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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/26/2026 has been entered.
Formal Matters
Receipt of Applicant’s response dated 05/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-3 and 6-10 are pending.
Claims 4-5 are canceled.
Claims 1 and 6-7 are amended.
Claim 10 remains withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6-9 are under consideration in the instant Office action to the extent of the elected species, i.e., the tertiary amine groups are of formula (A) wherein
PNG
media_image1.png
86
58
media_image1.png
Greyscale
is a pendant oxygen on the branched chain dextran polymer, X is CH2CH2, z is 1, and each of R2 and R3 is an ethyl group.
Manner of Making Amendments, 37 C.F.R. 1.121
Claim 10 is withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a nonelected invention, however the claim status identifier used in the claim set dated 05/26/26 for claim 10 is “Original”. Applicant is requested to update the claim status identifier of claim 10 to “Withdrawn” and is reminded to include proper claim status identifiers moving forward to avoid delays. See MPEP 714.
OBJECTIONS/REJECTIONS WITHDRAWN
Claim Objections
The objection to claim 7 set forth in the Office action dated 03/30/2026 is hereby withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The rejection of claim 4 set forth in the Office action dated 03/30/2026 is hereby withdrawn in light of Applicant’s cancelation of claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-9 set forth in the Office action dated 03/30/2026 is hereby withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims and in favor of the new grounds of rejection set forth below.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
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 the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6-9 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 is rejected for being incomplete as it depends on claim 4 which has been canceled. Claims 7-9 are also rejected for depending from claim 6.
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 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathjens et al (DE 10018158 A1, published 10/18/2001, cited in IDS dated 07/17/2023, English translation cited in Notice of References Cited dated 08/19/2025) in view of Nambiar et al (US 2016/0122445 A1, published 05/05/2016, cited in Notice of References Cited dated 11/06/2025) and as evidenced by Chen et al (US 9,351,910 B2, published 05/31/2016).
Rathjens et al teach preparations, especially for hair treatment, comprising diethylaminoethyl-dextran (DEAE-Dextran) as a biocompatible film-forming polymer (See entire document, e.g., Title).
Rathjens et al teach that natural and synthetic polymers have good washability due to hydrophilic groups and that common film-forming polymers are able to provide desired firmness when applied to hair, however, can damage hair and result in a loss of hair styling effect (e.g., Par. 1-2 of ‘State of the art’ on Page 1 of English translation). Rathjens et al provide an alternative biopolymer, i.e., DEAE-Dextran, having good film-forming properties, good compatibility with surfactants, salts, and other auxiliaries, are in a wide concentration range, and provide formulations with these biopolymers either alone or in combination with other film-forming polymers in an economically and environmentally friendly manner with good biological compatibility while maintaining advantages of known film-forming polymers of hardness and elasticity (e.g., Last Par. of ‘State of the art’ on Page 2 of English translation).
The preparations of Rathjens et al contain DEAE-Dextran, a water-soluble biopolymer, as film-forming polymer with an average molecular weight of 50,000 to 800,000, as DEAE-Dextran of this molecular weight range results in increased flexural strength of the hair without the film hardness being adversely affected and allows for the amount of required polymer to be drastically reduced in order to achieve the same position effects to the hair (e.g., Par. 1-3 of ‘Description of the invention’ on Page 2 of English translation).
The preparations of Rathjens et al containing DEAE-Dextran can be used as a cream or lotion serving as a hair treatment (e.g., Par. 1 of ‘Industrial applicability’ on Page 2 of English translation). The preparations comprise water (e.g., English translation of Table 4 cited as NPL dated 08/19/2025). The preparations can comprise, i.e., but do not have to comprise, thickeners, preservatives, essential oils, perfume oils, and silicone compounds (e.g., Par. 2 of ‘Industrial applicability’ on Page 2 of English translation, ‘Thickener’, ‘Silicone Compounds’, ‘Biogenic agents’, ‘Preservative’, ‘Perfume oils and fragrances’ on Page 4 of English translation).
Rathjens et al do not teach the preparations formulated as a rinse off conditioner.
This deficiency is made up for in the teachings of Nambiar et al.
Nambiar et al teach the formulation of an aqueous composition comprising a dextran polymer in personal care products including a rinse-out hair conditioner wherein the product can be in the form of lotions or creams, wherein the dextran polymer is believed to be useful for providing one or more of the physical properties of thickening, freeze/thaw stability, lubricity, moisture retention and release, texture, consistency, shape retention, emulsification, binding, suspension, dispersion, gelation, and reduced mineral hardness (See entire document, e.g., [0147]-[0149], [0152]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the teachings of Rathjens et al and Nambiar et al, to provide a hair preparation comprising DEAE-Dextran having an average molecular weight of 50,000 to 800,000, water, a thickener, and a preservative formulated as a rinse-out hair conditioner.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to formulate the preparation of Rathjens et al as a rinse-out hair conditioner because Nambiar et al teach that dextran polymers provide useful physical properties for personal care products including rinse-out hair conditioner including thickening, freeze/thaw stability, lubricity, moisture retention and release, texture, consistency, shape retention, emulsification, binding, suspension, dispersion, gelation, and reduced mineral hardness and Rathjens et al teach that synthetic polymers have good washability due to their hydrophilic groups. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Rathjens et al and Nambiar et al because of their similar teachings of ingredients, form, and use, i.e., both the compositions of Nambiar et al and the preparations of Rathjens et al comprise a dextran polymer and water, can be formulated as lotions or creams, and can be used in hair products.
DEAE-Dextran in the preparation of Rathjens et al in view of Nambiar et al meets the limitation of the conditioning polymer of the instant claims to the extent of the elected species because DEAE-Dextran is a dextran polymer functionalized with tertiary amine groups, wherein the tertiary amine groups are of formula (A) of instant claim 7 bound to a pendent oxygen on the dextran polymer, wherein
PNG
media_image1.png
86
58
media_image1.png
Greyscale
is a pendant oxygen on the dextran polymer, X is CH2CH2, z is 1, and each of R2 and R3 is an ethyl group, DEAE-Dextran has an average molecular weight of 50,000 to 800,000, and as evidenced by Chen et al, DEAE-Dextran is a branched chain dextran polymer comprising a plurality of glucose structural units wherein approximately 95% of the glucose structural units are connected by α-D-1,6 linkages and approximately 5% of the glucose structural units are connected by α-1,3 linkages (See Col. 4 Lines 11-14 of Chen et al which states that dextran is an α-D-1,6-glucose-linked glucan with side-chains 1-3 linked to the backbone units of the dextran biopolymer with a degree of branching of approximately 5%).
Because DEAE-Dextran in the preparation of Rathjens et al in view of Nambiar et al is the same as the conditioning polymer of the instant claims to the extent of the elected species, DEAE-Dextran in the preparation of Rathjens et al in view of Nambiar et al necessarily has a Kjeldahl nitrogen content corrected for ash and volatiles, TKN, of 1 to 3.5 wt% (instant claim 1) and of 1.5 to 3.0 wt% (instant claim 6). See, Persion Pharms. LLC v. Alvogen Malta Operations LTD., 945 F.3d 1184, 1191, 2019 USPQ2d 494084 (Fed. Cir. 2019), where the court stated that a proper finding of inherency does not require that all limitations are taught in a single reference, and that inherency may meet a missing claim limitation when the limitation is "the natural result of the combination of prior art elements." (emphasis in original). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, the Patent and Trademark Office is not equipped to conduct experimentation in order to determine whether the Kjeldahl nitrogen content corrected for ash and volatiles, TKN, of Applicant’s conditioning polymer differs, and if so to what extent, from the polymer in the preparation of Rathjens et al in view of Nambiar et al, and therefore the burden of establishing non-obviousness by objective evidence is shifted to the Applicant.
Regarding the recited ranges of the instant claims, a prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art (In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
The preparation of Rathjens et al in view of Nambiar et al not comprising essential oils or perfume oils renders obvious instant claim 2. The preparation of Rathjens et al in view of Nambiar et al not comprising silicone compounds renders obvious instant claim 3.
Thus, the preparation of Rathjens et al in view of Nambiar et al renders obvious instant claims 1-3 and 6-9 to the extent of the elected species.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 and 6-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of copending Application No. 17/795,127 (hereafter ‘127) in view of Rathjens et al (DE 10018158 A1, published 10/18/2001, cited in IDS dated 07/17/2023, English translation cited in Notice of References Cited dated 08/19/2025) and Nambiar et al (US 2016/0122445 A1, published 05/05/2016, cited in Notice of References Cited dated 11/06/2025)
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant claims 1-2 and 6-9 recite a hair conditioning formulation, comprising a dermatologically acceptable vehicle, and a conditioning polymer, wherein the conditioning polymer is a dextran polymer functionalized with tertiary amine groups, wherein the dextran polymer has a weight average molecular weight of 50,000 to 3,000,000 Daltons, wherein the dextran polymer is a branched chain dextran polymer comprising a plurality of glucose structural units, wherein 94 to 96 mol% of the glucose structural units are connected by α-D-1,6 linkages and 4 to 6 mol% of the glucose structural units are connected by α-1,3 linkages, and wherein the conditioning polymer has a Kjeldahl nitrogen content corrected for ash and volatiles, TKN, of 1 to 3.5 wt%, wherein the hair conditioning formulation is a rinse off conditioner, wherein the hair conditioning formulation contains less than 0.01 wt%, based on weight of the hair conditioning formulation, of a dermatologically acceptable oil, wherein the conditioning polymer has a Kjeldahl nitrogen content corrected for ash and volatiles, TKN, of 1.5 to 3.0 wt%, wherein the tertiary amine groups are of formula (A) bound to a pendent oxygen on the branched chain dextran polymer
PNG
media_image2.png
114
232
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, wherein
PNG
media_image1.png
86
58
media_image1.png
Greyscale
is a pendant oxygen on the branched chain dextran polymer; wherein X is a divalent linking group bonding the tertiary amine moiety to the pendent oxygen on the branched chain dextran polymer; wherein z is 0 or 1; and wherein R2 and R3 are independently selected from the group consisting of a C1-7 alkyl group, further comprising a thickener, and further comprising a preservative.
Claims 1-9 of ‘127 recite a hair cleansing formulation, comprising 70 to 85 wt%, based on weight of the hair cleansing formulation, of a dermatologically acceptable vehicle, 7 to 15 wt%, based on weight of the hair cleansing formulation, of a dermatologically acceptable hair care cleansing surfactant, 0.5 to 1.5 wt%, based on weight of the hair cleansing formulation, of a dermatologically acceptable silicone, wherein the dermatologically acceptable silicone is a dimethiconol, and 0.25 to 0.4 wt%, based on weight of the hair cleansing formulation, of a deposition aid polymer, wherein the deposition aid polymer is a tertiary amine functionalized dextran polymer, comprising a branched chain dextran polymer functionalized with tertiary amine groups, wherein the branched chain dextran polymer comprises a plurality of glucose structural units, wherein 90 to 98 mol% of the glucose structural units are connected by α-D- 1,6 linkages and 2 to 10 mol% of the glucose structural units are connected by α-1,3 linkages, wherein the deposition aid polymer deposits at least 10 mol% of the dermatologically acceptable silicone from the hair cleansing formulation onto mammalian hair, wherein the hair cleansing formulation is selected from the group consisting of a shampoo and a conditioning shampoo, wherein the hair cleansing formulation is a conditioning shampoo, wherein the tertiary amine functionalized dextran polymer has a Kjeldahl nitrogen content corrected for ash and volatiles, TKN, of 0.5 to 4.0 wt%, wherein the surfactant comprises a mixture of sodium lauryl ether sulfate, cocamide monoethanolamine and cocamidopropyl betaine, further comprising a chelating agent, further comprising a thickener, wherein the chelating agent comprises tetrasodium ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, and wherein the thickener comprises PEG-150 pentaerythrityl tetrastearate, and further comprising a preservative.
Claims 1-9 of ‘127 do not recite (1) the conditioning shampoo being a rinse off conditioner or (2) the tertiary amine groups being of formula (A)
PNG
media_image2.png
114
232
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, wherein
PNG
media_image1.png
86
58
media_image1.png
Greyscale
is a pendant oxygen on the branched chain dextran polymer, X is CH2CH2, z is 1, and each of R2 and R3 is an ethyl group.
These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Rathjens et al and Nambiar et al, which have been discussed in detail supra.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate the conditioning shampoo of the claims of ‘127 as a rinse-out hair conditioner because Nambiar et al teach that dextran polymers provide useful physical properties for personal care products including rinse-out hair conditioner including thickening, freeze/thaw stability, lubricity, moisture retention and release, texture, consistency, shape retention, emulsification, binding, suspension, dispersion, gelation, and reduced mineral hardness and to use diethylaminoethyl-dextran (DEAE-Dextran) as the deposition aid polymer in the claims of ‘127 because Rathjens et al teach DEAE-Dextran in hair treatment preparations as an alternative biopolymer to natural and synthetic polymers that can damage hair and result in a loss of hair styling effect and that DEAE-Dextran has good film-forming properties, good compatibility with surfactants, salts, and other auxiliaries, are in a wide concentration range, and provide formulations with these biopolymers either alone or in combination with other film-forming polymers in an economically and environmentally friendly manner with good biological compatibility while maintaining advantages of known film-forming polymers of hardness and elasticity.
Thus, claims 1-9 of ‘127 render obvious instant claims 1-2 and 6-9 to the extent of the elected species.
Claims 1-2 and 6-9 are directed to an invention not patentably distinct from claims 1-9 of commonly assigned copending Application No. 17/795,127. Specifically, see above.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may not institute a derivation proceeding in the absence of a timely filed petition. The USPTO normally will not institute a derivation proceeding between applications or a patent and an application having common ownership (see 37 CFR 42.411 ). Commonly assigned copending Application No. 17/795,127, discussed above, may form the basis for a rejection of the noted claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 if the commonly assigned case qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and the patentably indistinct inventions were not commonly owned or deemed to be commonly owned not later than the effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 100(i) of the claimed invention.
In order for the examiner to resolve this issue the applicant or patent owner can provide a statement under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and 37 CFR 1.104(c)(4)(i) to the effect that the subject matter and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person. Alternatively, the applicant or patent owner can provide a statement under 35 U.S.C. 102(c) and 37 CFR 1.104(c)(4)(ii) to the effect that the subject matter was developed and the claimed invention was made by or on behalf of one or more parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; the application must also be amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement.
A showing that the inventions were commonly owned or deemed to be commonly owned not later than the effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 100(i) of the claimed invention will preclude a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 based upon the commonly assigned case. Alternatively, applicant may take action to amend or cancel claims such that the applications, or the patent and the application, no longer contain claims directed to patentably indistinct inventions.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that Rathjens and Nambiar fail to teach or suggest amended claim 1. Applicant argues that Rathjens fails to mention any branching in its DEAE-dextran and the concentration of nitrogen in its DEAE-dextran, and Nambiar does not cure these deficiencies. Applicant argues that, with respect to the Examiner’s stance that the polymer in the preparation of Rathjens in view of Nambiar necessarily has a Kjeldahl nitrogen content corrected for ash and volatiles, TKN, of 0.5 to 5 wt%, Rathjens fails to disclose the desired nitrogen content for its film forming DEAE-dextran, Rathjens fails to disclose the nitrogen content of the DEAE-dextran used in its leave on hair fixative formulation examples, and Nambiar is of no help in that it teaches a dextran polymer having 0 wt% nitrogen substitution, and therefore, the fact that a certain result or characteristic may occur or be present in the prior art is not sufficient to establish the inherency of that result or characteristic (citing MPEP 2112(IV)).
The above arguments have been fully considered by the Examiner but are not found persuasive because, as can be seen in the new grounds of rejection under 35 USC 103 above, the preparation of Rathjens et al in view of Nambiar et al do meet all of the limitations required by instant claim 1 as evidenced by Chen et al. Chen et al provide evidence that dextran is an α-D-1,6-glucose-linked glucan with side-chains 1-3 linked to the backbone units of the dextran biopolymer with a degree of branching of approximately 5%. The above rejection under 35 USC 103 above does not rely on the stance that Nambiar et al cure the deficiencies of Rathjens et al being the branching of Rathjens’ DEAE-dextran and the concentration of nitrogen in Rathjens’ DEAE-dextran as alleged by Applicant, but rather relies on the stance that Nambiar et al cure the deficiencies of Rathjens et al being formulating the preparation of Rathjens et al as a rinse-out hair conditioner. The above rejection under 35 USC 103 above does not rely on the stance that the DEAE-Dextran in the preparation of Rathjens et al in view of Nambiar et al may have the claimed Kjeldahl nitrogen content corrected for ash and volatiles, TKN, values as alleged by Applicant, but rather relies on the stance that the DEAE-Dextran in the preparation of Rathjens et al in view of Nambiar et al necessarily has the claimed Kjeldahl nitrogen content corrected for ash and volatiles, TKN, values because the DEAE-Dextran in the preparation of Rathjens et al in view of Nambiar et al is the same as the conditioning polymer of the instant claims to the extent of the elected species. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, the Patent and Trademark Office is not equipped to conduct experimentation in order to determine whether the Kjeldahl nitrogen content corrected for ash and volatiles, TKN, of Applicant’s conditioning polymer differs, and if so to what extent, from the polymer in the preparation of Rathjens et al in view of Nambiar et al, and therefore the burden of establishing non-obviousness by objective evidence is shifted to the Applicant.
Conclusion
No claims are allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAELEIGH ELIZABETH OLSEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1962. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 PM.
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, David Blanchard can be reached at (571)272-0827. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.E.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/DAVID J BLANCHARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1619
Prosecution Insights