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
Applicants’ amendments and arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim 10 is canceled.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 9, and 15-20 are amended.
Claims 11-14 remain withdrawn.
Claims 1-9 and 15-20 are examined on the merits.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, as the limitation of “less than 1 wt. % of water” it is noted that less than 1% encompasses 0%, therefore, any composition without water will satisfy this limitation.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation of 'for the non-chemical straightening or detangling of hair’ it is noted that the instant claims are composition claims and future intended use is not given patentable weight. Thus any composition comprising 60-80wt% of ethanol, 0.1-5wt% of at least one cationic surfactant, 5-50wt% of at least one ester oil; and less than 1 wt% of water will meet this limitation.
To the limitations of claims 2 and 15-16, Applicant is reminded this is a composition/product claim and the prior art teaches a cosmetic composition comprising 60-80% ethanol, 0.1-5% of at least one cationic surfactant, 5-50% of at least one ester oil, and less than 1% of water, thereby since a product is not separable from its physical properties then it necessarily teaches the composition having a viscosity of 0 to 2000 mPas as in claim 2, 100 to 800 mPas as in claim 15, and 200 to 500 mPas as in claim 16. Further, the prior art teaches a composition and process for forming said composition described by applicants instant application, but applicants observation that it also has ‘has a viscosity of 0 to 2000 mPas as in claim 2, 100 to 800 mPas as in claim 15, and 200 to 500 mPas’ does not give it patentable weight, since it is the same composition and same process of making, as adding a characterization to a prior art patented invention is not patentable.
To the limitations of claim 3, Applicant is reminded this is a composition/product claim and the prior art teaches a cosmetic composition comprising 60-80% ethanol, 0.1-5% of at least one cationic surfactant, 5-50% of at least one ester oil, and less than 1% of water, thereby since a product is not separable from its physical properties then it necessarily teaches the composition ‘is transparent’ as in claim 3’. Further, the prior art teaches a composition and process for forming said composition described by applicants instant application, but applicants observation that it also has a ‘transparent’ appearance does not give it patentable weight, since it is the same composition and same process of making, as adding a characterization to a prior art patented invention is not patentable.
New Rejections Necessitated by Claim Amendments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-9 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US20200206111A1, published 07/02/2020, found in IDS, hereafter Lee).
Lee claims a transparent and substantial anhydrous cosmetic composition for hair care and conditioning (title and claims 1 and 14; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 3). Lee claims the composition comprising from about 5 to about 70% of one of more monoalcohols (claim 1) or ethanol (claim 14), about 0.1 to about 5% of one or more cationic surfactants, and about 0.1 to about 20% of one or more fatty compounds/fatty esters based on the total weight of the composition (claim 1; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Lee further teaches the composition has a total amount of ethanol typically from about 5 to about 60% ([0035]; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Further, Lee claims the composition has about 5 to about 70% of ethanol (claim 14; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Lee claims the one or more cationic surfactants are selected from cetrimonium chloride, stearimonium chloride, behentrimonium chloride, behentrimonium methosulfate, behenamidopropyltrimonium methosulfate, stearamidopropyltrimonium chloride, arachidtrimonium chloride, distearyldimonium chloride, dicetyldimonium chloride, tricetylmonium chloride, oleamidopropyl dimethylamine, linoleamidopropyl dimethylamine, isostearamidopropyl dimethylamine, oleyl hydroxyethyl imidazoline, stearamidopropyldimethylamine, behenamidopropyldimethylamine, behenamidopropyldiethylamine, behenamidoethyldiethyl-amine, behenamidoethyldimethylamine, arachidamidopropyldimethylamine, arachidamido-propyidiethylamine, arachidamidoethyidiethylamine, arachidamidoethyidimethylamine, and mixtures thereof (claims 5 and 16; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 4-5, and 17-18). Claim 7 of Lee claims the one or more fatty compounds to be fatty esters and/ one or more glycerol fatty esters and claim 8 of Lee claims the one or more fatty esters to be selected from a group to include fatty carbonate esters, glycerol fatty esters, sucrose fatty esters, sorbitan fatty ester, fatty acid esters, or mixtures thereof (according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 6-9, and 19-20). Furthermore, Lee claims the one or more fatty carbonate esters are selected from a list to include: R1O(C═O)R2, wherein R1 and R2 are independently linear or branched, saturated or unsaturated alkyl chains having 1 to 30 carbon atoms, or having 2 to 28 carbon atoms, or having 4 to 25 carbon atoms, or having 6 to 22 carbon atoms, preferably one or more fatty carbonates selected from C14-15 dialkyl carbonate, dicaprylyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, dihexyl carbonate, diethylhexyl carbonate, dimethoxyphenyl phenyloxoethyl ethylcarbonate, dimethyl carbonate, dipropyl carbonate, dipropylheptyl carbonate, dioctyl carbonate, and a mixture thereof (claims 9 and 16; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 6-9, and 19). Lee claims the one or more glycerol fatty esters are selected from caprylic/capric trigylcerides, glyceryl oleate, glyceryl stearate, glyceryl isostearate, glyceryl laurate, and a mixture thereof (claim 11; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 8-9, and 20). Lee claims the claims the composition is “anhydrous” then further defines “anhydrous” being interchangeable with “essentially free of water” or “substantially free of water” ([0027]; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Nonetheless, the essentially anhydrous composition may include less than 4 wt. %, less than 3 wt. %, less than 2 wt. %, less than 1 wt. %, or less than 0.5 wt. % of water ([0027]; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Claim 12 of Lee claims the composition has a viscosity of about 10mPas to about 10,000 mPas (according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 2 and 15-16). Further, Lee claims the composition is essentially free of silicones (claim 13; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Lee further teaches the composition is free or essentially free of silicones and preferably has no silicones ([0088]; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Additionally, Lee claims the addition of one or more fatty compounds at a concentration of about 0.1 to about 20% (claim 1; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Lee then teaches the fatty compound can include hydrocarbons, fatty alcohols, fatty alcohol derivatives, fatty acids, fatty acid derivatives, fatty esters, fatty ethers, oils, waxes, etc ([0154]; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Lee teaches that the oil may be a oil of plant origin and provides the following examples: sunflower oil, corn oil, soybean oil, marrow oil, grapeseed oil, sesame seed oil, hazelnut oil, apricot oil, macadamia oil, arara oil, castor oil, avocado oil, olive oil, rapeseed oil, coconut oil, wheatgerm oil, sweet almond oil, apricot oil, safflower oil, candlenut oil, coconut oil, camellina oil, tamanu oil, babassu oil and pracaxi oil, jojoba oil, and shea butter oil ([0164]; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Lastly, Lee teaches the compositions of the instant disclosure typically have a viscosity of about 10 mPas to about 10,000 mPas ([0028]; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 2 and 15-16).
Lee does not teach with sufficient specificity to anticipate and so the claims are obvious. It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to rearrange the teachings of Lee with a reasonable expectation of success to obtain the composition of the instant claims.
A reference is analyzed using its broadest teachings. MPEP 2123 [R-5]. “[W]hen a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious”. KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S,Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007)(quoting Sakraida v. A.G. Pro, 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976). “[W]hen the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious”, the relevant question is “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” (Id.). Addressing the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court noted that the analysis under 35 USC 103 “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007). The Court emphasized that “[a] person of ordinary skill is… a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 1742. A person of ordinary skill in the art who is not an automaton is capable of producing the composition of the instant claims with predictable results.
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 1-4, 6-9, 15-16, and 19-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6-8, and 11-14 of copending Application No. 18250901 in view of Lee et al. (US20200206111A1, published 07/02/2020, found in IDS, hereafter Lee).
18250901 claims a hair care product comprising a hair care composition that is in a clear and transparent liquid (claim 1; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 3). 18250901 claims the hair care composition comprises at least one monohydric alcohol, at least one quaternary ammonium salt, at least one emollient, and at least one medium-chain triglyceride (claim 2; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). 18250901 claims the at least one monohydric alcohol is ethanol (claim 3; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Claim 6 of 18250901 claims the at least one quaternary ammonium salt is alkyltrimethylammonium salt and is present in the composition in a concentration of 0.5-5wt% (according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 4-5). Claim 7 claims the emollient is a dialkyl carbonate and is present in a concentration of from 0.5-15% (according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 19). Claim 8 of 18250901 claims the one medium-chain triglyceride is a C6 to C12 fatty acid-based triglyceride, and is present in a concentration of 0.5% to 15% based on the total weight of the hair care composition (according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Claims 11-14 of 18250901 claims the at least one monohydric alcohol is ethanol (according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Claims 11-12 of 18250901 claims the at least one quaternary ammonium salt is an alkyltrimethylammonium salt in the concentration of 0.5 to 5% and 1 to 4% (according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Further, claims 11-14 claims the at least one medium-chain triglyceride is a C6 to C12 fatty-acid-based medium-chain triglyceride is present in a concentration of 0.5 to 15%, or more specifically 3 to 12% and is caprylic/capric triglyceride (according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 20).
18250901 fails to claim the concentration of ethanol as in instant claim 1. Further, 18250901 fails to claim the addition of 0.01 to 5% of at least one vegetable oil as in instant claim 1. Lastly, 18250901 fails to claims the composition is free of silicones as in instant claim 1.
As outlined above, Lee teaches a transparent and substantial anhydrous cosmetic composition comprising about 5 to about 70% of ethanol, about 0.1 to about 5% of one or more cationic surfactants, and about 0.1 to about 20% of one or more fatty compounds/fatty esters, specifically dicaprylyl carbonate and/or caprylic/capric triglyceride. Additionally, Lee claims the addition of one or more fatty compounds at a concentration of about 0.1 to about 20% (claim 1). Lee then teaches the fatty compound can include hydrocarbons, fatty alcohols, fatty alcohol derivatives, fatty acids, fatty acid derivatives, fatty esters, fatty ethers, oils, waxes, etc ([0154]). Lee teaches that the oil may be an oil of plant origin and provides the following examples: sunflower oil, corn oil, soybean oil, marrow oil, grapeseed oil, sesame seed oil, hazelnut oil, apricot oil, macadamia oil, arara oil, castor oil, avocado oil, olive oil, rapeseed oil, coconut oil, wheatgerm oil, sweet almond oil, apricot oil, safflower oil, candlenut oil, coconut oil, camellina oil, tamanu oil, babassu oil and pracaxi oil, jojoba oil, and shea butter oil ([0164]; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Further, Lee claims the composition is essentially free of silicones (claim 13). Lee further teaches the composition is free or essentially free of silicones and preferably has no silicones ([0088]).
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to claim a translucent hair care product comprising ethanol, caprylic/capric triglyceride and/or dialkyl carbonate, and a quaternary ammonium salt as outlined by 18250901 with the ready for improvement with the known technique of adjusting the concentration of the ethanol, and adding vegetable oil at the desired concentration, and making the composition free of silicone as outlined by Lee. Adjusting the forementioned components of a hair composition comprising ethanol, a quaternary ammonium surfactant, and an ester oil (i.e. caprylic/capric triglyceride), as claimed by instant claim 1 would yield predictable results thus making them of obviousness as modification of a known product with a known technique is within the purview of the skilled artisan. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-9, and 15-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 12, and 15-17 of copending Application No. 18044187 in view of Lee et al. (US20200206111A1, published 07/02/2020, found in IDS, hereafter Lee).
18044187 claims a hair care composition comprising at least one monohydric alcohol, at least one long chain fatty alcohol at a concentration from about 10 to about 35%, at least one medium-chain triglyceride, at least one emollient, and at least one quaternary ammonium salt (claim 1; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 4). 18044187 claims the at least one monohydric alcohol to be selected from a group to include ethanol and is present in a concentration of from about 13 to about 40 wt% based on the total weight of the hair care composition (claim 2; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Claim 4 of 18044187 claims the concentration of from about 15 to about 30 weight percent based on the total weight of the hair care composition (according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Claim 5 of 18044187 claims the at least one quaternary ammonium salt is an alkyltrimethylammonium salt, and is present in a concentration of from about 0.5 wt.% to about 5 wt.%, based on the total weight of the hair care composition (according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 4). Claim 8 of 18044187 claims the composition further comprises water in a concentration of less than about 20wt% (according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Claim 12 of 18044187 claims the monohydric alcohol is ethanol, and is present in a concentration of from about 20-30wt% of the total composition (according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Claim 15 of 18044187 claims the at least one quaternary ammonium salt is hexadecyltrimethylammonium chloride, also known at cetrimonium chloride, and is present in a concentration of from about 1 wt.% to about 4 wt.%, based on the total weight of the hair care composition (according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 4-5, and 17-18). Claim 16 of 18044187 claims the at least one emollient is dicaprylyl carbonate and is present in a concentration of from about 3 to about 12 wt% based on the total weight of the composition (according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 6-9, and 19). Claim 17 of 18044187 claims the at least one medium chain triglyceride is caprylic/capric triglycerides in a concentration of about 3 to about 12 wt% based on the total weight of the hair care composition (according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 6-9, and 20).
18044187 fails to claim the concentration of ethanol as in instant claim 1. Further, 18044187 fails to claim the addition of 0.01 to 5% of at least one vegetable oil as in instant claim 1. Lastly, 18044187 fails to claims the composition is free of silicones as in instant claim 1.
As outlined above, Lee teaches a transparent and substantial anhydrous cosmetic composition comprising about 5 to about 70% of ethanol, about 0.1 to about 5% of one or more cationic surfactants, and about 0.1 to about 20% of one or more fatty compounds/fatty esters, specifically dicaprylyl carbonate and/or caprylic/capric triglyceride. Additionally, Lee claims the addition of one or more fatty compounds at a concentration of about 0.1 to about 20% (claim 1). Lee then teaches the fatty compound can include hydrocarbons, fatty alcohols, fatty alcohol derivatives, fatty acids, fatty acid derivatives, fatty esters, fatty ethers, oils, waxes, etc ([0154]). Lee teaches that the oil may be an oil of plant origin and provides the following examples: sunflower oil, corn oil, soybean oil, marrow oil, grapeseed oil, sesame seed oil, hazelnut oil, apricot oil, macadamia oil, arara oil, castor oil, avocado oil, olive oil, rapeseed oil, coconut oil, wheatgerm oil, sweet almond oil, apricot oil, safflower oil, candlenut oil, coconut oil, camellina oil, tamanu oil, babassu oil and pracaxi oil, jojoba oil, and shea butter oil ([0164]; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Further, Lee claims the composition is essentially free of silicones (claim 13). Lee further teaches the composition is free or essentially free of silicones and preferably has no silicones ([0088]).
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to claim a translucent hair care product comprising ethanol, caprylic/capric triglyceride and/or dialkyl carbonate, and a quaternary ammonium salt as outlined by 18044187 with the ready for improvement with the known technique of adjusting the concentration of the ethanol, and adding vegetable oil at the desired concentration, and making the composition free of silicone as outlined by Lee. Adjusting the forementioned components of a hair composition comprising ethanol, a quaternary ammonium surfactant, and an ester oil (i.e. caprylic/capric triglyceride), as claimed by instant claim 1 would yield predictable results thus making them of obviousness as modification of a known product with a known technique is within the purview of the skilled artisan. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/17/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
In regards to Applicant’s argument the 35 USC § 102 rejection over Lee, Applicant argues that Lee discloses a cosmetic composition comprising, in part, propylene glycol and monoalcohols, wherein the weight ratio of propylene glycol to monoalcohol is from 20:1 to 1:1 and therefore, does not teach a composition which comprises at minimum 60% ethanol. Secondly, Applicant argues that the previous instant claim 10 which recited from 0.01 to 5% of at least one vegetable oil was not rejected by Lee in the previous 35 USC § 102 rejection and this limitation is now a requirement of the instant claim 1.
It is first noted that Applicant has amended instant claim 1 to include not only a narrower range of ethanol and the vegetable oil limitation of the previous claim 10, but also has amended to add the new limitation of the composition is free of silicones which was not previous claimed by any of the previous instant claims. Applicant’s amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection in regards to Lee. The 35 USC § 102 rejection over Lee is now replaced with a 35 USC § 103 rejection over Lee.
In regards to Applicant’s argument that Lee does not teach ethanol at a concentration of 60 to 80% as instantly claimed, Applicant is encouraged to review the new 35 USC § 103 rejection over Lee above which outlines that Lee claims ethanol specifically at a concentration of from about 5 to about 70% of ethanol (claim 14). In regards to Applicant’s argument that previous instant claim 10 was not previous rejected over Lee. It is again noted that the previous rejection was a 35 USC § 102 rejection and Lee did not anticipate the previous instant claim 10. However, in light of the additional changes to the independent claim 1 the 102 is dropped and under the new 35 USC § 103 rejection over Lee, Lee teaches the addition of vegetable oils as a fatty compounds at a concentration of about 0.1 to about 20% ([0154] and claim 1), specifically teaching sunflower oil, corn oil, soybean oil, marrow oil, grapeseed oil, sesame seed oil, hazelnut oil, apricot oil, macadamia oil, arara oil, castor oil, avocado oil, olive oil, rapeseed oil, coconut oil, wheatgerm oil, sweet almond oil, apricot oil, safflower oil, candlenut oil, coconut oil, camellina oil, tamanu oil, babassu oil and pracaxi oil, jojoba oil, and shea butter oil ([0164]). As outlined above, “[W]hen a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious”. KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S,Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007)(quoting Sakraida v. A.G. Pro, 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976). Thus it would be obvious to claim the instantly claimed vegetable oils and ethanol concentration.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments over the 35 USC § 103 rejection over Hartwich, Applicant’s amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection.
In regards to Applicant’s argument against the Double Patenting rejections, Applicant argues that terminal disclaimers would be premature at this stage of prosecution because the present claims have not been allowed. Applicant furthers this argument by requesting the rejections be withdrawn or held in abeyance until claims are otherwise allowable.
A request to hold abeyance is an improper response to a double patenting rejection. Since Applicants fail to properly respond to the rejections of record, the double patenting rejections over are maintained and updated to account for amendments.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 ALEXANDRA NICOLE ISNOR whose telephone number is (703)756-5561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 5:30am-3pm PST.
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, Bethany Barham can be reached at (571) 272-6175. 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.
/BETHANY P BARHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1611
/A.N.I./ Examiner, Art Unit 1611