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 .
Final Rejection
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claims 11-20 are new.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Rose et al. (US 2018/0245023 A1) is maintained.
The rejection of claims 2 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Rose et al. (US 2018/0245023 A1) in view of Ravier et al. (US20190098896A1) is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s urge that that DeRose et al. do not teach polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate in the final product and instead is used as an activator to bring the lipase enzyme into active state. In response, the claims as presented for examination are to a combination, not to a composition. Furthermore, DeRose et al. is pertinent to the claims as presented for examination in a 103 rejection because it guides one of ordinary skill to nonionic surfactants which includes the claimed polyoxyethylene ( 20 ) sorbitan [0041] in an amount of 2-85% (see also 0046-0047 and 0051] guiding one of ordinary skill to include the claimed nonionic surfactant in a composition.
PNG
media_image1.png
284
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s urge unexpected results with their claimed combination to the desired technical effect of persistent soil wetting. However, this is not found persuasive because the claim language presented for examination does not limit the claimed combination to soil treatment and thus arguments for superior and unexpected results cannot be found commensurate in scope with the claims.
Finally, in response to applicant's argument that DeRose and Ravier are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, one of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of De Rose et al. with Ravier et al. teaching the wetting agent of De Rose is used in both cosmetics and agriculture/irrigation of crops see [0002-0003]. And Ravier et al. guide one of ordinary skill to advantageously increase the concentration of monopropylene glycol between 75-99.8%. Accordingly the claims are addressed below.
New Grounds of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 11-20 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim 1) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 11 recites “A combination consisting of: …optionally…and/or” which claim language recites the broad recitation ‘…optionally…and/or’, and the claim also recites “consisting of…” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation within new claim 11.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner has interpreted BRI of the claim 11 language to be “comprising”. Examiner’s position is further supported by the optional within claim 11 and the scope of claim 14 depending on claim 11. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11, 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Rose et al. (US 2018/0245023 A1).
De Rose et al. (US 2018/0245023 A1) teach a combination comprising:
polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate; (see page 3, [0041] item 2)) teaching polysorbate emulsifiers, preferably polyoxyethylene ( 20 ) sorbitan. See also attached search notes for commonly known equivalent names.
Claim 1 limitation to at least 1% by weight of at least one mannosylerythritol lipid (MEL) is taught in De Rose et al. [0048] and [0046] teaches from 2-85%. Limitation to monopropylene glycol; is taught in De Rose et al. page 6, [0083] Table 1. Limitation to optionally including a fatty acid and/or a fatty acid ester is taught in De Rose et al. [0048].
Claim 1 limitation to wherein the total quantity of polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate and mannosylerythritol lipid(s) is at least 25% by weight is met by De Rose et al. teaching 2-85% mannosylerythritol lipid in a composition comprising a concentration of the TWEEN emulsifier from 10 to 30 mM.
De Rose et al. do not exemplify a composition comprising polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate, MEL and monopropylene glycol as required by claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the claimed composition comprising polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate, MEL, and monopropylene glycol because De Rose et al. suggest a combination comprising: polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate with 2-85% by weight of at least one mannosylerythritol lipid (MEL) [0047-0049] and about 11% monopropylene glycol in general.
De Rose et al. suggest claim 3 limitation to wherein the total quantity of polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate is at least 20% by teaching optimizing the surfactant in an amount of 2-85% [0046] and 10-30 mM concentration of the polyoxyethylene (20) sorbitan.
Limitation of claims 4-6 to mixing and requiring water is taught in De Rose et al. table 1.
Claims 7-8 limitations to further comprising a biostimulant active ingredient is encompassed by the biosurfactants in De Rose et al. [0048] and protease and non-protease enzymes in De Rose et al. [0012-0039].
The claim 9 limitation to a soil wetting agent is met by De Rose et al. teaching the composition comprises an emulsifier. [0045].
With respect to independent claim 11 to a combination comprising polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate; (see De Rose et al. page 3, [0041] item 2)) teaching polysorbate emulsifiers, preferably polyoxyethylene (20). See also attached search notes for commonly known equivalent names.
Claim 11 limitation to at least 1% by weight of at least one mannosylerythritol lipid (MEL) is taught in De Rose et al. [0048] and [0046] teaches from 2-85%. Limitation to monopropylene glycol; is taught in De Rose et al. page 6, [0083] Table 1. Limitation to optionally including a fatty acid and/or a fatty acid ester is taught in De Rose et al. [0048].
Claim 11 limitation to wherein the total quantity of polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate and mannosylerythritol lipid(s) is at least 25% by weight is met by De Rose et al. teaching 2-85% mannosylerythritol lipid in a composition comprising a concentration of the TWEEN emulsifier from 10 to 30 mM.
De Rose et al. do not exemplify a composition comprising polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate, MEL and monopropylene glycol as required by claim 11. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the claimed composition comprising polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate, MEL, and monopropylene glycol because De Rose et al. suggest a combination comprising: polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate with 2-85% by weight of at least one mannosylerythritol lipid (MEL) [0047-0049] and about 11% monopropylene glycol in general.
De Rose et al. suggest claim 13 limitation to wherein the total quantity of polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate is at least 20% by teaching optimizing the surfactant in an amount of 2-85% [0046] and 10-30 mM concentration of the polyoxyethylene (20) sorbitan.
Limitation of claims 14-16 and 18 to mixing and requiring water is taught in De Rose et al. table 1.
Claims 17-18 limitations to further comprising a biostimulant active ingredient is encompassed by the biosurfactants in De Rose et al. [0048] and protease and non-protease enzymes in De Rose et al. [0012-0039].
The claim 19 limitation to a soil wetting agent is met by De Rose et al. teaching the composition comprises an emulsifier. [0045].
Claims 2, 10, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.`C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Rose et al. (US 2018/0245023 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3-9, 11, 13-19 above and further in view of Ravier et al. (US20190098896A1).
De Rose et al. is relied upon as set forth above.
However, De Rose et al. do not teach the claims 2 and 12 limitation to wherein the quantity of monopropylene glycol is at least 50% by weight relative to the weight of the combination. Examiner notes that De Rose et al. teach in table 1, a composition comprising a concentration of the monopropylene glycol at 11%. See page 6. And De Rose et al. [0048] and [0046] teaches from 2-85%. Limitation to monopropylene glycol; is taught in De Rose et al. page 6, [0083] Table 1. And De Rose et al. do not teach claims 10 and 20 limitation to irrigation.
In the analogous art of MEL compositions, Ravier et al. (US20190098896A1) teach the wetting agent of De Rose is used in both cosmetics and agriculture/irrigation of crops see [0002-0003] encompassing the claims 10 and 20. Ravier et al. guide one of ordinary skill to advantageously increase the concentration of monopropylene glycol between 75-99.8%. See page 3, [0068] in a similar composition comprising 0.1-25% MELs. [0065-0067]. Examiner notes that Ravier et al. guide one of ordinary skill to the beneficial utility of at least 50% monopropylene glycol as required by claims 2 and 12 because Ravier et al. teach excellent wetting power of a MEL solution when there is 75-99.8% monopropylene glycol. See [0043] and [0068].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the claimed composition comprising at least 50% monopropylene glycol as required by claims 2 and 12 because Ravier et al. teach excellent wetting power of a MEL solution when there is 75-99.8% monopropylene glycol in a similar composition comprising 0.1-25% MELs. [0065].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the claimed irrigation composition as required by claims 10 and 20 because Ravier et al. teach MEL based composition are used in both cosmetics industry and in treating crops in the agricultural fields. {[002-003]. One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of De Rose et al. with that of Ravier et al. because both are in the analogous art of MEL compositions.
Claims 1,3-8 and 11,13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2010/0168405A1).
With respect to independent claim 1 limitation to a combination comprising polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate [0137] page 7 teaching POE-sorbitan monolaurate with at least 1% by weight of at least one mannosylerythritol lipid see example 6 and [0247] teaching MEL has an excellent cell-activating function, which suggests that application of MEL to skin yields an extremely excellent anti-aging effect, effectively improving wrinkles, sags of skin due to aging, exposure to ultra violet ray.
Claim 1 limitation to monopropylene glycol is also taught in example 6.
Suzuki et al. do not teach the claim 1 limitation wherein the total quantity of polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate and mannosylerythritol lipid(s) is at least 25% by weight. Examiner notes that example 6 discloses 38% polyethylene sorbitan monostearate, thus, PHOSITA is guided by the example 6 and [0137] to modify the nonionic surfactant in the example 6 with the claimed polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate as taught in [0137] as an equivalent nonionic surfactant.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the claimed combination wherein the total quantity of polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate and mannosylerythritol lipid(s) is at least 25% by weight as required by claim 1 because Suzuki et al. guide one of ordinary skill to a composition comprising 1% MEL with nonionic surfactants encompassing the claimed polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate [0137] in amounts of 38% as in example 6 with 38% polyethylene sorbitan monostearate. One of ordinary skill in the art is motivated by Suzuki et al. [0137] to modify the exemplary composition of example 6 with the claimed polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate since Suzuki et al. [0137] guide one of ordinary skill to select from a variety of nonionic surfactants.
With respect to claim 3 limitation to wherein the total quantity of polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate is at least 20% by weight relative to the weight of the combination, see Suzuki et al. example 6 with the list of non-ionic surfactants [0137] guiding one of ordinary skill to 38% nonionic surfactants including the polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate [0137].
Claim 4 limitation to a process for preparing a combination comprising a step of mixing polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate, and at least one mannosylerythritol lipid is taught by example 6 and [0137]. The optional inclusion of a fatty acid is taught in [0135].
Claims 5 and 8 to a solution further including water is exemplified by Suzuki et al. example 5 teaching purified water with 1% MEL and 5% dipropylene glycol. Examiner notes that the claim 5 is dependent on claim 1 requiring monopropylene glycol, which is taught in [0139] teaching the equivalence of the claimed propylene glycol with the example 5 teaching dipropylene glycol. Examiner’s position is that PHOSITA would reasonably make this substitution as it is disclosed in the art and would not expect a patentable difference between the final products.
Claim 6 limitation to the solution wherein the quantity of the combination is at least 0.1% by weight relative to the weight of the solution is met by the example 5 teaching an emulsion of 1% MEL and 5% dipropylene glycol and 1% sorbitan monostearate and upto 100% purified water.
Clam 7 limitation to further comprising a biostimulant active ingredient is met by the biosurfactant in [0135].
With respect to independent claim 11 limitation to a combination comprising polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate [0137] page 7 teaching POE-sorbitan monolaurate with at least 1% by weight of at least one mannosylerythritol lipid see example 6 and [0247] teaching MEL has an excellent cell-activating function, which suggests that application of MEL to skin yields an extremely excellent anti-aging effect, effectively improving wrinkles, sags of skin due to aging, exposure to ultra violet ray.
Claim 11 limitation to monopropylene glycol is also taught in example 6.
Suzuki et al. do not teach the claim 11 limitation wherein the total quantity of polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate and mannosylerythritol lipid(s) is at least 25% by weight. Examiner notes that example 6 discloses 38% polyethylene sorbitan monostearate, thus, PHOSITA is guided by the example 6 and [0137] to modify the nonionic surfactant in the example 6 with the claimed polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate as taught in [0137] as an equivalent nonionic surfactant.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the claim 11 combination wherein the total quantity of polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate and mannosylerythritol lipid(s) is at least 25% by weight because Suzuki et al. guide one of ordinary skill to a composition comprising 1% MEL with nonionic surfactants encompassing the claimed polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate [0137] in amounts of 38% as in example 6 with 38% polyethylene sorbitan monostearate. One of ordinary skill in the art is motivated by Suzuki et al. [0137] to modify the exemplary composition of example 6 with the claimed polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate since Suzuki et al. [0137] guide one of ordinary skill to select from a variety of nonionic surfactants.
With respect to claim 13 limitation to wherein the total quantity of polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate is at least 20% by weight relative to the weight of the combination, see Suzuki et al. example 6 with the list of non-ionic surfactants [0137] guiding one of ordinary skill to 38% nonionic surfactants including the polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate [0137].
Claim 14 limitation to a process for preparing a combination comprising a step of mixing polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate, and at least one mannosylerythritol lipid is taught by example 6 and [0137]. The optional inclusion of a fatty acid is taught in [0135].
Claims 15 and 18 to a solution further including water is exemplified by Suzuki et al. example 5 teaching purified water with 1% MEL and 5% dipropylene glycol. Examiner notes that the claim 5 is dependent on claim 1 requiring monopropylene glycol, which is taught in [0139] teaching the equivalence of the claimed propylene glycol with the example 5 teaching dipropylene glycol. Examiner’s position is that PHOSITA would reasonably make this substitution as it is disclosed in the art and would not expect a patentable difference between the final products.
Claim 16 limitation to the solution wherein the quantity of the combination is at least 0.1% by weight relative to the weight of the solution is met by Suzuki et al. example 5 teaching an emulsion of 1% MEL and 5% dipropylene glycol and 1% sorbitan monostearate and upto 100% purified water.
Clam 17 limitation to further comprising a biostimulant active ingredient is met by the biosurfactant in Suzuki et al. [0135].
Claims 2, 9-10,12,19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.`C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2010/0168405A1) as applied to claims 1,3-8 and 11,13-18 above and further in view of Ravier et al. (US20190098896A1).
Suzuki et al. is relied upon as set forth above.
However, Suzuki et al. do not teach the claims 2 and 12 limitations to wherein the quantity of monopropylene glycol is at least 50% by weight relative to the weight of the combination. And Suzuki et al. do not teach claims 9-10 and 19-20 limitations to soil and irrigation.
In the analogous art of MEL compositions, Ravier et al. (US20190098896A1) teach MEL is used in both cosmetics and agriculture/irrigation of crops see [0002-0003] encompassing claims 9-10 and 19-20. Ravier et al. guide one of ordinary skill to advantageously increase the concentration of monopropylene glycol between 75-99.8%. See page 3, [0068] in a similar composition comprising 0.1-25% MELs. [0065-0067]. Examiner notes that Ravier et al. guide one of ordinary skill to the beneficial utility of at least 50% monopropylene glycol as required by claims 2 and 12 because Ravier et al. teach excellent wetting power of a MEL solution when there is 75-99.8% monopropylene glycol. See [0043] and [0068].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the claimed soil irrigation composition comprising at least 50% monopropylene glycol as required by claims because Ravier et al. teach excellent wetting power of a MEL solution when there is 75-99.8% monopropylene glycol in a similar composition comprising 0.1-25% MELs. [0065]. One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of Suzuki et al. with that of Ravier et al. because both are in the analogous art of MEL compositions and Ravier et al. teach that the MEL is commonly used in cosmetic compositions as taught by Suzuki as well as in the treatment of crops in agricultural fields.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schofield et al. (US 2013/0085067 A1) in view of Giessler-Blank et al. (US2012/0220464 A1).
Shofield et al. teach modified sophorolids including MEL in the inhibition of plant pathogens having MEL dissolved in a combination with 5% w/v propylene glycol and 5% w/v tween20 on page 12, example 10 and clam 16.
With respect to the independent claims 1 and 11 Shofield et al. claims 15 and 16 and example 10 teach a combination at least one mannosylerythritol lipid (claim 16) dissolved in 5% w/v propylene glycol and 5% w/v tween20 on page 12, example 10
However, Shofield et al. do not teach claims 1 and 11 limitation to at least 1% by weight of at least one mannosylerythritol lipid and the independent claims 1 and 11 limitation wherein the total quantity of polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate and mannosylerythritol lipid(s) is at least 25% by weight.
In the analogous art of sophorolipids, Giessler-Blank et al. teach treating crops with 30% sophorolipids encompassing the claimed MEL (see 0013 on page 2, right col.) and table 1 in a mixture with 30% water and 20% propylene glycol. See page 6, table 1, [0076].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Shofield et al. with the claimed at least 1% by weight of at least one mannosylerythritol lipid and claim 1 limitation wherein the total quantity of polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate and mannosylerythritol lipid(s) is at least 25% by weight as required by the independent claims and taught by Giessler-Blank et al. teaching the equivalence of sophorolipids and mannoserythritol lipids MELs [0013] synthesized by bacteria and yeast under gentle conditions from renewable raw materials [0014] in amounts greater than 80% by weight [0043] provides for their use in crop protection and functions as an emulsifier MEL solution wetting agent [0054-0056] and pages 5-6 and [0013]. One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of Shofield et al. with that of Giessler-Blank et al. because both are in the analogous art of MEL compositions for the treatment of crops in agricultural fields.
Giessler-Blank et al. guide one of ordinary skill to claims 2 and 12 limitations to wherein the quantity of monopropylene glycol is at least 50% by weight by teaching in [0013] and [0043] that adjuvants (like the exemplified sophorolipid and the claimed mannoserythritol lipids) may comprise to an extent of 100% by weight of the sophorolipid or their derivaties. [0043].
Shofield et al. teach claims 4 and 14 process of for preparing a combination comprising a step of mixing polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate (see claim 15) with at least one mannosylerythritol lipid, (see claim 16) and see the example 10 on page 12.
Giessler-Blank et al. guide one of ordinary skill to the water of claims 5-6, 8, 15-16 and 18 by teaching a mixture of sophorolipids or mannoserythritol lipids with 30% water and 20% propylene glycol provides crop protection (see table 1 on page 6 and [0013] on page 2). And Shofield et al. teach a similar mixture showed promising antimicrobial activity against plant fungal and bacterial pathogens See page 12, example 10 and claim 16.
The biosurfactant and biopesticide of Shofield et al. claims 15 and 25) encompass the biostimulant, pesticidal active ingredient of claims 7-8 and 17-18.
Shofield et al. teach claims 9-10 and 19-20 by teaching the introduction of their sophorolipid and mannoserythritol lipid (claim 16) formulation (example 10) in soil (see prior art claim 22) to inhibit plant pathogens.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schofield et al. (US 2013/0085067 A1) and Giessler-Blank et al. (US2012/0220464 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-20 above and further in view of Schwarz et al. (US 8,598,106 B2).
Schofield et al. and Giessler-Blank et al. are relied upon as set forth above. However, they do not teach the claims 3 and 13 limitation to at least 20% by weight of the TWEEN 20 nonionic surfactant polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate as claimed. Examiner notes that Shofield formulation in example 10 has 5% TWEEN 20. See page 12 example 10 right col.
In the analogous art of antibacterial, antifungal, antimicrobial agents, Schwarz et al. teach in col.7,ln.1-16 and col.4,ln.65-col5,ln.5, provide guidance to one of ordinary skill to modify the amount of nonionic surfactant to 99% to kill microbes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shofield et al. with the claimed 20 wt% TWEEN 20 nonionic surfactant polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate as required by claims 3 and 13, because Schwarz et al. teach optimizing the amount of nonionic surfactant to 99% to kill microbes in anti-microbial and/or microbiocidal composition. PHOSITA is motivated to increase the 5% amount of the nonionic surfactant polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate used for crop protection in Shofield to the claimed amount of 20% as taught by Schwarz et al. to achieve a higher microbial killing efficacy.
Conclusion
Remaining references cited but not relied upon are considered to be cumulative to or less pertinent than those relied upon or discussed above. For example, Gross et al. (US2013/0142855A1) example 1 teaches modified sophorolipids including MEL in combination with 5% w/v propylene glycol and 5% w/v tween20 on page 7 and [0078-0081] on page 11.
Applicant is reminded that any evidence to be presented in accordance with 37 CFR 1.131 or 1.132 should be submitted before final rejection in order to be considered timely.
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 PREETI KUMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/PREETI KUMAR/ Examiner, Art Unit 1761