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 .
Claim Status
Claim 7 is cancelled.
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are pending.
Claims 9, 14 and 15 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-13 and 16-20 are under examination as the claims read on the elected subject matter.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/6/26 and 6/11/26 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. The IDS filed 6/11/26 contained new art relevant to the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, this Action is FINAL as necessitated by IDS.
Withdrawn rejections
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 6/5/26 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. The Examiner has re-weighed all the evidence of record. Any rejection and/or objection not specifically addressed below is herein withdrawn. Claims 1-8, 10-13 and 16-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US20200046628; IDS filed 9/15/23) and Jerri et al. (US20180078468) and Holappa et al. (WO2007034032) as evidenced by Dhifi et al. (Medicines 2016;3(25):16 pages). Claims 1-8, 10-13 and 16-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerri et al. (US20180078468) and Jones et al. (US20200046628; IDS filed 9/15/23) and Holappa et al. (WO2007034032). These rejections are withdrawn in favor of the rejection necessitated by IDS.
The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections and/or objections presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 10 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nazir et al. (Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces 100 (2012) 42– 49; of record).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 17 and 19, Nazir et al. is directed to layer-by-layer modified silicon oil droplets (a hydrophobic material as defined by the specification page 2, lines 15-18), for shampoos and conditioners (Abstract) using 150 KDa chitosan with 89% degree of deacetylation and quaternized as N-[(2hydroxy-3-trimethylammonium) propyl] chitosan chloride (HTCC) obtained from the reaction between chitosan and glycidyltrimethylammonium chloride (Page 43, left column 2.1. Materials). HTCC was absorbed on the surface of silicone oil droplets by electrostatic attraction to provide a positive charge and then a second deposition was carried out with alginate to form a 2nd layer on the silicone oil droplet and repeated until 6 layers were obtained (Page 43, right column 2.2. Preparation of silicone oil droplets with different surface charges; Page 45, Figure 2). Chitosan and alginate are polymeric materials that form a surrounding structure of the core as shown in Figure 2a reproduced in part below:
PNG
media_image1.png
396
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
An aqueous dispersion is disclosed (See Figure 5 and related text), which reads on a slurry (The specification defines microcapsule slurry as being dispersed in an aqueous phase. (Page 3, lines 4-6)). The average diameter of the multilayered silicone oil droplets was 15.5 µm (Page 45, 3.1. Preparation and characterization of multilayered silicone oil droplets), thus providing microcapsules. The instant claims do not limit or specify the material for the polymeric shell. Consequently, in the embodiment with 6 layers of alternating functionalized chitosan and alginate, a core-shell microcapsule comprising an oil-based core of a hydrophobic material and a polymeric shell of functionalized chitosan with glycidyltrimethylammonium chloride with a coating comprising a functionalized chitosan with glycidyltrimethylammonium chloride dispersed in water is disclosed.
Regarding claim 2, how the functionalized chitosan derivative is obtained reads on a product by process limitation, which has been considered but not given patentable weight.
Regarding claims 4 and 18, 60% substitution was obtained (Page 2.1. Materials).
Regarding claim 8, the functionalized chitosan was not crosslinked with the polymeric shell.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US20200046628; IDS filed 9/15/23) and Jerri et al. (US20180078468) and Nazir et al. (Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces 100 (2012) 42– 49; of record) as evidenced by Dhifi et al. (Medicines 2016;3(25):16 pages).
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant claims, for example:
PNG
media_image2.png
548
1140
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner comment: the limitation of “a functionalized chitosan derivative” is defined in the specification (Page 24, lines 19-29). The functionalizing component is the elected species of glycidyl trimethylammonium chloride.
Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
(MPEP 2141.03)
MPEP 2141.03 (I) states: “The “hypothetical ‘person having ordinary skill in the art’ to which the claimed subject matter pertains would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art.” Ex parte Hiyamizu, 10 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988). The level of skill is that of a personal care composition research scientist, as is the case here, then one can assume comfortably that such an educated artisan will draw conventional ideas from personal care compositions, perfume and fragrance art, materials related to perfume and fragrance art and chemistry— without being told to do so.
In addition, the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level (MPEP 2141.03(II)).
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Regarding claims 1, 6 and 10-11, Jones et al. teach personal care compositions (Abstract) comprising a particles comprising chitosan salt at the outer surface of the particle and a fragrance benefit agent within an inner shell and the outer shell comprising the chitosan-amino acid salt such as chitosan-arginine salt (Claims 1-6 and 10), thus having a coating of arginine functionalized chitosan derivative, which the Examiner interprets as defining a core-shell structure. The inner shell to which the chitosan is bonded can be polymeric (Claims 7-8 and 10). The particles have an average diameter of 0.5 to 20 microns (Claim 9), which makes the particles core-shell microcapsules. The arginine can be considered a cationic agent.
Regarding claim 1, Jones et al. teach citrus oils [0025] and essential oils for the fragrances [0026].
Regarding claims 1-3, 8 and 16-17, Jones et al. teach grafting the functionalized chitosan-arginine complex via chemical functionalization to a slurry of melamine formaldehyde particles (diameter of 20 µm polymeric shell) containing 40%, 45.3% perfume loading where the chitosan has 75-85% degree of deacetylation to make MF-graft-Chitosan-Arg concentrated slurry with the chitosan complex grafted into MF capsules (Example 1, [0079-0088]), thus providing a slurry of core-shell microcapsules. Grafting reads on forming a covalent bond with chitosan. (See claim 10 and [0020]). No crosslinking was done.
Regarding claims 3, 5 and 19, Jones et al. teach using chitosan of an average molecular weight of at least 10,000 Daltons, more preferably in the range of from 30,000 to 1,000,000 Daltons and the deacetylation degree of the chitosan component is at least 65%, more preferably from 70 to 95%, even more preferably from 72 to 90% and most preferably from 75 to 85%. [0018]. The range of at least 10,000 Daltons is open ended and encompasses the claimed range and the range from 30000 to 1000000 Daltons overlaps the claimed range of between 800 kDa and 5 MDa.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is a product-by-process claim. Please note that in product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” See MPEP 2113 Product-by-Process Claims [R-08.2017] I. PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE MANIPULATIONS OF THE RECITED STEPS, ONLY THE STRUCTURE IMPLIED BY THE STEPS “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claims 11-13 and 20, Jones et al. teach making a dispersion of the perfume containing particles in water base [0090], which reads on a perfumery carrier and/or perfumery base and/or personal care base to make a perfuming composition/consumer product. Optional component are not required.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 6-8, 10-13, 16 and 20 Jerri et al. teach in claim 1:
PNG
media_image3.png
250
546
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Jerri et al. teach that the oil comprises a perfume in a perfuming composition with perfumery carrier and perfumery adjuvants (Claims 6 and 17) and consumer products in the form of a home or personal care product (Claims 18-19). The perfumery carrier serves as a base for the personal care or home care active. Jerri et al. teach that the cationic polymer is quaternized chitosan (Claim 4). Jerri et al. teach cationic polymers with hydroxypropyl trimethylammonium chloride functionalization for example [0071]. Jerri et al. teach both crosslinked and uncrosslinked embodiments [0180, 0190] and the chitosan does not appear to be crosslinked to the polymeric shell.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Nazir et al. is directed to layer-by-layer modified silicon oil droplets for shampoos and conditioners (Abstract) using 150 KDa chitosan with an 89% degree of deacetylation and quaternized as N-[(2hydroxy-3-trimethylammonium) propyl] chitosan chloride (HTCC) obtained from the reaction between chitosan and glycidyltrimethylammonium chloride (Page 43, left column 2.1. Materials). HTCC was absorbed on the surface of silicone oil droplets by electrostatic attraction to provide a positive charge and then a second deposition was carried out with alginate to form a 2nd layer on the silicone oil droplet and repeated until 6 layers were obtained (Page 43, right column 2.2. Preparation of silicone oil droplets with different surface charges). Nazir et al. report: “The surface charge density of droplets coated with HTCC was higher than those coated with DDMAC as shown in Figs. 1c and 2. There were more interaction sites for droplets coated with HTCC than those coated with DDMAC. This resulted in stronger interaction between droplets coated with HTCC and negative surface of hair substrates, which further enhanced the deposition of silicone oil on hair.” (Page 47, left column 2nd paragraph).
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02) and Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rational and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
The difference between the instant application and Jones et al. is that Jones et al. do not expressly teach an oil based core comprising a hydrophobic material or a home care and/or fabric care composition. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the particles of Jones et al. with an oil-based core comprising a hydrophobic material, as suggested by Jerri et al., and to have a home care and/or fabric care composition and produce the instant invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this because of the following reasons. First, Jones et al. teach and suggest that the particles contain a benefit agent that is a fragrance (Claim 6; [0022]) known to the person skilled in the art of perfuming [0023] and citrus oils [0025] and essential oils for the fragrances [0026]. The essential oils naturally contain numerous hydrophobic compounds (See Abstract and Figure 1 of Dhifi et al. “Essential oils, which are complex mixtures of volatile compounds particularly abundant in aromatic plants”) and read on an oil based core comprising a hydrophobic material. Additionally, Jones et al. teach that the encapsulated fragrance can be a lipid, which is by nature hydrophobic [0028-0029]. Secondly, the art of Jerri et al. teaches that such perfume containing particles have an oil-based core that comprises a perfume (Claims 1, 6 and 17). In view of the combined references, the ordinary artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the art of Jones et al. to have a core-shell microcapsule slurry comprising an oil-based core comprising a hydrophobic material. How the artisan uses the perfumed product as a home care composition and/or a fabric care composition are intended uses of the composition and implicit in the composition of Jones et al. An intended use will not limit the scope of the claim because it merely defines a context in which the invention operates. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
The difference between the instant application and Jones et al. is that Jones et al. do not expressly teach the functional component of glycidyl trimethylammonium chloride. However, Jerri et al. teach that in perfume core-shell microcapsule slurries, the artisan can employ quaternized chitosan and through the teachings of Nazir et al. the artisan is guided specifically to HTCC for its enhanced deposition of the silicon oil droplets on hair. Therefore, the ordinary artisan, before the effective filing date, would be motivated to select functionalized chitosan with at least glycidyl trimethylammonium chloride for at least the enhanced deposition on hair, as suggested by Nazir et al., for use in the personal care composition of Jones et al. The ordinary artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success because Jerri et al. teach similar perfume compositions with quaternized chitosan, which would be a functional equivalent and Nazir et al. have demonstrated success in application to hair. Thus, in view of the combined references, a core-shell microcapsule slurry comprising an oil-based core comprising a hydrophobic material, a polymeric shell and a coating comprising a functionalized chitosan derivative with glycidyl trimethylammonium chloride is obvious to the ordinary artisan.
The difference between the instant application and Jones et al. is that Jones et al. do not expressly teach wherein the functionalized chitosan derivative is functionalized to a degree from 10% to 100% of residual amino groups or wherein the functionalized chitosan derivative is functionalized to a degree of at least 40% of residual amino groups. As noted above, the chitosan of Jones et al. is functionalized but Jones et al. is silent to what degree the functionalization might be. The Examiner has two positions. First, Nazir et al. provide guidance to the degree of functionalization which falls within the claimed ranges. Secondly, this is a result effective variable routinely optimized by the ordinary artisan for the desired application where the art of Nazir et al. provide a reasonable expectation of success. Consequently, absent unexpected results, the claimed functionalization degree is not considered inventive without more.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerri et al. (US20180078468) and Jones et al. (US20200046628; IDS filed 9/15/23) and Nazir et al. (Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces 100 (2012) 42– 49; of record).
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
The references of Jerri et al., Jones et al. and Nazir et al. are discussed in detail above and those discussions are incorporated by reference.
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02) and Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rational and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
Jerri et al. do not expressly teach functionalization with glycidyl trimethylammonium chloride. However, as stated above Jerri et al. do teach and suggest quaternized chitosan and functionalization with cationic polymers with hydroxypropyl trimethylammonium chloride functionalization for example [0071] and Nazir et al. guide the artisan specifically to HTCC for its enhanced deposition of the silicon oil droplets on hair. Therefore, the ordinary artisan, before the effective filing date, would be motivated to select functionalized chitosan with glycidyl trimethylammonium chloride for the enhanced deposition on hair, as suggested by Nazir et al., for use in the personal care composition of Jerri et al. Consequently, it is obvious to employ the glycidyl trimethylammonium functionalized chitosan in the core-shell microcapsule slurry comprising an oil-based core comprising a perfume of Jerri et al. for those desirable benefits as a home care or personal care product with a reasonable expectation of success. It is the Examiner’s position that home care product would render obvious fabric care to the ordinary artisan.
Jerri et al. do not expressly teach the degree of deacetylation or the molecular weight of the chitosan. However, Jones et al. teach using chitosan of an average molecular weight of at least 10,000 Daltons, more preferably in the range of from 30,000 to 1,000,000 Daltons and the deacetylation degree of the chitosan component is at least 65%, more preferably from 70 to 95%, even more preferably from 72 to 90% and most preferably from 75 to 85%. [0018]. The range of at least 10,000 Daltons is open ended and encompasses the claimed range and the range from 30000 to 1000000 Daltons overlaps the claimed range of between 800 kDa and 5 MDa. Thus, the ordinary artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in using a chitosan with the claimed molecular weight range and the claimed degree of deacetylation in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
The difference between the instant application and Jerri et al. is that Jerri et al. do not expressly teach wherein the functionalized chitosan derivative is functionalized to a degree from 10% to 100% of residual amino groups or wherein the functionalized chitosan derivative is functionalized to a degree of at least 40% of residual amino groups. However, Nazir et al. provide guidance to the degree of functionalization which falls within the claimed ranges. Secondly, this is a result effective variable routinely optimized by the ordinary artisan for the desired application where the art of Nazir et al. provide a reasonable expectation of success. Consequently, absent unexpected results, the claimed functionalization degree is not considered inventive without more.
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103.
From the combined teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the combined references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Response to Arguments:
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/05/26 have been carefully considered but are not persuasive.
On page 8 of remarks, Applicant asserts that: “The Office Action relies on Holappa' s generalized benefits of enhanced aqueous solubility, usability and activity as a motivation for modifying Jones. However, Jones is not seeking to increase aqueous solubility, usability, or activity of the chitosan salt. Instead, Jones emphasizes retaining the chitosan salt on the particle and preventing removal of the chitosan salt upon exposure to water.” However, Holappa is no longer an applied reference and has been replaced with Nazir et al. as necessitated by IDS. Arguments concerning Holappa are moot. Respectfully, none of Applicant’s arguments concerning claims 1 or 10 are persuasive and all claims under examination remain rejected.
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 1-6, 8, 10-13 and 16-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-8, 10-14 and 16-20 of copending Application No. 18550549. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending has common inventors and assignee and is directed to a core-shell microslurry comprising an oil-based core comprising a hydrophobic material, a polymeric shell (Claim 1) with a functionalized chitosan derivative (Claim 5) of 3000 to 5000000 Da MW (Claims 6 and 17-19) that is not crosslinked (Claim 7) that is a perfumery composition with perfumery carrier and a perfumery base and optional adjuvant (Claim 12) or perfumed consumer product with personal care, home care and/or fabric care base (Claims 13-14) with a perfume (Claims 16 and 20). The copending does not expressly teach the components of claim 7. However, the scope of the functionalized chitosan includes the components of instant claim 7 (Specification page 27, lines 13-17). MPEP 804 states: “The portion of the specification of the reference that describes subject matter that falls within the scope of a reference claim may be relied upon to properly construe the scope of that claim.” Similarly, the scope of the chitosan deacetylation is taught to be “the chitosan or chitosan of the chitosan derivative has a degree of deacetylation (DD%) of 50% or more. In a particular embodiment, the chitosan or chitosan of the chitosan derivative has a degree of deacetylation of 60% or more, preferably of 70% or more or more preferably of 80% or more (Specification page 25, lines 23-27). The scope of the functionalized chitosan derivative is functionalized to a degree from 10% to 100% of the amino groups (Specification page 26, lines 23-24).
Accordingly, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the obvious variation of the instantly claimed subject matter over the copending subject matter.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments:
Applicant respectfully requests that these rejections be held in abeyance until the claims in the present application are found otherwise allowable. The rejection is maintained at this time.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 6/11/26 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 ERNST V ARNOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-8509. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-3:30.
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, Brian Y Kwon can be reached at 571-272-0581. 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.
/ERNST V ARNOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613
Prosecution Insights