as glycerol monostearate and glycerol monooleate, as well as polyglyceryl-10-decaoleate, among others as auxiliary co-emulsifiers (column 27 lines 1 – 10).
Bratescu teaches solvents such as methanol, ethanol, propanol, and isopropanol are suitable solvents (column 36 lines 3 – 6).
Bratescu teaches that the visocisty of emulsions can be approximately 100 cps to 80,000 cps and suggests that different viscosities may influence stability (column 9 lines 37 – 39, column 11 lines 24 – 26, column 12 lines 4 – 6, column 13 lines 33 – 35, column 14 lines 6 – 8).
Bratescu teaches the pH of the emulsion composition should be between 2 and 10, and that pH can be controlled via the inclusion of buffers, acids, and bases (column 35 lines 65 – 67, column 36 lines 16 – 19).
Bratescu teaches benzoate esters as suitable preservatives for the composition (column 35 lines 61 – 62).
Bratescu teaches methyl cellulose, ethyl cellulose, and xanthan gum, among others, as suitable thickening agents (column 30 lines 43 – 48).
Bratescu does not teach a specific embodiment having each of the claimed elements, however, claims 1, 3 – 7, 9 – 11, 14, 18, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, 36, 39, 41 – 45, and 47 – 50, and 52 - 58 are rendered prima facie obvious over the teachings of Bratescu, because it is prima facie obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods, in order to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143(i)(a)). In the instant case, all the claimed elements (e.g., anionic surfactant, acylglycerol-derived emulsifier, water-soluble cosolvent, water-immiscible hydrophobic compound) were known in the prior art (e.g., emulsion compositions) and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results (e.g., a pesticidal emulsion with the claimed ingredients) to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Bratescu’s teaching for a stable emulsion composition which contains an anionic surfactant, an auxiliary co-emulsifier such as glycerol monostearate, glycerol monooleate, or polyglyceryl-10-decaoleate, a water-soluble solvent such as methanol, ethanol, propanol, or isopropanol. an oil, and water (abstract, column 4 lines 48 - 64, column 27 lines 1 – 10, column 36 lines 3 – 6) reads on instant claims 1 and 39.
Bratescu teaches an oil in the amount of 3 to 70% by weight (column 4 lines 48 – 64) which overlaps on the instantly claimed range of at least 0.1 wt. % as recited in instant claim 1. Bratescu teaches an oil in the amount of 3 to 70% by weight (column 4 lines 48 – 64) which overlaps on the instantly claimed range of greater than 50 wt. % as recited in claim 39. Claimed ranges that overlap teachings of the prior art are prima facie obvious according to MPEP 2144.05(i).
Bratescu’s teaching for a stable emulsion composition which contains 0.1 to 8% by weight an anionic surfactant and about 15 to about 97% by weight water (abstract, column 4 lines 48 - 64), overlaps the claimed ranges of 0.1 to 30% anionic surfactant and about 0.1 to 99.6% water as recited in instant claims 3 and 41.
Bratescu’s teaching for an oil in the amount of 3 to 70% by weight (column 4 lines 48 – 64) overlaps on the instantly claimed range of about 0.1 wt. to about 50% as recited in instant claim 3. Bratescu’s teaching for an oil in the amount of 3 to 70% by weight (column 4 lines 48 – 64) overlaps on the instantly claimed range of greater than 50 wt. % as recited in claim 41.
Bratescu teaches optional ingredients of the invention may be included in the amount of 0.001 to 20% (column 7 lines 12 – 15), therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include auxiliary co-emulsifier and water-soluble solvent (column 27 lines 1 – 10, column 36 lines 3 – 6) in amounts ranging from 0.001 to 20% each. Auxiliary co-emulsifier in the amount of 0.001 to 20% overlaps on the instantly claimed 0.1 to 30% of acylglycerol-derived emulsifier and water-soluble solvent in the amount of 0.001 to 20% overlaps on the claimed range of 0.1 to 60% as recited in claims 3 and 41.
Bratescu teaches the composition is an emulsion (abstract), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have the necessary expertise to recognize that a microemulsion and micellar dispersion (as recited in instant claims 4, 5, 42, and 43) are types of emulsions and be able to create a microemulsion or micellar dispersion from an emulsion as a matter of routine experimentation. Routine experimentation is prima facie obvious according to MPEP 2144.05(II)(a).
Bratescu’s teaching for an oil in the amount of 3 to 70% by weight (column 4 lines 48 – 64), anionic surfactant in the amount of 0.1 to 8 wt. % (column 4 lines 48 - 64), auxiliary co-emulsifier in the amount of 0.001 to 20% (column 7 lines 12 – 15, column 27 lines 1 – 10), and water-soluble co-solvent in the amount of 0.001 to 20% (column 7 lines 12 – 15, column 36 lines 3 – 6) reads on the range of ratios of hydrophobic compound to sum of anionic surfactant, acylglycerol-derived emulsifier, and water-soluble cosolvent from 1:100 to about 1:1 as recited in instant claims 6 and 44. For example, water-immiscible hydrophobic compound in the amount of 50 wt. %, anionic surfactant in the amount of 8 wt. %, auxiliary co-emulsifier in the amount of 20 wt. %, and cosolvent in the amount of 20 wt. % is a 50:48, or 1.04:1 weight ratio which is about a 1:1 ratio as recited in claims 6 and 44. (The Examiner would like to point out that if the water-immiscible hydrophobic compound is in an amount of greater than 50% as recited in claims 39 and 41, a weight ratio of water-immiscible hydrophobic compound to a sum of anionic surfactant, acylglycerol-derived emulsifier, and water-soluble cosolvent would be necessarily very close to 1:1, and a ratio of 1:100 would not be mathematically possible.)
Bratescu’s teaching that the viscosity of emulsions can be approximately 100 cps to 80,000 cps depending on the desired thickness of the composition, i.e. “very thin” to a “thick cream” (column 9 lines 37 – 39, column 11 lines 24 – 26, column 12 lines 4 – 6, column 13 lines 33 – 35, column 14 lines 6 – 8) overlaps on the instantly claimed range of 5 to 100 cP as recited in claims 7 and 45.
Bratescu’s teaching that the emulsion composition may also contain additional ingredients such as preservatives, thickeners, viscosity modifiers, pH adjusting agents, antioxidants, or auxiliary surfactants, among others (column 7 lines 13 – 23, column 29 lines 55 – 61, column 30 lines 1 – 10, column 34 lines 59 – 63) reads on instant claim 9 and 47.
Bratescu’s teaching that the pH of the emulsion composition should be between 2 and 10, and that pH can be controlled via the inclusion of buffers, acids, and bases (column 35 lines 65 – 67, column 36 lines 16 – 19) reads on instant claims 10, 11, 48, and 49. Bratescu’s teaching for a pH between 2 and 10 (column 36 lines 16 – 19) overlaps on the instantly claimed range of 2 to 12 as recited in claims 11 and 49.
Bratescu’s teaching for benzoate esters as suitable preservatives for the composition (column 35 lines 61 – 62) reads on instant claims 14 and 50.
Bratescu’s teaching for methyl cellulose, ethyl cellulose, and xanthan gum, among others, as suitable thickening agents (column 30 lines 43 – 48) reads on instant claims 18 and 52.
Bratescu teaches polyethylene glycol monostearate as an auxiliary co-emulsifier for inclusion in the emulsion composition, reading on the “non-acyl glycerol derived emulsifier” of instant claims 21 and 53.
Bratescu teaches the oil component may comprise fatty acids such as isopropyl palmitate, isopropyl myristate, or caprylic triglyceride (column 23 lines 60 – 67), evening primrose oil (column 24 line 14), or terpenes (column 25 lines 47 – 50), reading on instant claims 22, 24, 28, 54, 55, and 57.
Bratescu teaches the emulsion composition may contain algicides, antimicrobials, bactericides, and fungicides (column 29 lines 66 – 67), reading on instant claims 26 and 56.
Bratescu’s teaching that the composition is an emulsion (abstract) reads on instant claims 36 and 58.
Claims 16 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bratescu (US 6,528,070 B1, as cited above) in view of Kennedy (US 2016/0029625 A1, as cited above).
Bratescu’s teachings are discussed above.
Bratescu does not teach the composition comprises and antioxidant selected from the group consisting of ascorbates, tocopherols, phenols, hydroquinones, quinolines, and combinations of two or more thereof.
Kennedy teaches the missing elements of Bratescu.
Kennedy teaches a composition with plant essential oils for the control of arthropods (abstract, paragraphs 0087 - 0090).
Kennedy teaches the composition can have various formulation types, including as an emulsion (paragraphs 0015, 0090, 0093, 0094).
Kennedy teaches antioxidants such as tocopherol, ascorbate salts, and hydroquinones are suitable for inclusion in the acaricidal composition, that antixoxidants are well-known in the art, and are frequently used in similar formulations (paragraphs 0120 - 0122).
The combination of Bratescu and Kennedy’s teachings renders instant claims 16 and 51 prima facie obvious as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the composition of Bratescu to include antioxidants because Kennedy teaches that antioxidants are well-known in the art and are frequently used in similar formulations (paragraphs 0120 – 0122). The combination of prior art elements (i.e. Bratescu’s emulsion composition with Kennedy’s teaching to include antioxidants) according to known methods to yield predictable results (i.e. an emulsion composition that has pesticidal effects) is prima facie obvious according to MPEP 2143(i)(a).
Bratescu’s teaching for a stable emulsion composition which contains an anionic surfactant, an auxiliary co-emulsifier such as glycerol monostearate, glycerol monooleate, or polyglyceryl-10-decaoleate, a water-soluble solvent such as methanol, ethanol, propanol, or isopropanol. an oil, and water (abstract, column 4 lines 48 - 64, column 27 lines 1 – 10, column 36 lines 3 – 6) in combination with Kennedy’s teachings to include antioxidants such as tocopherol, ascorbate salts, and hydroquinones in an acaricidal composition (paragraph 0122) reads on instant claims 16 and 51.
Examiner’s Reply to Attorney Arguments Dated March 23, 2026
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection specifically addresses the claims as presently amended.
Conclusion
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Toriana N. Vigil whose telephone number is (571)270-7549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. 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://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sahana Kaup can be reached at 571-272-6897. 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.
/TORIANA N. VIGIL/Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/SAHANA S KAUP/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights