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
Applicant’s claim amendments and arguments in the response filed 24 March 2026 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-17 & 21-23 are pending.
Claims 21-23 are new.
Claims 18-20 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 5-7, 10 & 13 are amended.
Claims 15-17 withdrawn.
Claims 1-14 & 21-23 are under consideration.
Examination is to the extent of the following species
A) One or more miscellaneous ingredients-preservative.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03 February 2026 has been fully considered by the examiner. A signed and initialed copy of each IDS is included with the instant Office Action.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 24 March 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of Application No. 18/355,422 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
The objection to claims 5, 6 & 13 is withdrawn due to claim amendments which write the claims in parallel by reciting “a combination thereof”.
The objection to claim 10 is withdrawn due to amendments which correct a misspelled word.
The rejection of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Maher; and claims 4 & 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Maher and further in view of Cho-Cho, Sola Parera and Le Bras is withdrawn due Applicant’s representative’s statement that “the subject matter disclosed in Maher and the claimed invention were commonly owned by the applicant not later than the effective filing date of the present application”.
The rejections of claims 10, 11 & 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Kadir in view of Kadir ‘2016 and Hydroxypropyl Guar Hydroxypropyltrimonium Chloride; claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Kadir, Kadir ‘2016, Hydroxypropyl Guar Hydroxypropyltrimonium Chloride, Cho-Cho, Sola Parera and Le Bras; and claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Kadir, Kadir ‘2016, Hydroxypropyl Guar Hydroxypropyltrimonium Chloride and further in view of Laga are withdrawn due to the claim 10 recitation that the composition free from cyclic carbonates.
The provisional rejection of claims 1-14 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/355,442 in view of Kadir (US 2016/0296449; Published: 10/13/2016; hereinafter Kadir ‘2016) and Hydroxypropyl Guar Hydroxypropyltrimonium Chloride is withdrawn due to Applicant filing an approved terminal disclaimer.
The provisional rejection of claims 1-14 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over copending Application No. 18/355,526 in view of Kadir, Hutchins and Laga is withdrawn due to cancellation of claim 20, amendments to claims 1 & 10 of the instant application, and further consideration.
New & Maintained Rejections
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.
Claims 1-14 & 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biganska (US 2009/0074698) in view of Scheunemann (US 2017/0151139; Published: 06/01/2017), Khoshdel (US 2002/0090348; Published: 07/11/2002) and AakoGuar HGHC (https://www.aako.nl/cms/wp-content/uploads/TDS-AakoGuar-HGHC-2019-Sept-PERSO.pdf-AakoGuar-HGHC-2019-Sept-PERSO.pdf; Published: 09/2019).
*Claim Analysis: The examiner notes that the instant specification defines the term "about," as meaning within +/- 5% of the indicated number.
** Claim Analysis: Claims 4 & 12 recite "wherein (a) and (b) are individually combined with each other to form a mixture in which (b) is dissolved in (a); and the mixture is subsequently combined with additional components of the composition" which is a product-by-process recitation. M.P.E.P. § 2113- PRODUCT BY PROCESS CLAIMS states: "[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).
M.P.E.P. § 2113 further states: "Once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102 /103 rejection made, the burden shifts to the Applicants to shown an unobvious difference." "The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature" than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983)."
With regard to claims 10, 7 & 21-23, Biganska teaches a cosmetic composition comprising at least one cationic polymer, at least one cyclodextrin and at least one surfactant (abstract). With regard to claims 7 & 21-23, Biganska teaches their inventive cationic polymer is a suspending agent for suspending the complex formed from the at least one cyclodextrin and the at least one surfactant (i.e. the composition is free of propylene carbonate, free of cyclic carbonates, and film forming polymers other than cyclodextrin and hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride; [0002]). With regard to claims 1 (b), 5, 6, 10(b), & 13, Biganska in Examples 1-6 teaches the cyclodextrin is beta-cyclodextrin in an amount of 1.72% (pg. 16-18). With regard to claims 1 (b), 5, 6, 10(b), & 13, more broadly, Biganska teaches the at least one cyclodextrin which may be beta-cyclodextrin is present in an amount “from 0.2% to 30% by weight…. and even from 1.5% to 5%” ([0241]-[0247]). With regard to claim 1 (d), Biganska teaches inclusion of conditioning agents and in Examples 1-5 teaches inclusion of 0.1-0.2% hydroxypropyl guar trimethylammonium chloride (HPGTAC; pg. 16-18). With regard to claims 1 (d) & 10 (d), more broadly, Biganska teaches HPGTAC to be a conditioning agent and conditioning agents represent “from 0.001 % to 10% by weight…and even from 0.01 % to 3% by weight” of the composition ([0331], [0332] & [0439]). It would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified Biganska’s compositions by adjusting the hydroxypropyl guar trimethylammonium chloride in an amount of 0.01 % to 3%, including 0.1-0.2% in order to condition hair. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success, in order to condition hair with a conditioning agent that Biganska teaches is suitable and exemplifies in hair shampoo compositions. With regard to claims 1 (e) & 10 (e), Biganska teaches the physiologically acceptable medium may be constituted by water or a mixture of water and of cosmetically or dermatologically acceptable solvents; the water represents from 30% to 98% by weight and even from 50% to 98% by weight relative to the total weight of the composition [0440]. With regard to claims 1 (e) & 10 (e), Biganska in Example 1 teaches water comprises 71.92% of the composition. It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date to have modified Biganska’s composition by adding 71.92% water to the composition because Biganska teaches inclusion of water as a cosmetically acceptable medium and exemplifies inclusion of 71.92% water in their formulations. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success, in order to provide the composition with a cosmetically acceptable medium that Biganska teaches as suitable in an amount that Biganska teaches as suitable. With regard to claims 2 & 10, Biganska in Examples 1-6 teaches the pH of the composition is 5.3 (pg. 16-18). It would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified Biganska’s composition by adjusting the pH to be 5.3 because Biganska teaches and exemplifies this pH as acceptable for the compositions of their invention. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success, in order to provide Biganska’s composition with a pH which is art recognized as suitable for the invention. With specific regard to claim 10, it is noted that the recited pH range is modified by the term “about” permitting the pH to have an upper limit of 5.25 and Biganska teaches a pH of 5.3. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In the instant case, a pH of 5.25 and a pH of 5.3 are expected to be suitable for application to hair. Further, the difference between a pH of 5.25 and 5.3 is within the limits of round with standard mathematical rounding up. A pH of 5.25 rounds to a pH of 5.3, a pH of 5.3 is taught by Biganska in Examples 1-6. With regard to claims 8, 9, 10 (f) & 14, Biganska in Examples 1-3 teaches inclusion of preserving agents including sodium benzoate in an amount of 0.5% (pg. 16-17). It would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified Biganska’s composition by adding 0.5% of sodium benzoate/preserving agent because Biganska teaches and exemplifies inclusion of sodium benzoate/preserving agent in their inventive shampoo formulations. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success, in order to preserve Biganska’s composition using an art recognized preserving agent in an amount which is art recognized as suitable for preserving compositions. With regard to claims 1 (a) & 10 (a), Biganska in Examples 1-6 teaches inclusion of citric acid in the amount necessary it takes to get the composition to reach a pH of 5.3 (pg. 16-18). With regard to claims 1 (c) & 10 (c), more broadly, Biganska teaches inclusion of dermatologically acceptable solvents such as polyols which may be used alone or in mixture with water [0440].
Biganska does not teach the amount of citric acid, the weight ratio of citric acid to cyclodextrin, the amount of propylene glycol/water soluble solvents, or inclusion of hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride.
In the same field of invention which include shampoos, with regard to claims 1 (a), 1 (c), 10 (a), 10 (c), 3, 4, 11 & 12, Scheunemann teaches a composition which comprise citric acid as the organic acid in an amount of about 0.001 to about 10 % “and in particular about 0.1 to about 2%”, cyclodextrins as structurants, and “preferred in particular” propylene glycol as a water soluble alcohol in an amount of “about 0.01 to about 40%...and in particular about 0.1 to about 20% by weight” ([0158], [0159], [0179]–[0181], [0282], [0303] & [0304]; Scheunemann’s claims 8 & 10). The ordinary skilled artisan, before the effective filing date, knew that propylene glycol is a humectant and solvent. Scheunemann teaches the hair treatment agents of their invention have a pH of “in particular preferably of from 4.4 to 5.3” [0184].
In the same field of invention of shampoos, Khoshdel teaches a cosmetic or personal care compositions which comprises an optionally substituted cyclodextrin (abstract; [0068]). Khoshdel teaches inclusion of cationic polymers which are for example cationic guar gum derivatives such as guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride and hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride [0096].
AakoGuar HGHC teaches hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride is a hydroxypropylated cationic guar derivative that provides conditioning benefits. The cationic charge of AakoGuar HPHG interacts with keratin providing a conditioning effect on hair and skin and reducing the negative effects of soaps and surfactant (pg. 1). Hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride is not sensitive to electrolytes and due to the hydropropylation shows higher hydrophilic characteristics when compared to other cationic guars (pg. 1).
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit.
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Note that the list of rationales provided is not intended to be an all-inclusive list. Other rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness may be relied upon by Office personnel.
Here at least rationale (G) may be used in which it would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified Biganska’s composition by adjusting the amount of citric acid to be about 0.1 to about 2% [yielding a citric acid to cyclodextrin weight ratio of 1.33:1 to 0.02:1* and a combined amount of citric acid and cyclodextrin to be about 3.5% to about 5.1%], adding about 0.1 to about 20 wt% propylene glycol/water soluble solvent as suggested by Scheunemann, and substituting Biganska’s hydroxypropyl guar trimethylammonium chloride with the hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride taught by Khoshdel and AakoGuar HGHC because Biganska, Scheunemann and Koshdel are directed to hair compositions including shampoos comprising cyclodextrin and it is obvious to modify similar compositions in the same way. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success to adjust the pH of the composition to that of 5.3 by using citric acid in art recognized suitable amounts for doing so, to provide solvent and humectant properties to the dermatologically acceptable carrier, and providing conditioning to hair with a cationic polymer that shows higher hydrophilic characteristics when compared to other cationic guars.
With regard to the recited amounts of citric acid, cyclodextrin/beta-cyclodextrin, one or more water soluble solvents/propylene glycol, one or more cationic guar derivatives/ HPGTAC, water and miscellaneous ingredients/preservative; the combined total of citric acid and cyclodextrin; and the weight ratio of citric acid to cyclodextrin; the combined teachings of Biganska and Scheunemann teach these parameters with values which overlap or fall within the recited ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "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).
*[Math: 2% citric acid/ 1.5 cyclodextrin = 1.33:1; 0.1 citric acid/ 5 cyclodextrin = 0.02:1]
Claims 1-4 & 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadir (WO 2019/200027; Published: 10/17/2019; previously cited).
*Claim Analysis: The examiner notes that the instant specification defines the term "about," as meaning within +/- 5% of the indicated number.
** Claim Analysis: Claim 4 recites "wherein (a) and (b) are individually combined with each other to form a mixture in which (b) is dissolved in (a); and the mixture is subsequently combined with additional components of the composition" which is a product-by-process recitation. M.P.E.P. § 2113- PRODUCT BY PROCESS CLAIMS states: "[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).
M.P.E.P. § 2113 further states: "Once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102 /103 rejection made, the burden shifts to the Applicants to shown an unobvious difference." "The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature" than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983)."
Kadir teaches a composition for modifying hair which is present in the technology for straightening, smoothing, conditioning and repairing hair fibers by coating the hair with the disclosed composition followed by contacting the coated hair fibers with a heating appliance to modify the hair (abstract). With regard to claims 1 a) & 4, Kadir teaches an exemplary cream formulation in Example 2 which comprises a pH modifier in an amount of 0.02-5% in which the pH modifier/adjuster may be citric acid ([00220] & [00265]). With regard to claims 1 b) & 4, Kadir teaches an exemplary cream formulation in Example 2 which comprises other components including chelating agents which may be cyclodextrins in an amount 0.001 wt. % to 3 wt. % ([00186], [00187] & [00265]). Kadir teaches chelating agents can be employed to stabilize the composition against the deleterious effects of metal ions [00186]. It would have been prima facie before the effective filing date to have modified Kadir’s Example 2 cream by adding cyclodextrin stabilizer in an amount 0.001 wt. % to 3 wt. % as taught by Kadir in order to stabilize the composition against the deleterious effects of metal ions. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success, in order to stabilize the formulation. With regard to claims 1 b), the combined total amount of (a) and (b) is about 0.021-8% [Math: 0.02 + 0.001 = 0.021; 5 + 3 = 8]. With regard to claims 1 c), Kadir teaches an exemplary cream formulation in Example 2 which comprises 0.2-30% of an organic solvent which may be ethanol, propanol, isopropanol (i.e. water soluble solvents; [0069] & [00265]). With regard to claim 1 d), Kadir teaches an exemplary cream formulation in Example 2 which comprises other components including cationic polymers which may be guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride in an amount of about 0.01 to about 10 wt.% to an enhance the delivery of conditioning agents and/or provide auxiliary conditioning benefits to the hair ([00118], [00124], [00125] & [00265]). It would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified Kadir’s Example 2 cream by adding guar
hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride in an amount of about 0.01 to about 10 wt.% as suggested by Kadir’s teachings in order to provide conditioning to the hair. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success, in order to further condition hair. With regard to claim 1 e), Kadir teaches an exemplary cream formulation in Example 2 which comprises water q.s. to 100%. With regard to claims 2, Kadir teaches the pH of the composition is at least 2.5 and the pH is up to 4.0 [00218]. With regard to claim 3, the weight ratio of (a) to (b) is including 5,000: 1 to 0.006:1 including 1.67:1. With regard to claim 7, Kadir teaches an exemplary cream formulation in Example 2 which does not contain/require film forming polymers [00265]. With regard to claims 8 & 9, Kadir teaches an exemplary cream formulation in Example 2 which comprises 0.01-1 preservatives [00265].
With regard to the recited amount of citric acid, cyclodextrin, water soluble solvents, cationic guar derivatives, water and miscellaneous ingredients/preservatives; pH of the composition; and weight ratio of citric acid/(a) to cyclodextrin/(b); Kadir teaches these parameters with values which overlap or fall within the recited ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "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).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadir as applied to claims 1-4 & 7-9 above, and further in view of Laga (US 2022/0362130; Published: 11/17/2022; previously cited).
Claim Analysis: As above.
The teachings of Kadir are described above. In brief, Kadir teaches a composition for straightening and smoothing hair comprising citric acid and cyclodextrin. The ordinary skilled artisan at the time of filing knew that citric acid was an organic acid.
Kadir does not teach the species of cyclodextrin used in the straightening/smoothing composition.
In the same field of invention of “elongation of curls” (i.e. straightening and smoothing hair, Laga teaches a composition which may comprise an organic acid [0096]. Laga teaches at least one cyclodextrin as a required reagent for the composition and in a “further embodiment, the cyclodextrin is only β-cyclodextrin, and no other cyclodextrins or derivatives thereof are present in the composition” [0035].
Here, at least rationale (B) may be employed in which it would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified Kadir’s hair straightening composition by substituting Kadir’s generically taught cyclodextrin with β-cyclodextrin as suggested by Laga because Kadir and Laga are both drawn to hair straightening compositions and it is obvious to modify similar compositions in the same way. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success, in order to use a reagent art recognized as suitable for straightening hair in a straightening composition.
Response to Arguments
In the traverse of the rejection of claims 1-4 and 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Kadir; and claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Kadirin view of Laga, Applicant argues that Kadir fails to account for the claimed amount of water soluble solvents because Kadir requires compositions comprising one or more glycols in an amount of 4.8% which is higher than the claimed range (reply, pg. 8-9). Applicant argues Kadir teaches the curl reversion if amounts lower than 5% are used (reply, pg. 10).
This is not persuasive. Instant claim 1 ( c) recites inclusion of “about 0.1 to about 3 wt.% of one or more water soluble solvents” (emphasis added). The claim requires just one water soluble solvent included from “about 0.1 to about 3 wt.%”. This is different than the scope argued by Applicant’s representative which is the total amount of water soluble solvents being from “about 0.1 to about 3 wt.%”. Notably, Kadir teaches an exemplary cream formulation in Example 2 which comprises 0.2-30% of an organic solvent which may be ethanol, propanol, isopropanol (i.e. water soluble solvents; [0069] & [00265]).
Applicant argues chelating agents such as citric acid and cyclodextrin are not recognized by Kadir for straightening (reply, pg. 10-11). This is not persuasive. 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) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings.”); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). In the instant case, Kadir teaches citric acid to be suitable for pH adjustment and cyclodextrin to be suitable for stabilizing the composition.
Applicant argues secondary considerations that hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride to hair straightening and frizz reduction as compared to compositions lacking hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride (i.e. Comparative Compositions B-C) or those comprising different gums (i.e. Comparative Compositions D & E; reply, pg. 11). This is not persuasive. First, hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride is an art recognized conditioning polymer (See AakoGuar HGHC). Due to this property, the reduction in frizz is not surprising. Further Kadir teaches guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride as a cationic polymer for use in his invention; Kadir does not teach guar gum or carrageen gum to be cationic polymers. Instead Kadir teaches guar gum and carrageenan to be a rheology modifiers [0082]. Due to the differences in charge and function of these polymer, Applicant has performed an apples to oranges comparison. Lastly, Applicant’s composition A is not commensurate in scope with the claims in that it is a single composition using citric acid, cyclodextrin, glycerin (water soluble solvent), hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride, and water in singular amounts and ratios. The claims are generic to the amounts, ratios, cationic guar derivatives and the water soluble solvent. "[O]bjective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980).
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 1-14 & 21-23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 18/539,954 (hereinafter the ‘954; claims filed 06/24/2026). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application and the ‘954 recite a hair shaping composition comprising citric acid; one or more cyclodextrins, which may be beta-cyclodextrin; one or more water soluble solvents; one or more cationic guar derivatives, which may be hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride; miscellaneous ingredients, including a preservative; and water in amounts with values that overlap or fall within the ranges claimed by the instant application. The instant application and the ‘954 recite the pH of the application may be about 3 to about 6 and the weight and molar ratios of citric acid (a) and cyclodextrin (b) recited by the ‘954 are the same as those recited by the instant application. The product by process steps of individually combining citric acid (a) and cyclodextrin (b) to dissolve (b) and then subsequently combining with additional components in the composition is recited by the instant application and the ‘954. Both the ‘954 and the instant application recite the composition is free of film forming polymers. The ‘954 does not recite or require inclusion of propylene carbonate or cyclic carbonates. As such the ’954 is free from propylene carbonate and cyclic carbonates. It would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have looked to the claims of the ‘954 to formulate the recited hair composition. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a hair styling composition.
The copending claims are therefore an obvious variant of the conflicting, copending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-14 & 21-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,257,331 (hereinafter the ‘331; Published: 03/25/2025) in view of Laga (US 2022/0362130; Published: 11/17/2022; previously cited), Kadir (US 2016/0296449; Published: 10/13/2016; hereinafter Kadir ‘2016; previously cited), Hydroxypropyl Guar Hydroxypropyltrimonium Chloride (https://www.chinaguargum.com/hydroxypropyl-guar-hydroxypropyltrimonium-chloride.html; Published: 2021; previously cited), Cho-Cho (WO 2022/232666 Published 11/03/2022; previously cited), Sola Parera (US 2021/0337850; Published: 11/04/2021; previously cited) and Le Bras (FR 3017292; Published: 08/14/2015; previously cited). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘331 and the instant application both recite a hair composition comprising citric acid and a cyclodextrin in amounts, and molar ratios that are overlap or fall within the claimed ranges. The ’331 recites inclusion of a polyols including propylene glycol which are art recognized water-soluble solvents in amounts which overlap with the recited range of the instant application. The ‘331 recites inclusion of water in overlapping amounts as the instant specification. The ‘331 does not require inclusion of film forming polymers. The ‘331 does not recite or require inclusion of propylene carbonate or cyclic carbonates. As such the ’331 is free from propylene carbonate and cyclic carbonates. The ‘331 does not require inclusion of film forming polymers. The ‘331 recites inclusion of a cationic guar. The ‘331 does not recite the species of cyclodextrin, the amount of cationic guar or that the cationic guar derivative is hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride. The ‘331 does not recite individually combining citric acid/(a) with cyclodextrin/(b). The teachings of Laga are described above. In brief, Laga teaches beta-cyclodextrin is a cyclodextrin which is applied to hair in hair compositions. Hydroxypropyl Guar Hydroxypropyltrimonium Chloride teaches hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride is a cationic guar derivative used in an amount of 0.1-0.3% in formulations (pg. 2 & 3). In the same field of invention of providing frizz and volume control to the hair, Cho-Cho teaches in C4 an admixture of water, beta-cyclodextrin and citric acid as a solution and it had the second best frizz control of hair (abstract; Table 1-2, pg. 22; [0089] & [0095]). In the related field of citric acid and cyclodextrin, Sola Parera teaches citric acid and cyclodextrin are natural deep eutectic solvents which when used in combination form eutectic system [0099]. The ordinary skilled artisan at the time of the invention recognized that cyclodextrin is of vegetable origin and is a polysaccharide and is sugar-based. In the related field of cosmetic formulations, Le Bras teaches a cosmetic base formulation comprising a eutectic solvent composed of natural or vegetable molecules (title; abstract). Le teaches the eutectic solvent is made from at least one element which may be a simple carbohydrate and an organic acid, which may be citric acid, (pg. 3). Le Bras teaches “the eutectic solvent may also comprise a small amount of water. The small amount of water is a quantity of water sufficient to reduce the viscosity of the cosmetic formulation base” (pg. 3).It would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified the hair composition recited by the ‘331 by substituting the ‘331’s generically recited cationic guar with hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride in an amount of 0.1-0.3% as taught by Hydroxypropyl Guar Hydroxypropyltrimonium Chloride because hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride is a cationic guar derivative used in hair compositions to provide conditioning and smoothing to hair. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success, in order to provide conditioning and smoothness to hair. With regard to the cyclodextrin, it would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified the hair composition of the ‘331 by substituting the generically taught cyclodextrin with beta-cyclodextrin as taught by Laga because the composition recited by the ‘331 is a hair composition and beta-cyclodextrin is a species of cyclodextrin used in hair compositions. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success, in order to provide a hair composition using a species of cyclodextrin art recognized as suitable for use in hair compositions. It would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan at the time of filing to have modified the hair composition of the ‘311 by admixing the citric acid and beta-cyclodextrin such that they dissolve into a eutectic solvent system and add them to the remaining reagents as suggested by the combined teachings of Cho-Cho, Sola Parera, and Le Bras because the ‘331 are directed to a hair compositions and mixtures of cyclodextrin and citric acid produce good frizz and volume reduction in hair. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success, in order to provide a hair composition which reduces frizz. With regard to the solution of cyclodextrin and citric acid being absent of water, Sola Parera, and Le Bras teach mixtures of cyclodextrin and citric acid are eutectic solvents in which water is not required for such systems and is used to only to impact the viscosity of solvent system. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide a thicker hair composition.
The pending claims are therefore an obvious variant of the conflicting, patented claims.
Claims 1-14 & 21-23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 65-69, 74, 76-81, & 86-90, of copending Application No. 17/733,920 (hereinafter the ‘920; Claims-03/23/2026) in view of Hutchins (US Patent No. 5,916,548; Issued: 06/29/1999; previously cited). The ‘920 recites a composition comprising citric acid; cyclodextrins, which may be beta-cyclodextrin; polyol/water-soluble solvents, miscellaneous ingredients, which may be fillers; and water in amounts which fall within or overlap with the recited amounts. The pH and water and molar ratios of citric acid/(a) to cyclodextrin/(b) of the ‘920 overlap with that recited by the instant application. The ‘920 does not require inclusion of film forming polymers. The ‘920 teaches admixing the carboxylic acids/citric acid, cyclodextrin and water are combined with each other in a premix. It would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have removed the water to adjust the viscosity of the composition. The ‘920 does not recite or require inclusion of propylene carbonate or cyclic carbonates. As such the ’920 is free from propylene carbonate and cyclic carbonates. The ‘920 does not teach a thickening agent which is a cationic guar derivative which is hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride. In the same field of invention of straightening hair, Kadir’ 2016 teaches a semi permanent hair straightening composition comprising cyclodextrin as a chelating agent and citric acid as the straightening agent (title; abstract; [0064], [0188]). Kadir ‘2016 teaches hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride to be a conditioning agent to provide a substantive conditioning effect (Kadir ‘2016’s-claim 52; [0113] & [0150]). In the same field of invention of hair compositions, Hutchins teaches hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride is a cationic guar is a cationic polymer and thickener (col. 24, ll. 60-65). It would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified the hair composition recited by the ‘920 by adding a thickening agent which is hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride as taught by Hutchins and Kadir ‘2016 because hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride is a cationic thickening agent used in hair compositions. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success, in order to thicken the composition with a thickening agent art recognized as suitable for hair compositions as taught by Hutchins. The copending claims are therefore an obvious variant of the conflicting, copending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-14 & 21-23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, 10, 11, 16-18 & 21-25 of copending Application No. 18/355,526 (hereinafter the ‘526; Filed-06/24/2026) in view of Hutchins (US Patent No. 5,916,548; Issued: 06/29/1999; previously cited) and Laga (US 2022/0362130; Published: 11/17/2022; previously cited). The ‘526 recites a method of applying to hair a fortifying composition comprising citric acid; cyclodextrin; polyol/water-soluble solvents, cationic polysaccharides, miscellaneous ingredients, which may be polar oils (i.e. emollients); and water. The combined amount of citric acid/(a) and cyclodextrin/(b) overlap with amount recited by the instant specification and it would be obvious to select 3% citric acid and 3% cyclodextrin as a place to start optimization. The ‘526 recites the mole ratio of citric acid to cyclodextrin, the amount of water, and the pH of the composition with values which overlap with the recited ranges of the instant application. The ‘526 does not require inclusion of film forming polymers. The ‘526 does not recite or require inclusion of propylene carbonate or cyclic carbonates. As such the ’526 is free from propylene carbonate and cyclic carbonates. The ‘526 does not recite a thickening agent which is a cationic guar derivative which is hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride or the species of cyclodextrin. In the same field of invention of hair compositions, Hutchins teaches hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride is a cationic guar is a cationic polymer and thickener (col. 24, ll. 60-65). The teachings of Laga are described above with the regard to the species of cyclodextrin. The teachings of Hutchinson are described above with regard to the hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride. It would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified the hair composition recited by the ‘526 by substituting the generically recited cyclodextrin with beta-cyclodextrin as taught by Laga, adding a thickening agent which is hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride as taught by Hutchins, because the ‘526, Laga, and Hutchinson are all drawn to compositions applied to hair and it is obvious to modify similar compositions in the same way. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success, in order to thicken the composition with a thickening agent art recognized as suitable for hair compositions as taught by Hutchins and use a species of cyclodextrin art recognized as suitable for hair compositions as taught by Laga. The copending claims are therefore an obvious variant of the conflicting, copending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-14 & 21-23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 30 & 35-49, of copending Application No. 18/231,735 (hereinafter the ‘735; Filed-01/26/2026) in view of Hutchins (US Patent No. 5,916,548; Issued: 06/29/1999; previously cited). The ‘735 recites a method of using hair compositions comprising citric acid; cyclodextrins, which may be beta-cyclodextrin; a polysaccharide gum, which may be guar gum, and polyol/water-soluble solvents in amounts which fall within or overlap with the recited amounts. The pH and molar ratio of citric acid/(a) to cyclodextrin/(b) of the ‘735 overlap with that recited by the instant application. The ‘735 does not require inclusion of film forming polymers. The ‘735 does not recite or require inclusion of propylene carbonate or cyclic carbonates. As such the ’735 is free from propylene carbonate and cyclic carbonates. The ‘735 does not teach the polysaccharide thickening agent is a cationic guar derivative which is hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride or inclusion of miscellaneous ingredients. In the same field of invention of hair compositions, Hutchins teaches hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride is a cationic guar is a cationic polymer and thickener (col. 24, ll. 60-65). Hutchins in their hair styling rinse teaches inclusion of perfume/fragrance in an amount of 0.33% of the hair composition. It would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified the hair composition recited by the ‘735 by substituting the generically recited polysaccharide thickening agent with hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride and adding 0.33% perfume/fragrance as taught by Hutchins because hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride is a cationic thickening agent used in hair compositions and fragrance is also used in hair compositions. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success, in order to thicken the composition with a thickening agent art recognized as suitable for hair compositions and lend a pleasing smell to the composition as taught by Hutchins. The copending claims are therefore an obvious variant of the conflicting, copending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-14 & 21-23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 35-49, of copending Application No. 18/231,729 (hereinafter the ‘729; Claims-06/05/2026) in view of Hutchins (US Patent No. 5,916,548; Issued: 06/29/1999; previously cited). Both the instant claims and the ‘729 are drawn hair compositions comprising a citric acid; cyclodextrins, which may be beta-cyclodextrin; and water soluble solvents, which may be glycerin; in amounts which fall within or overlap with the recited amounts. The pH and molar ratio of citric acid/(a) to cyclodextrin/(b) of the ‘729 overlap with that recited by the instant application. The ‘729 comprises one or more polysaccharide thickening agents in an amount of “about 0.05 to about 5 wt.%”. The ‘729 does not require inclusion of film forming polymers. The ‘729 does not recite or require inclusion of propylene carbonate or cyclic carbonates. As such the ’729 is free from propylene carbonate and cyclic carbonates. The ‘729 does not teach the polysaccharide thickening agent is a cationic guar derivative which is hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride or inclusion of miscellaneous ingredients. In the same field of invention of hair compositions, Hutchins teaches hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride is a cationic guar which serves as a cationic polymer and thickener (col. 24, ll. 60-65). Hutchins in their hair styling rinse teaches inclusion of perfume/fragrance in an amount of 0.33% of the hair composition. It would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified the hair composition recited by the ‘729 by substituting the generically recited polysaccharide thickening agent with hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride and adding 0.33% perfume/fragrance as taught by Hutchins because hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride is a cationic thickening agent used in hair compositions and fragrance is also used in hair compositions. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success, in order to thicken the composition with a thickening agent art recognized as suitable for hair compositions and lend a pleasing smell to the composition as taught by Hutchins. The copending claims are therefore an obvious variant of the conflicting, copending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-14 & 23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, 11-15, & 21-23 of copending Application No. 18/355,516 (hereinafter the ‘516; claims-03/23/2026) in view of Hutchins (US Patent No. 5,916,548; Issued: 06/29/1999; previously cited). Both the instant claims and the ‘516 are drawn hair compositions comprising citric acid; cyclodextrins, which may be beta-cyclodextrin; and water soluble solvents in an amount of 2 wt% or less or glycerin; in amounts which fall within or overlap with the recited amounts. The pH and weight ratio of citric acid/(a) to cyclodextrin/(b) of the ‘516 overlaps with that recited by the instant application. The ‘516 comprises miscellaneous ingredients which may be “preservatives…composition colorants, or a mixture thereof”. The ‘516 comprises one or more polysaccharide thickening agents in an amount of “about 0.1 to about 8 wt.%”. The ‘516 does not require inclusion of film forming polymers. The ‘516 does not teach the polysaccharide thickening agent is a cationic guar derivative which is hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride. In the same field of invention of hair compositions, Hutchins teaches hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride is a cationic guar is a cationic polymer and thickener (col. 24, ll. 60-65). It would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified the hair composition recited by the ‘516 by substituting the generically recited polysaccharide thickening agent/xanthan gum with hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride as taught by Hutchins because hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride is a cationic thickening agent used in hair compositions. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success, in order to thicken the composition with a thickening agent art recognized as suitable for hair compositions as taught by Hutchins. The copending claims are therefore an obvious variant of the conflicting, copending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues co-pending US Serial No. 18/539,954 is drawn to methods for treating hair which the office considers patentably distinct. This is not persuasive. The methods of use recite the recited composition. Further the ‘954 was not filed in response to a restriction requirement; the instant application and ‘954 do not share continuity.
Applicant argues US Patent No. 12,257,331 is drawn to methods for treating hair which the office considers patentably distinct (reply, pg. 12). This is not persuasive. The methods of use recite the recited composition. Further the instant application and ‘331 do not share a continuity chain.
In traversing the nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting rejection of the instant claims over copending US Serial No. 17/733,920, Applicant argues unexpected results occurred with hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride (reply, pg. 12-13). This is not persuasive as unexpected results are not a consideration for double patenting rejections. Further, Kadir’ 2016 teaches hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride to be a conditioning agent to provide a substantive conditioning effect in permanent hair straightening composition comprising cyclodextrin as a chelating agent and citric acid as the straightening agent (title; abstract; [0064], [0113], [0150], [0188], Kadir ‘2016’s-claim 52). Applicant is reciting art recognized reagents suitable for straightening compositions in art recognized amounts, pH’s and molar ratios.
Applicant argues claim 20 of co-pending US Application No. 18/355,526 is cancelled so the double patenting rejection no longer applies (reply, pg. 13). This is not persuasive. The method claims of the ‘526 application recite placing a fortifying composition having citric acid and cyclodextrin in overlapping amounts, mole ratios, and weight ratios to hair. The fortifying composition recited by the method claims of the ’526 comprise polyol/water soluble solvents, water, cationic polysaccharides, and miscellaneous ingredients in overlapping amounts and a pH in an overlapping range.
Applicant makes no arguments pertaining nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting rejections over Application No. 18/231,735, Application No. 18/231,729 and Application No. 18/355,516 (see Remarks in their entirety). The rejection is maintained
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 LORI K MATTISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5866. The examiner can normally be reached 9-7 (M-F).
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 J Blanchard can be reached at 5712720827. 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.
/LORI K MATTISON/Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/NICOLE P BABSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1619
Prosecution Insights