DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
Status of Claims
The amendment, filed on 18 December 2025, is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 5, 9, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 2-4, 6-8, and 11 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 5, 9-10, and 12-20 are pending and under consideration in the instant Office Action.
Rejections Withdrawn
Rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103
The rejections of claims 1, 5, 9-10, and 12-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims and in favor of the new grounds of rejection below. The rejection of claims 2-4, 6-8, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been rendered moot in view of Applicant’s cancellation of the claims.
New Grounds of Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 5 and 16 recite CBD and CBG to each be present in an amount that is “about 1% by weight”. However, claim 1, upon which claim 5 depends, and claim 15, upon which claim 16 depends, have been amended to recite CBD and CBG in a ratio of 1:1. The limitation “about 1%” is an approximation and allows for slight variance above and below 1%, which would allow CBD and CBG to be present in a ratio that is not 1:1 and would therefore not incorporate the limitation from claims 1 or 15, respectively. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to remove the word “about” to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 10 recites “the emulsifier is at 1% - 5% by weight”. Claim 1, upon which claim 10 depends, has been amended to recite an emulsifier at “0.5%-1.5% by weight”, which is a narrower range/limitation and claim 10 therefore does not incorporate the limitations of claim 1. For example, prior art that recites an emulsifier at 5% by weight would be within the range recited by claim 10, but not the amended range recited in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, 9-10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaRosa (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0093539 A1, published on 1 April 2021) in view of Lurya et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0345657 A1, published on 5 November 2020, hereafter referred to as Lurya) and Paes et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0167540 A1, published on 6 June 2019, hereafter referred to as Paes).
LaRosa teaches a topical cosmetic composition that includes an external cosmetic agent, one or more pharmaceutically acceptable excipients, and at least one of a cannabinoid, terpene, and flavonoid (Abstract). The compositions of LaRosa are taught to prevent, treat, manage, and/or ameliorate a variety of skin conditions caused by aging via inclusion of one or more cannabinoid, terpene, and/or flavonoid, which are taught to benefit skin following topical application (para. [0006-0011]). An “external cosmetic agent” is defined by LaRosa as any chemical and/or biological agent that effectively treats the skin and/or leads to a visible reduction of signs associated with aging when topically applied (para. [0014]). LaRosa uses the term “cannabinoid” to refer to the diverse class of compounds that “act on cannabinoid receptors on cells that repress neurotransmitter release in the brain” and teaches that the term includes cannabidiol (CBD) and cannabigerol (CBG) (para. [0019]). When used in a topical cosmetic composition, LaRosa teaches that total quantity of cannabinoids in the composition can be 0.1-20% w/w (para. [0362]) or 0.01-2.5% w/w (para. [0365]), which encompasses the quantities and ranges of quantities of CBD and CBG in instant claims 15-16.
The compositions are also taught to include a solvent, emulsifier, thickening agent, and emollient (para. [0002] and claim 1). The emulsifier may be present in an amount of 3-8% w/w, which significantly overlaps with the quantities and ranges of quantities recited in instant claims 1, 10, and 15 (claim 8). Examples of emulsifiers taught by LaRosa include cetyl alcohol (Production Examples 1-2, 4, 10, 12-13, etc.) and cetearyl alcohol (Production Examples 1, 4-6, 8, 10-11, etc.). Cetyl alcohol is also taught to be capable of use as a thickening agent, which may be present in an amount from 0.3-3% w/w (claims 9-10), or an external cosmetic agent (para. [0329]), which may be present in an amount from 0.1-7.5% w/w (claim 4).
The composition is further taught to comprise an antioxidant in an amount from 0.05-0.5% w/w, which significantly overlaps with or encompasses the ranges and quantities recited in instant claims 7-9, 15, and 17 (para. [0028] and claims 20-21). Examples of antioxidants include 3,5-tert-butyl-4-hydroxytoluene, otherwise known as buylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), 2,3-tert-butyl-hydroxyanisole, and pentaerythrityl tetra-di-t-butyl hydroxyhydrocinnamate (para. [0028] and Production Examples 34, 58, 84, 114, 132, and 142).
Other components that are taught by LaRosa to optionally be in the composition include:
retinol (vitamin A) as an external cosmetic agent and/or antioxidant (para. [0014] and claims 3 and 20);
tocopherol (vitamin E) as an external cosmetic agent and/or antioxidant (para. [0014] and claims 3 and 20);
the triglyceride caprylic capric triglyceride as an emollient (claim 11 and Production Examples 1, 4, 6, etc.);
beeswax as a thickening agent and/or emollient (claims 9 and 11, Production Examples 5, 7, 23, etc.);
glycerin as an external cosmetic agent, solvent, and/or emollient (para. [0014] and claims 3, 5, and 11);
polyacrylate crosspolymer-6 as a thickener (Production Example 109 and claim 9);
dicaprylyl carbonate as a solvent and/or emollient (Production Examples 40, 50, and 111 and claims 5 and 11);
a synthetic or natural raw fragrance (para. [0029] and claim 16);
organic colorants or titanium dioxide (para. [0030], Production Examples 103-144, and claims 16 and 23); and
sodium polyacrylate, kaolin, and/or talc as an external cosmetic agent and/or absorbent (Production Examples 7-8, 10, 15, 28-30, 126, 146, etc.).
External cosmetic agents are taught to be present in an amount of 0.1-7.5% w/w (claim 4), solvents are taught to be present in an amount of 60-80% w/w (claim 6), thickening agents are taught to be present in an amount of 10-22% w/w (claim 10), and emollients are taught to be present in an amount of 10-22% w/w (claim 12).
Regarding instant claim 14, LaRosa teaches each of the recited components – from base claim 1, cannabinoids CBD and CBG (para. [0019]) in amounts that encompass the recited ranges (vide supra), cetyl alcohol (Production Examples 1-2, 4, 10, 12-13, etc.) and cetearyl alcohol (Production Examples 1, 4-6, 8, 10-11, etc.) as the one or more emulsifiers in amounts that encompass the recited ranges (vide supra), and pentaerythrityl tetra-di-t-butyl hydroxyhydrocinnamate (para. [0028] and Production Examples 34, 58, 84, 114, 132, and 142) as an antioxidant. Vitamins that can be in the composition of LaRosa are taught to be vitamins A and E (para. [0014] and claims 3 and 20), triglyceride caprylic capric triglyceride is taught and is equivalent to a liquid lipid (claim 11 and Production Examples 1, 4, 6, etc.), beeswax is taught and is equivalent to a solid lipid (claims 9 and 11, Production Examples 5, 7, 23, etc.), glycerin is taught and is equivalent to a moisturizing agent (para. [0014] and claims 3, 5, and 11), polyacrylate crosspolymer-6 is taught and is equivalent to a thickener (Production Example 109 and claim 9), synthetic or natural raw fragrances are taught (para. [0029] and claim 16), organic colorants or titanium dioxide are taught and are equivalent to coloring agents (para. [0030], Production Examples 103-144, and claims 16 and 23), and sodium polyacrylate, kaolin, and talc are taught and are equivalent to absorbents (Production Examples 7-8, 10, 15, 28-30, 126, 146, etc.).
Guidelines on the obviousness of similar and overlapping ranges, amounts, and proportions are provided in MPEP § 2144.05. With respect to claimed ranges which “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). These guidelines apply to the quantities of cannabinoids, emulsifiers, antioxidants, solvents, thickening agents, and external cosmetic agents – in each case, the ranges taught by LaRosa significantly overlap with the ranges recited in the instant application, rendering them prima facie obvious.
LaRosa does not teach the ratio of cannabinoids in their composition nor dicaprylyl carbonate to be present in an amount of 2.5-3.5% w/w. These deficiencies are offset by the teachings of Lurya and Paes.
Lurya teaches stock cannabinoid formulations that may be used in a variety of cosmetic products (Abstract). Lurya teaches that their composition achieves “enhanced cannabinoid absorption, efficacy and subject experience” (para. [0005]) when used by subjects in forms including creams, lotions, ointments, etc. (para. [0011]). The cannabinoids in the invention of Lurya are taught to include, among other compounds, CBD and/or CBG (para. [0070], [0092], and [0180]). When mixtures of cannabinoids are present, Lurya teaches that the weight ratio of the cannabinoids may be 1:1 to 1:10 (para. [0128]).
Paes teaches anti-aging cosmetic compositions in the form of gels and creams, comprising an oil-in-water emulsion (Abstract). The composition comprises at least one emollient, antioxidant, humectant, active ingredient, emulsifier, sensory modifier, and cosmetically acceptable carrier (para. [0060] and claim 1). One of the emollients that is taught to be suitable for an anti-aging cosmetic is dicaprylyl carbonate (para. [0061] and claim 2). In Table 1, Paes teaches a topical composition with anti-aging properties that contains 2.5% or 2.4% w/w in Example A and B, respectively, alongside other emollients including caprylyl methicone, C12-15 alkyl benzoate, dibutyl adipate, dicapryl ether, and Murumuru butter. Similar compositions are taught in Table 5 (Examples C and D), Table 6 (Examples C and D), Table 7 (Examples C and D), and Table 8 (Examples C and D) with concentrations of dicaprylyl carbonate range from 1.0-4.5% w/w.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing of the instant application, in view of the teachings of Lurya to try using CBD and CBG at a ratio of 1:1 and in view of the teachings of Paes to use dicaprylyl carbonate in an amount from 1.0-4.5% w/w in the invention of LaRosa because applying a known technique in similar products produces predictable results. LaRosa teaches topical cosmetic compositions comprising cannabinoids, vitamins, lipids, moisturizing agents, thickeners, fragrances, coloring agents, and absorbents in amounts that overlap with the ranges recited in the instant application. LaRosa teaches the inclusion of CBD and CBG in their invention, but teaches the total quantity of cannabinoids in the composition and not quantities of individual species. In view of the teachings of Lurya, an ordinary artisan would be motivated to try using CBD and CBG in a 1:1 ratio because Lurya teaches this ratio to be appropriate in a topically applied cosmetic containing CBD and CBG that yields enhanced cannabinoid absorption and efficacy. In addition, the taught ratios provide missing information that one of ordinary skill would need to complete the invention of LaRosa.
LaRosa does not teach the amount of each individual emollient in a given composition when more than one is present, merely that the total quantity of emollients accounts for 10-22% w/w of the total composition. In view of the teachings of Paes, an ordinary artisan would be motivated to use dicaprylyl carbonate in an amount from 1.0-4.5% w/w because Paes also teaches that the component can be used in combination with other emollients in a product intended to have anti-aging effects on skin and, in that instance, dicaprylyl carbonate may be present in an amount of 1.0-4.5% w/w, including at ~3% w/w. As a result, there is a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the invention of instant claims 1, 5, 9-10, 12-20 in view of the teachings of LaRosa, Lurya, and Paes.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaRosa et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0093539 A1, published on 1 April 2021, hereafter referred to as LaRosa) in view of Lurya (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0345657 A1, published on 5 November 2020).
LaRosa has been described above.
LaRosa does not teach the ratio of cannabinoids in their composition. This deficiency is offset by the teachings of Lurya.
Lurya has been described above.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing of the instant application, to try using CBD and CBG at a ratio of 1:1 in the invention of LaRosa in view of the teachings of Lurya because applying a known technique in similar products produces predictable results. LaRosa teaches topical cosmetic compositions comprising cannabinoids, vitamins, lipids, moisturizing agents, thickeners, fragrances, coloring agents, and absorbents in amounts that overlap with the ranges recited in the instant application. LaRosa teaches the inclusion of CBD and CBG in their invention, but teaches the total quantity of cannabinoids in the composition and not quantities of individual species. In view of the teachings of Lurya, an ordinary artisan would be motivated to try using CBD and CBG in a 1:1 ratio because Lurya teaches this ratio to be appropriate in a topically applied cosmetic containing CBD and CBG that yields enhanced cannabinoid absorption and efficacy. In addition, the taught ratios provide missing information that one of ordinary skill would need to complete the invention of LaRosa. As a result, there is a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the invention of instant claims 15-17 in view of the teachings of LaRosa and Lurya.
Response to Arguments
The Declaration under 37 C.F.R. 1.132 from Xuan Tan, filed on 18 December 2025, is acknowledged.
The Applicant’s arguments, filed on 18 December 2025, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
From the penultimate para. of pg. 8 to para. 1 of pg. 9, Applicant argues that the LaRosa reference “does not identify, let alone aim to solve, the problem of cannabinoid stabilization”, while Exhibit A of the Declaration provides a stable cannabinoid composition. The teachings of LaRosa, Lurya, and Paes have rendered obvious the claimed composition. The long-term stability of the composition is an inherent property of the composition and ‘the discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” See MPEP § 2112.I. “Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).”
In para. 2 of pg. 9, Applicant argues that the LaRosa reference does not teach the 1:1 combination of CBD and CBG, its effect on stability, nor the stability of the dicaprylyl carbonate at the recited content in combination with other components. The new grounds of rejection above provide motivation for the ratio of CBD:CBG and the resulting stability would naturally flow from the composition containing the same species and quantities as recited in amended claim 1. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).” See MPEP § 2112.01. "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, "[p]roducts of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Because the teachings of LaRosa, Lurya, and Paes have rendered obvious the claimed composition, it necessarily possesses the stability Applicant is referencing.
Applicant also argues in para. 2 of pg. 9 that the LaRosa reference teaches a broad number of components “without any guidance pointing towards a specific, optimized combination for stability”. LaRosa teaches that their invention is stable (LaRosa, para. [0008]) and teaches the recited species, therefore this argument is found unpersuasive.
Applicant further argues in this para. that a person of ordinary skill would not arrive at the claimed composition through routine optimization. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and refers Applicant to MPEP § 2144.05.II. and III. “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. ‘[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.’ In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).” Further, to support a rejection on the basis that a claimed range may be found via routine optimization, “the examiner must make findings of relevant facts, and present the underpinning reasoning in sufficient detail. The articulated rationale must include an explanation of why it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention and why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range. See In re Stepan, 868 F.3d 1342, 1346, 123 USPQ2d 1838, 1841 (Fed. Cir. 2017)”.
LaRosa teaches that CBD and CBG may be present at a weight range of 0.01-2.5% w/w (para. [0365]), PTDTBH in an amount from 0.05-0.5% w/w, and cetyl alcohol in amounts that may be 3-8% w/w, 0.3-3% w/w, or 0.1-7.5% w/w. The quantity of PTDTBH is identical to the claimed range, the quantities of CBD and CBG significantly overlap with those in amended claim 1 when used in a 1:1 ratio as motivated by the teachings of Lurya, and the quantity of dicaprylyl carbonate significantly overlaps with the recited range as motivated by the teachings of Paes. The quantity of cetyl alcohol is taught by LaRosa to be variable, but because there are a finite number of quantities, including ranges that significantly overlap with or encompass the amended range, the Supreme Court has held that the obviousness rejection is properly supported. See MPEP § 2144.05.II.B. and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 (2007).
In the para. that spans the bottom of pg. 9 and top of pg. 10, Applicant argues that the LaRosa reference does not teach the “uniquely or unexpectedly effective” ability of PTDTBH to stabilize cannabinoids. As stated in MPEP § 2112.III-IV., the mere recognition of newly discovered properties, which are “inherently possessed by things in the prior art, does not distinguish a claim drawn to those things from the prior art”. LaRosa taught a composition comprising cannabinoids and PTDTBH and taught the composition to be stable. The argument that a composition comprising CBD, CBG, and PTDTBH is stable is “unexpected” is not found to be persuasive and the recognition that the stability arises from PTDTBH does not distinguish the instant invention from the prior art.
In para. 2-3 of pg. 10, Applicant argues that the LaRosa reference does not teach all of the limitations of amended claim 1. This argument is rendered moot by the new grounds of rejection above.
In the para. that spans the bottom of pg. 11 and top of pg. 12, Applicant argues that the Paes reference does not teach all of the limitations of amended claim 1. This assertion was not made in the non-final Office Action mailed on 1 October 2025, and is therefore not found to be persuasive.
In para. 2 of pg. 12, Applicant argues that the Paes reference does not teach the role of dicaprylyl carbonate in stabilizing cannabinoid compounds and teaches its inclusion “solely as an emollient for skin-feel benefits”. As stated above, the recognition of a property arising from a component that has already been taught in a composition in the prior art does not render an invention patentable. Further, it is not necessary for Paes to teach that dicaprylyl carbonate stabilizes cannabinoids to motivate its combination with the LaRosa reference. See MPEP § 2144.IV. “The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)” (bold added for emphasis).
Applicant further argues that an ordinary artisan would not combine the teachings of Paes and LaRosa “to solve a technical problem that neither mentions” and that the combination “is an exercise in hindsight”. This argument was not made in the Office Action mailed on 1 October 2025 – the motivation for combining the references was to improve the anti-aging effects of the composition (vide supra). As a result, the arguments are found unpersuasive.
In the para. that spans the bottom of pg. 12 and top of pg. 13, Applicant claims that the composition recited in amended claim 1 produces unexpected technical effects, specifically high stability of cannabinoids following 3 months of storage. As stated above, the mere recognition of newly discovered properties, which are “inherently possessed by things in the prior art, does not distinguish a claim drawn to those things from the prior art”. See MPEP § 2112.III-IV. The claimed composition has been rendered prima facie obvious in view of the teachings of LaRosa, Lurya, and Paes (vide supra). The Federal Circuit further stated that “just as the discovery of properties of a known material does not make it novel, the identification and characterization of a prior art material also does not make it novel.” See MPEP § 2112.I.
Finally, in para. 2 of pg. 13, Applicant claims that a person of ordinary skill would not use PTDTBH as a stabilizer for cannabinoids in view of the teachings of LaRosa and Paes. This argument was not made in the Office Action mailed on 1 October 2025 – the motivation for combining the references was to improve the anti-aging effects of the composition (vide supra). Further, as cited above, “It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)”. MPEP § 2144.IV. As a result, the arguments are found unpersuasive.
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 Sean J. Steinke, Ph.D., whose telephone number is (571) 272-3396. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri., 09:00 - 17:00 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, David Blanchard, can be reached at (571) 272-0827. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/S.J.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/DAVID J BLANCHARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1619