DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 2, and 4-16 are pending in the application and are being examined on the merits.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims, filed July 8, 2026, is acknowledged. This listing of the claims replaces all previous versions and listings of the claims.
Applicant’s amendment to the specification, filed July 8, 2026, is acknowledged.
Applicant’s submission of terminal disclaimers, filed July 8, 2026 and July 9, 2026, are acknowledged.
Applicant’s remarks filed July 8, 2026 in response to the non-final rejection filed April 8, 2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered.
Claims 3 and 17 have been canceled by applicant’s claim amendment filed July 8, 2026 and rejections previously applied to these claims are withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on July 8, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent granted on Application Number 18/501,334 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded. It is noted that Application Number 18/501,334 has been abandoned.
The terminal disclaimer filed on July 9, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent granted on Application Number 18/501,344 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Specification/Informalities
The objection to the specification for a trade name or a mark used in commerce is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment to the specification.
Claim Objections
The objection to claim 11 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment to claim 11 to add “surfactant” immediately following “non-ionic.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite in the recitation of “substantially free” is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment to claim 1 to replace “is substantially free” with “comprises less than about 0.01%” in claim 1 and “comprises less than about 0.01% of borate” in claim 15.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. This rejection has been modified from its previous version to address applicant’s amendment to claim 15 to recite “about.”
Claims 1 (claims 2 and 4-16 dependent therefrom), 8, 9, 12, 15, and 16 are indefinite in the recitation of “about,” which is a term of approximation (see MPEP 2173.05(b).III.A). The examiner has reviewed the specification and can find no examples or teachings that can be used for ascertaining the percentages, numerical values, or amounts encompassed by the term “about.” Moreover, there is nothing in the specification or prior art of record to indicate that one of ordinary skill in the art could have ascertained the scope of the recited term of approximation. It is suggested that applicant clarify the meaning of “about.”
RESPONSE TO REMARKS: Applicant argues the rejection is obviated by amendment to claims 1 and 15 to replace “substantially free” with “comprises less than about.”
Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive because the amendments to claims 1 and 15 to replace “substantially free” with “comprises less than about” fail to clarify the meaning of the term “about” in the context of the claims.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. This rejection is necessitated by applicant’s amendment to recite “comprises less than about 0.01%” in claim 1 and to recite “comprises less than about 0.01% of borate” in claim 15.
Claims 1 (claims 2 and 4-16 dependent therefrom) and 15 are indefinite in the recitation of “comprises less than about 0.01%” and “comprises less than about 0.01% of borate,” respectively, because it is unclear as to what is referenced by the recited percent. For example, the recitation of “the composition comprises less than about 0.01% of optical brightener” in claim 1 can be interpreted as meaning the composition comprises less than about 0.01% of optical brightener by volume of the composition or, alternatively, can be interpreted as meaning the composition comprises less than about 0.01% of optical brightener by weight of the composition. It is suggested that applicant clarify the meanings of the noted phrases.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-11, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Rajanarayana et al. (WO 2023/057367 A1; cited on Form PTO-892 filed April 8, 2026; hereafter “Rajanarayana”) is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment to claim 1 to recite “wherein the hueing dye comprises a polymeric azo polyoxyalkylene dye.” According to the instant specification, “hueing dye” is sometimes referred to as “shading dye” (p. 4, line 28). Rajanarayana teaches shading dyes are well known in the art of laundry liquid formulation and can be used to improve the performance of the compositions (p. 27, lines 1-7). Rajanarayana teaches the shading dye is preferably present in the composition in the range from 0.0001 to 0.1 wt% (p. 27, lines 24-25). Rajanarayana teaches exemplary shading dyes including alkoxylated mono-azo thiophenes (p. 27, lines 10-22), however, Rajanarayana does not teach the shading dye comprises a polymeric azo polyoxyalkylene dye.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajanarayana in view of Schnorr et al. (WO 2001/062903 A1; cited on Form PTO-892 filed April 8, 2026; hereafter “Schnorr”),
the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajanarayana,
the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajanarayana in view of Liu et al. (WO 2021/121394 A1; cited on Form PTO-892 filed April 8, 2026; hereafter “Liu”), and
the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajanarayana in view of Morikawa et al. (WO 2013/157480 A1; cited on Form PTO-892 filed April 8, 2026; hereafter “Morikawa”)
are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment to claim 1 to recite “wherein the hueing dye comprises a polymeric azo polyoxyalkylene dye.” As explained above, while Rajanarayana teaches exemplary shading dyes including alkoxylated mono-azo thiophenes, Rajanarayana does not teach the shading dye comprises a polymeric azo polyoxyalkylene dye.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajanarayana in view of Miracle et al. (US 2016/0075977 A1; cited on Form PTO-892 filed April 8, 2026; hereafter “Miracle”). The instant rejection was previously applied to claims 3 and 4 and has been modified to address applicant’s amendments to the claims.
As amended, claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-14 are drawn to a laundry detergent composition comprising:
from about 0.0001% to about 1% by weight of the composition of a hueing dye, wherein the hueing dye comprises a polymeric azo polyoxyalkylene dye;
b) a xyloglucanase; and
wherein the composition comprises less than about 0.01% of optical brightener.
Regarding instant claims 1 and 4, claim 1 of Rajanarayana recites a laundry composition comprising a linear alkyl benzene sulphonate (LAS) anionic surfactant obtained from waste plastic feedstock, LAS obtained from petroleum feedstock, and an enzyme.
According to the instant specification, “hueing dye” is sometimes referred to as “shading dye” (p. 4, line 28). Rajanarayana teaches shading dyes are well known in the art of laundry liquid formulation and can be used to improve the performance of the compositions (p. 27, lines 1-7). Rajanarayana teaches the shading dye is preferably present in the composition in the range from 0.0001 to 0.1 wt% (p. 27, lines 24-25). Rajanarayana teaches exemplary shading dyes including alkoxylated mono-azo thiophenes (p. 27, lines 10-22).
Rajanarayana teaches preferably the laundry composition has a cocktail of conventional applicable enzymes like protease, amylase, lipase, cutinase, mannanases, xyloglucanases and/or cellulase (p. 8, lines 5-7).
Rajanarayana teaches preferably the composition has 0 wt% optical brightener (p. 42, lines 26-27).
The difference between instant claims 1 and 4 and Rajanarayana is that while Rajanarayana teaches exemplary shading dyes including alkoxylated mono-azo thiophenes, Rajanarayana does not specifically teach the shading dye comprises a polymeric azo polyoxyalkylene dye as recited in claims 1 and 4.
Miracle teaches laundry care compositions comprising carboxylate fabric shading dyes (Abstract) with azo dyes being particularly preferred (paragraph [0023]). Miracle teaches polymeric dyes including polymeric azo polyoxyalkylene dyes (paragraph [0072]) and teaches that preferably, the fabric shading dye has the following structure, wherein the index values x and y are independently selected from 1 to 10.
PNG
media_image1.png
182
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Miracle teaches the composition preferably comprises one or more enzymes (paragraph [0112]) and teaches preferred enzymes include microbial-derived endoglucanases with Whitezyme as a suitable endoglucanase (paragraph [0131]). Miracle teaches exemplary laundry detergent compositions comprising a carboxylate dye and a xyloglucanase, Whitezyme (Examples 14, 15, and 18-20).
In view of the combined teachings of Rajanarayana and Miracle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the azo fabric shading dye of Miracle in the laundry composition of Rajanarayana. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated and expected success to do so because Rajanarayana taught exemplary shading dyes including alkoxylated mono-azo thiophenes and Miracle taught alkoxylated mono-azo thiophenes as shading dyes that are suitable for combination with a xyloglucanase in a detergent composition.
Regarding instant claim 2, Rajanarayana teaches a small molecule phenazine shading dye (p. 27, lines 14-20).
Regarding instant claims 6 and 7, claim 14 of Rajanarayana recites the composition is a liquid laundry composition.
Regarding instant claim 8, Rajanarayana teaches the composition preferably has a pH ranging from 6 to 8 (p. 12, lines 16-17) or preferably has a pH ranging from 8.5 to 10.2 (p. 33, lines 10-11).
Regarding instant claims 9 and 10, as stated above, claim 1 of Rajanarayana recites a laundry composition comprising a linear alkyl benzene sulphonate (LAS) anionic surfactant obtained from waste plastic feedstock, LAS obtained from petroleum feedstock, and an enzyme. Rajanarayana teaches the laundry composition comprises preferably at least 10 wt.%, most preferably at least 15 wt.% of LAS, but typically not more than 45 wt.%, still preferably not more than 40 wt.%, still further preferably not more than 35 wt.%, still more preferably not more than 30 wt.% and most preferably not more than 25 wt.%, still more preferably not more than 20 wt.% of LAS based on the weight of the detergent composition (p. 7, lines 4-7).
Regarding instant claim 11, Rajanarayana teaches the surfactant includes alkylpolyglycosides (p. 14, line 29), which is a naturally-occurring non-ionic surfactant.
Regarding claim 12, Rajanarayana teaches the detergent composition includes from 2% to 40% of an anionic surfactant (p. 38, lines 15-16) and teaches non-limiting examples of useful anionic surfactants include C10 to C18 alkyl alkoxy sulfates (p. 37, lines 11-22). According to MPEP 2144.05.I, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding instant claims 13 and 14, as stated above, Rajanarayana teaches preferably the laundry composition has a cocktail of conventional applicable enzymes like protease, amylase, lipase, cutinase, mannanases, xyloglucanases and/or cellulase (p. 8, lines 5-7).
Therefore, the laundry detergent composition of claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-14 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajanarayana in view of Miracle as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-14 above, and further in view of Schnorr. This rejection is necessitated by applicant’s amendment to claim 1.
Claim 5 is drawn to the detergent composition according to claim 1 wherein the xyloglucanase has an amino acid sequence selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NO: 1, SEQ ID NO: 2, SEQ ID NO: 3, SEQ ID NO: 4, SEQ ID NO: 5, SEQ ID NO: 6 and SEQ ID NO: 7, or a xyloglucanase that has an amino acid sequence having at least 60%, at least 65%, at least 70%, at least 75%, at least 80%, at least 85%, at least 90%, at least 95%, at least 96%, at least 97%, at least 98%, at least 99% or at least 100% sequence identity to any of SEQ ID NO: 1, SEQ ID NO: 2, SEQ ID NO: 3, SEQ ID NO: 4, SEQ ID NO: 5, SEQ ID NO: 6 and SEQ ID NO: 7.
The relevant teachings of Rajanarayana and Miracle as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-14 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 5, as previously stated, Rajanarayana teaches preferably the laundry composition has a cocktail of conventional applicable enzymes like protease, amylase, lipase, cutinase, mannanases, xyloglucanases and/or cellulase (p. 8, lines 5-7). Rajanarayana teaches xyloglucanases are disclosed in WO 00162903 A1, which is the reference of Schnorr.
The combination of Rajanarayana and Miracle does not teach an amino acid sequence encompassed by instant claim 5.
Schnorr generally teaches enzymes having substantial xyloglucanase activity, which enzymes belong to family 44 of glycosyl hydrolases and perform excellent in conventional detergent compositions, especially in liquid detergent compositions (p. 3, lines 22-26). Schnorr teaches the Paenibacillus polymyxa xyloglucanase of SEQ ID NO: 2 (pp. 2-6), the amino acid sequence of which is identical to instant SEQ ID NO: 1 (see Appendix at pp. 27-28 of the Office action filed April 8, 2026 for pairwise sequence alignment).
In view of the combined teachings of Rajanarayana, Miracle, and Schnorr, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the xyloglucanase of SEQ ID NO: 2 of Schnorr in the laundry composition of the combination of Rajanarayana and Miracle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated and expected success to do so because Rajanarayana taught xyloglucanases are disclosed in WO 00162903 A1, which is the reference of Schnorr, and Schnorr taught xyloglucanases including the xyloglucanase of SEQ ID NO: 2.
Therefore, the laundry detergent composition of claim 5 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajanarayana in view of Miracle as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-14 above, and further in view of Liu. This rejection is necessitated by applicant’s amendment to claim 1.
As amended, claim 15 is drawn to the detergent composition according to claim 1, wherein the composition comprises less than about 0.01% of borate.
The relevant teachings of Rajanarayana and Miracle as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-14 are set forth above.
The combination of Rajanarayana and Miracle does not teach the composition comprises less than about 0.01% of borate.
Liu teaches that it is important that liquid enzyme products are sufficiently stable to maintain specifications, even when they reach customers a long time after production (p. 1, lines 8-13). Liu teaches liquid enzyme formulations with aliphatic 1,2-diols additives, which improve enzyme stability, physical stability, solubility of enzyme protein, and microbial stability, and are substantially free of commonly used boron-based enzyme stabilizers (p. 1, line 36 to p. 2, line 9) such as boric acid (p. 2, lines 13-14), i.e., borate, which are generally undesirable and has been classified as reprotoxic (p. 2, lines 8-9). Liu teaches the liquid enzyme compositions are used for delivering enzyme into detergent production (p. 3, lines 1-2). Liu teaches xyloglucanases as suitable enzymes for the liquid enzyme formulation (p. 11, lines 15-35).
In view of the combined teachings of Rajanarayana, Miracle, and Liu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the laundry composition of the combination of Rajanarayana and Miracle to be free of borate. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated and expected success because Liu taught boron-based enzyme stabilizers are generally undesirable and have been classified as reprotoxic, and taught liquid enzyme formulations that are substantially free of commonly used boron-based enzyme stabilizers.
Therefore, the laundry detergent composition of claim 15 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajanarayana in view of Miracle as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-14 above, and further in view of Morikawa. Reference is made to a machine translation of Morikawa (cited on Form PTO-892 filed April 8, 2026). This rejection is necessitated by applicant’s amendment to claim 1.
Claim 16 is drawn to a method of laundering fabric wherein the method comprises the steps of:
a) providing a detergent composition according to claim 1;
b) diluting the detergent composition to provide a wash liquor having a total surfactant concentration of greater than about 100 ppm; and
c) washing fabric in the wash liquor.
The relevant teachings of Rajanarayana and Miracle as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-14 are set forth above.
The combination of Rajanarayana and Miracle does not teach a method of laundering fabric as set forth in claim 16.
Morikawa teaches a washing method in which clothes are immersed in a detergent composition for clothing diluted with water and then washed (translation at paragraph [0052]). Morikawa teaches the total surfactant concentration of the cleaning liquid is 100 ppm or more (translation at paragraph [0053]).
In view of the combined teachings of Rajanarayana, Miracle, and Morikawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the detergent composition of the combination of Rajanarayana and Miracle in the washing method of Morikawa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated and expected success to do so because Rajanarayana taught cleaning clothes using a detergent composition but does not explicitly teach steps for applying a detergent composition in a washing method, while Morikawa teaches steps for applying a detergent composition in a clothes washing method.
Therefore, the method of claim 16 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS: Applicant argues Rajanarayana teaches the detergent composition is preferably free of fluorescers, which is inconsistent with Miracle’s teaching that the detergent composition preferably comprises one or more fluorescent brighteners. According to applicant, Rajanarayana’s preference for excluding fluorescers “teaches away” from combining with Miracle’s preference for one or more fluorescent brighteners and that such mixed signals indicate a lack of clear motivation and preclude a finding of obviousness without relying on impermissible hindsight reasoning. In the interest of clarity, it is noted that while applicant references paragraph numbers of Rajanarayana, the reference of Rajanarayana does not include paragraph numbering.
Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive. As previously stated, Rajanarayana teaches a laundry composition comprising a xyloglucanase and – as acknowledged by applicant – Rajanarayana teaches the laundry composition is preferably free of optical brightener. Rajanarayana additionally teaches shading dyes are well known in the art of laundry liquid formulation and can be used to improve the performance of the compositions, and teaches exemplary shading dyes including alkoxylated mono-azo thiophenes. In this regard, Miracle teaches alkoxylated mono-azo thiophenes including the alkoxylated mono-azo thiophene of Formula A of claim 4 as shading dyes that are suitable for combination with a xyloglucanase in a detergent composition and given the combined teachings of Rajanarayana and Miracle, one would have been motivated to use the azo fabric shading dye of Miracle in the laundry composition of Rajanarayana. Thus, contrary to applicant’s position, there is no inconsistency between the teachings of Rajanarayana and Miracle.
As to applicant’s contention that the obviousness rationale is based on impermissible hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See MPEP 2145.X.A. In this case, the obviousness rationale is based only on knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure and thus, contrary to applicant’s position, the rejections do not rely on impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Applicant further argues a prima facie case of obviousness is rebutted by unexpected results showing synergistic whiteness benefits of the combination of a xyloglucanase and hueing dyes in the absence of optical brighteners. According to applicant, the unexpected results are commensurate in scope with the claimed invention.
Applicant’s allegation of unexpected results is not found persuasive. According to MPEP 716.02(e), the evidence of unexpected results must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art. In this case, applicant fails to compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art, which appears to be Rajanarayana disclosing a laundry composition comprising a linear alkyl benzene sulphonate (LAS) anionic surfactant obtained from waste plastic feedstock, LAS obtained from petroleum feedstock, and an enzyme (claim 1 of Rajanarayana) the enzyme preferably being a cocktail of conventional applicable enzymes including xyloglucanases (p. 8, lines 5-7), the laundry composition preferably comprising a shading dye such as an alkoxylated mono-azo thiophene (p. 27, lines 10-22) in an amount from 0.0001 to 0.1 wt% (p. 27, lines 24-25) and preferably having 0 wt% optical brightener (p. 42, lines 26-27). In this case, applicant’s evidence of unexpected results is not based on a comparison with the closest prior art and consequently fails to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.
Also, according to MPEP 716.02(d), unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. “Commensurate in scope” means that the evidence provides a reasonable basis for concluding that the untested embodiments encompassed by the claims would behave in the same manner as the tested embodiments. See In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508 (CCPA 1972). Although not expressly stated by applicant, applicant’s results appear to be based on a combination of 0.003% of Whitezyme 2.0 xyloglucanase and 0.04% of Liquitint Violet 200 hueing dye in the absence of a hueing dye, while the claims more generically recite “from about 0.0001% to about 1% by weight of the composition of a hueing dye, wherein the hueing dye comprises a polymeric azo polyoxyalkylene dye,” “a xyloglucanase,” and “the composition comprises less than about 0.01% of optical brightener.” While nonobviousness of a broader claimed range can be supported by evidence based on unexpected results from testing a narrower range (MPEP 716.02(d).I), there is no evidence of record that the untested embodiments encompassed by the claims (i.e., any amount of any xyloglucanase, any percentage from about 0.0001% to about 1% by weight of the composition of any polymeric azo polyoxyalkylene dye, and the presence of optical brightener within the range of less than about 0.01%, e.g., 0.009% optical brightener) would behave in the same manner as the tested embodiment. In this case, applicant’s results are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention and consequently fail to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-11, and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment to claim 1 to recite “wherein the hueing dye comprises a polymeric azo polyoxyalkylene dye.” A polymeric azo polyoxyalkylene dye is not a naturally-occurring product and thus, the laundry detergent composition of claims 1, 2, 5-11, and 13-15 is markedly different from what occurs in nature.
Claim Rejections - Double Patenting
The provisional rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5-16 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 13-19 of co-pending application 18/501,344 (reference application) in view of Rajanarayana, and
the provisional rejection of claims 3 and 4 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 13-19 of co-pending application 18/501,344 (reference application) in view of Rajanarayana as applied to claims 1, 2, and 5-16 above, and further in view of Miracle
are withdrawn in view of applicant’s submission of a terminal disclaimer disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent granted on Application Number 18/501,344.
Conclusion
Status of the claims:
Claims 1, 2, and 4-16 are pending in the application.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-16 are rejected.
No claim is in condition for allowance.
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 DAVID J STEADMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0942. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:30 AM to 4:00 PM.
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, MANJUNATH N. RAO can be reached at 571-272-0939. 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.
/David Steadman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1656
Prosecution Insights