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 .
Applicants’ arguments, filed 05/11/2026, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office action are hereby withdrawn.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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103 – By Amendment
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
1) Claims 1-3, 6-12, 14, 16, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liard et al. (WO 2020/260097 A1, publication date 12/30/2020; cited in IDS 10/10/23), Nguyen et al. (US 2013/0129648 A1, publication date 05/23/2013), Goutsis (US 2018/0235856 A1, publication date 08/23/2018) and Gao et al. (International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 2005, vol. 27, p. 139), as evidenced by SpecialChem (CI 15850, SpecialChem, 10/06/2022 [02/04/2026], https://www.specialchem.com/cosmetics/inci-ingredients/ci-15850).
Regarding instant claims 1-3, 9, 11, 16-17 and 19-20, Liard “relates to an anhydrous composition comprising at least one amino silicone, at least one alkoxysilane of formula (VIII), and at least one coloring agent chosen from pigments, direct dyes and mixtures thereof” [abstract]. According to Liard, “[t]hrough the use of this composition, colored coatings are obtained on the hair that make it possible to obtain a coloring that is visible on all types of hair in a manner that is persistent with respect to shampoo washing, while at the same time preserving the physical qualities of the keratin fibers” [0017]. Liard discloses an exemplary dye composition on page 45 at [00307]:
PNG
media_image1.png
422
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Liard discloses that “the colored coating of the keratin fibers obtained with the anhydrous composition I according to the invention shows good persistence with respect to shampoo washing. Specifically, the locks of hair dyed with the anhydrous composition I according to the invention and washed with three shampoo washes have better persistence of the color than the locks of hair dyed with the comparative compositions J and K” [00323]. The persistence is measured by the color intensity before and after washes (see formula at [00319] and Table 6 at [00321]). Liard also discloses the carrier oil may be linear or branched C6-C8 alkanes [00208], for example the isoparaffin, isododecane [00209] of Example I.
Red 7 lake has a color index of CI 15850 (i.e., instant claim 9), as evidenced by SpecialChem.
Liard does not disclose a polymer according to the elected species of formula (AG). Liard does not teach an addition product of C1-C6 alkylene oxide(s) to the esters of C12-C30 fatty acids and aromatic C1-C12 alcohols.
Nguyen “relates to silicone based hair coloring compositions comprising at least one silicone amine, at least one anionic silicone, at least one colorant, a cosmetically acceptable carrier” which is useful for coloring hair [abstract]. Nguyen discloses the silicone amine may be amodimethicone [0026], the colorant may be a pigment [0032] and the composition may additionally comprise alkoxylated silicones [0048]. According to Nguyen “cosmetically acceptable solvents such as lower alcohols, polyols such as glycerol, glycols such as butylene glycol, isoprene glycol, propylene glycol, or polyethylene glycols such as PEG-8, Sorbitol, Sugars such as glucose, fructose, maltose, lactose or Sucrose, and mixtures thereof. Other cosmetically acceptable carriers may include mineral oils, paraffin, silicone oils, synthetic or natural esters, and waxes” (PEG-8 suffices for instant claim 3 and 19) [0035]. Finally, Nguyen desires shine agents and emollients [0047].
Goutsis relates to “colouring agent for keratin fibres, comprising a selected dye and a polyol” [title]. Goutsis discloses that “[t]he shine of the colors produced by these methods should be long-lasting and last several washes” [0011]. According to Goutsis “even small volumes of 0.1 wt.% polyol lead to a more intense color, increased shine and improved gray coverage, the effects of a total volume of polyol(s) of at least 1.0 wt. % is particularly clear” [0031]. “Preferred polyols are multivalent C2 -C9 alkanols with two to six hydroxyl groups and polyethylenglycole with from 3 to 20 ethylene oxide units” [0027], for examples PEG-8 (i.e., 8 ethylene oxide units; instant claim 3 and 19) [0030]. Finally, Goutsis desires a composition that imparts high shine: “The task of the present disclosure was therefore to prepare new dyeing agents based on direct dyes, which intensively dye the hair, provide good gray coverage and at the same time give it a lot of shine” [0011].
Gao discloses PPG-3 benzyl ether myristate as a multifunctional, shine enhancing emollient with good pigment wetting behavior and hair shine enhancement [abstract].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the PEG-8 of Nguyen in place of the isoparaffin (isododecane) of Liard. One would have been motivated to make this substitution because Goutsis discloses polyethylene glycols, such as PEG-8, improve color intensity, as desired by Liard. Additionally, Goutsis discloses polyethylene glycols, such as PEG-8, have the desirable effect of improving coverage and shine. One would have had an expectation of success in making this substitution because Nguyen discloses polyethylene glycols, such as PEG-8, and paraffins are both suitable carriers for hair coloring compositions comprising, for example, amodimethicone, an alkoxylated silicone and a pigment. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to have substituted the PEG-8 of Nguyen in place of the isoparaffin (isododecane) of Liard as an anhydrous cosmetic carrier with a reasonable expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element (e.g., the PEG-8 of Nguyen) in place of another (e.g., the isododecane of Liard) in order to achieve predictable results (anhydrous cosmetic carrier) is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationale B.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have to have combined the PPG-3 benzyl ether myristate of Gao with the composition taught by Liard, Nguyen and Goutsis. One would have been motivated to combine these elements because Gao discloses PPG-3 benzyl ether myristate imparts the desirable properties of enhanced hair shine and good pigment wetting behavior. Furthermore, Nguyen and Goutsis both desire hair shine and Nguyen teaches emollients are appropriate for hair dye compositions. One would have had an expectation of success because PPG-3 benzyl ether myristate was specifically known for hair care compositions. Additionally, in combining these elements one would have expected nothing more than predictable results because, when combined, each prior art element would have performed the same function as it had separately. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationale A.
It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have formulated the composition taught above comprising PPG-3 benzyl ether myristate within the instantly claimed amounts through routine optimization. It has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable ranges by routine experimentation where, as is here, the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the composition disclosed by Liard, Nguyen, Goutsis and Gao to improve the shine and pigment wetting behavior of PPG-3 benzyl ether myristate. One would have had an expectation of success because PPG-3 benzyl ether myristate was discloses specifically to improve the shine effect of hair care composition.
Finally, instant claim 1 and 16 recite a product by process language. "[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) (See MPEP 2113.). In the present case the PPG-3 benzyl ether myristate is structurally the same as the addition product recited in the claims. Therefore the prior art compound has the same chemical properties and impart the same behaviors in composition, as the compound made by the instantly claimed process. Support is found in the specification which discloses PPG-3 benzyl ether myristate as a preferred embodiment of the addition products produced as instantly claimed (see instant specification at paragraphs 154-155 and 173).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to formulated a composition comprising a polymer of instant claims 1-3 (PEG-8), a pigment with a Color Index of CI 15850 (Red 7 lake), an amino-functionalized silicone polymer and addition products of C1-C6 (i.e., C3) alkylene oxide(s) to the esters of C12-C30 (i.e., C13) fatty acids and aromatic C1-C12 (benzyl alcohol) alcohols, i.e., PPG-3 benzyl ether myristate. Wherein the PPG-3 benzyl ether myristate is present within the instantly claimed ranges (i.e., instant claims 1 and 17). Wherein the amino-functionalized silicone polymer comprises at least on secondary amino group (amodimethicone; instant claim 11).
Regarding instant claims 6, 7, 10, 14 and 20: In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
In making this substitution as discussed above, the prior art teaches an amount of PEG-8 (i.e., a polymer of the instant formula (AG)) which overlaps with the instantly claimed ranges. For example, the prior art teaches a composition comprising 84% w/w carrier (i.e., isododecane substituted for PEG-8), which overlaps with the ranges of instant claims 6, 7 and 20 (10-99% w/w, 20-99% w/w and 50-99% w/w, respectively). Accordingly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for each range.
Similarly, the prior art discloses 5% w/w of at least on pigment and 8% w/w amodimethicone (i.e., amino-functionalized silicone polymer; e.g., see the table of Liard on page 45 at [00307] and reproduced above). These amounts of the prior art overlap with the ranges of instant claims 10 and 14 (0.01-10% w/w pigment and 0.1-8% w/w, respectively) and so a prima facie case of obviousness exists for each range.
Regarding instant claim 8, Liard discloses other suitable pigments include metal oxides, such as red iron oxide [00105].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have simply substituted the pigments of Example I for the red iron oxide discloses by Liard because Liard discloses red iron oxide is also a suitable pigment for the compositions. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to have substituted the red iron oxide of Liard in place of the pigments of Example I for red pigment with a reasonable expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element (e.g., red iron oxide of Liard) in place of another (e.g., the pigments of Example I) in order to achieve predictable results (red pigment) is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationale B.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have formulated the composition taught by Liard, Nguyen, Goutsis and Goa, as discussed above, to comprise a pigment consisting of a metal oxide (iron oxide).
Regarding instant claim 12, Liard does not disclose the exact structure of the amodimethicone. However, Liard does discloses suitable amino modified silicone polymer include those disclosed as Formula (V) [0051]:
PNG
media_image2.png
305
561
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have simply substituted the amino modified (functionalized) silicone polymer of Formula (V) for the amodimethicone of Example I because Liard discloses they are both suitable amino modified silicone polymers for the inventive composition. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to have substituted the Formula (V) in place of the amodimethicone of Example I as the amino-functionalized silicone polymers with a reasonable expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element (e.g., the Formula (V)) in place of another (e.g., the amodimethicone of Example I) in order to achieve predictable results (amino-modified silicone polymer) is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationale B.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to formulated the composition taught by Liard, Nguyen, Goutsis and Goa, as discussed above, wherein the amino-functionalized silicone polymer comprises at least one structural unit according to instant claims 12, wherein ALK1 and ALK 2 are C2 groups.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 6-12, 14-17 and 19-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/284,886 in view of Gao et al. (International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 2005, vol. 27, p. 139).
The instant claims and the copending claims both disclose an agent comprising an alkylene glycol with the same formula, at least on pigment and at least on amino-functionalized silicone polymer [instant claim 1; copending claim 1]. Wherein the agent may comprise the same pigments [instant claim 9; copending claim 7] and the amino-functionalized silicone polymers of the copending claims have the same structure as the instant claims [instant claim 12; copending claim 10].
The copending claims do not discloses an anhydrous composition.
However, because the independent claim does not recited water, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have formulated the composition wherein the components are only those recited in the independent claim, i.e., no water.
The copending claims do not disclose a compound according to instant claims 15 and 16.
Gao discloses PPG-3 benzyl ether myristate as a multifunctional, shine enhancing emollient with good pigment wetting behavior and hair shine enhancement [abstract].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combined the PPG-3 benzyl ether myristate and the composition of the copending claims to obtain the shine and pigment wetting behavior disclosed by Gao. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationale A.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
1) On pages 9 and 10 of their Remarks, Applicant argues that the proposed modifications to the primary reference, Liard, would have rendered it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Specifically, Applicant argues that “Unlike Liard, Nguyen, Goutsis, Special Chem, and Gao do not relate to temporary or removable dyeing compositions or processes” and “the more permanent nature of the cited references' compositions, and the alleged modifications of Liard, would result in a more permanent and non-removable dyeing composition incompatible with Liard' s goal” [Remarks, page 10].
This argument is not persuasive. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Nguyen discloses PEG-8 as simply a carrier, and does not indicate that using PEG-8 as a carrier would transform the hair dye into a permanent hair dye. In fact, Nguyen does not relate to only permanent hair dye, see for example Examples 17-19. Similarly, Goutsis relates to the use of polyols to improve shine over “several washes” (i.e., not permanent) [0011], and does not discloses that polyols produce permanent dyes. More particularly, Nguyen and Goutsis do not discloses permanent PEG-8 results in coloring compositions that persist even when a “makeup-removing composition” (i.e., Liard at [0021]) is applied to the hair. Therefore, a skilled artisan would not have expected PEG-8 to have transformed the coloring compositions of Liard into permanent coloring compositions.
Additionally, the proposed modifications would not have made Liard unsatisfactory for its intended purpose because even though Liard desires hair coloring that can be readily eliminated by a makeup-removing composition [0021], it is nevertheless entirely within the scope of Liard to increase the longevity of the color on the hair:
“Thus, the aim of the present invention is to develop a composition for treating keratin fibers, notably the hair, which has the advantage of obtaining a homogeneous and smooth colored coating on the hair, and also hair with complete strand separation, while at the same time forming a coating that is persistent with respect to shampoo washing and to the various attacking factors to which the hair may be subjected, such as brushing and/or rubbing, without degrading the hair.” Liard at [0013].
2) On page 10 of their Remarks, Applicant argues that “different types of processes for dyeing hair require different mechanisms and provide different results, and thus would not be motivated to modify or combine disparate processes and compositions to arrive at the presently claimed invention with any reasonable expectation of success.”
This argument is not persuasive.
Liard relates to a hair coloring composition comprising an aminosilicone, an alkoxysilane and a coloring agent chosen from pigments and/or dyes [abstract].
Nguyen relates to a hair coloring composition comprising an aminosilicone, an alkoxysilane (e.g., [0048]) and a coloring agent such as pigments [abstract].
Goutsis relates to improved coloring with a polyol in composition which may comprise dyes and pigments [abstract & 0064].
As discussed in the rejection explanations above, a skilled artisan would have had an expectation of success in combining the PEG-8 of Nguyen with the compositions of Liard because the compositions of Liard and Nguyen are so similar. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to use PEG-8 by the disclosure of Goutsis that polyols improve coloring properties.
3) On page 10 of their remarks, Applicant argues that the skilled person, when faced with the issue of providing temporary dyeing compositions capable of being eliminated when so desired (i.e., Liard) would not have looked to dyeing compositions targeted at improving longevity of the dye.
This argument is not persuasive. The disclosure of Liard would not have precluded a skilled artisan from endeavoring to improve the longevity of the composition. In fact, Liard desires a composition with improved longevity. For example, Liard discloses there is a need for a hair coloring composition that is capable of “forming a coating that is persistent with respect to shampoo washing and to the various attacking factors to which the hair may be subjected, such as brushing and/or rubbing, without degrading the hair” [0012].
4) On page 11 of their Remarks, Applicant argues that the Office has not provided facts sufficient to establish a motivation to combine the cited references.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, Goutsis discloses polyols improve the intensity when used in hair coloring compositions [abstract]. Thus, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to substitutes the PEG-8 of Nguyen in place of the carriers disclosed by Liard because Liard desires “coloring that is visible on all types of hair in a manner that is persistent with respect to shampoo washing” [0017]. Similarly, as skilled artisan would have been motivated to combined the PPG-3 benzyl ether myristate of Gao with the compositions taught by Liard because Gao discloses PPG-3 benzyl ether myristate as a multifunctional, shine enhancing emollient with good pigment wetting behavior and hair shine enhancement [abstract].
5) On page 11 of their Remarks, Applicant alleges unexpected results, specifically that compositions according to the claims retained at least 98% of the color content even after 6 hair washes.
This argument is not persuasive. To begin, the specification as originally filed attributes the allegedly unexpected results to the alkylene glycol (AG), for example see paragraph 19:
“Surprisingly, it has been found that the use of at least one specific alkylene glycol of formula (AG) greatly improves the washing resistance of the colorings after applying the agent according to the invention on the keratin material” [0019].
With respect to the allegation of unexpected results, overcoming a rejection based on unexpected results requires the combination of three different elements: (i) the results must fairly compare with the prior art, (ii) the results must truly be unexpected and (iii) the claims must be commensurate in scope. MPEP §716.02. The burden rests with Applicant to establish results are unexpected and significant. MPEP §716.02(b). Applicant's showing of allegedly unexpected results does not satisfy any of these requirements.
(i) Applicant has not compared the instant formulations to the closest prior art, which is Liard at page 45 at [00307] “Composition I”. Additionally, the Examiner respectfully notes that there is no comparative data; Applicant only discloses compositions according to the instant claims.
(ii) The evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (MPEP 716.02(b)). In the present case, Goutsis teaches polyols enhance shine and improve coverage of hair coloring compositions, even after several washes [0031, 0011 & abstract]. As such, it does not appear that improved washing resistance upon the addition of a polyol would have been unexpected in view of the prior art.
(iii) The "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support" (see MPEP 716.02(d) quoting In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980)). In the present case, the broadly claimed amino-functionalized silicone polymer and the addition product are not commensurate in scope with the narrowly disclosed aminosilicone (Dow Corning 2-8566 (Siloxanes and Silicones, 3-[(2-Aminoethyl)amino]-2-methylpropyl Me, Di-Me-Siloxane)) and PPG-3 benzyl ether myristate (Crodamol STS) of composition E1, respectively. See page 66, composition E1, of the instant specification. Additionally, the claims recite “at least one alkylene glycol” which is not commensurate in scope with the two alkylene glycols of the instant example E1 because the claims encompass compositions comprising only one alkylene glycol.
6) The copending claims continue to read on the instant claims and so the obviousness type double patenting rejections are maintained.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLMAN WELLES whose telephone number is (571)272-3843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:00pm ET.
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.
/C.T.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/WALTER E WEBB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights