DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 8/20/2026 is noted and the submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner has considered the information disclosure statement.
Response to Amendments
Status of claims
The amendment, filed on 9/1/2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 18 are amended.
Claims 5 and 9 are canceled.
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn.
Claim 21 is newly added.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-18, and 21 are pending and under consideration in the instant Office Action, to the extent of the elected species:
The hydrophobic polymer is the product of linseed oil and poly(isobutyl methacrylate)
The solvent is polycitronellol acetate
The biosurfactant is rhamnolipid
The co-surfactant is acyl taurate
Objections Withdrawn
The objection of claim 1 for improperly listing the components of the composition, specifically related to the “water” component, is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Rejections Withdrawn
The rejection of claims 4 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112 as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-18, and 21under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitra (US20220249342A1, published 8/11/2022) in view of Zhu (WO2021185675A1, published 9/23/2021), Gupta (WO2021214209A1, published10/28/2021) and Nehme (Production of oil in water emulsions in microchannels at high throughput: Evaluation of emulsions in view of cosmetic, nutraceutical or pharmaceutical applications, Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification 161; 108301, published 2/2/2021) is withdrawn in view of applicants amendments and in favor of the new grounds of rejection below.
The provisional rejection of claims 1-18 as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 and 14-19 of copending Application No. 18/544,283 is withdrawn in view of the approval of the Terminal Disclaimer.
The provisional rejection of claims 1-18 as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 18/544,195 is withdrawn in view of the approval of the Terminal Disclaimer.
The provisional rejection of claims 1-18 as being unpatentable over claims 1-10, 14-19, and 22 of copending Application No. 18/544,254 is withdrawn in view of the approval of the Terminal Disclaimer.
The provisional rejection of claims 1-18 as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 18/543,636 in view of Nehme (Production of oil in water emulsions in microchannels at high throughput: Evaluation of emulsions in view of cosmetic, nutraceutical or pharmaceutical applications, Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification 161; 108301, published 2/2/2021) is withdrawn in view of the approval of the Terminal Disclaimer.
New Grounds of Rejection
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 1-4, 6-8, 10-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitra (US20220249342A1, published 8/11/2022) in view of Zhu (WO2021185675A1, published 9/23/2021), Gupta (WO2021214209A1, published10/28/2021) and Nehme (Production of oil in water emulsions in microchannels at high throughput: Evaluation of emulsions in view of cosmetic, nutraceutical or pharmaceutical applications, Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification 161; 108301, published 2/2/2021).
Mitra teaches a cosmetic cleaning composition that comprises an oil and a viscosity modifier, wherein the viscosity modifier is a synthetic or natural polymer (abstract). Mitra discloses various options for said oil and said polymer (abstract). The oil and viscosity modifier combination are referred to as a whole as the cleansing coagulant system. The coagulant system can congeal and form a viscoelastic fluid to bind and remove sebum, makeup, dirt, pollution, dead skin, and other unwanted materials from skin (paragraph [0013]). When describing the oil in the cleaning composition, Mitra teaches that the oil can be natural based or food derived, and provides linseed oil (i.e., natural or food-derived oil) as an example of an ideal oil (paragraph [0045]). When describing the polymer, Mitra teaches a methacrylate polymer; specifically, poly(isobutyl methacrylate) (paragraph [0045]) (i.e., methacrylate polymer). The oil in the cleansing coagulant system is taught to be present in a range from about 30% to about 45% by weight, and the polymer is present in a range from about 0.1% to about 20% by weight, based on the weight of the cleansing coagulant system (paragraph [0022]). The composition may be any suitable cosmetic cleansing composition, including an oil-in-water emulsion (paragraph [0033]). In some embodiments, the composition may also include one or more surfactants (paragraph [0102]). Finally, Mitra teaches that the composition includes water in an amount from about 1% to about 90% by weight (paragraph [0089]).
However, Mitra does not teach the inclusion of a biosurfactant (rhamnolipids as elected by applicant, as in claim 12) in conjunction with an optional additional surfactant (acyl taurates as elected by applicant). Mitra also does not teach the solvent system capable of solubilizing the reaction product as in the instant claims (polycitronellol acetate as elected by applicant, as in claim 10). Finally, Mitra does not teach the average oil-in-water emulsion droplet size of about 10 nm to about 1 micrometer as determined using Brookhaven Dynamic Light Scattering.
These deficiencies are made up for by the teachings of Zhu, Gupta, and Nehme.
Zhu teaches a personal care composition that comprises a biosurfactant and a hydrophilic cationic or pseudo-cationic active compound, as well as a method for depositing said compound onto keratinous material such as hair or skin (abstract). Zhu teaches that biosurfactant in the claimed invention is of the glycolipid class, and further explains the glycolipid surfactants to be “sophorolipids, rhamnolipids, cellobioselipids, mannosyl erythritol lipids, trehalose lipids and biochemical modification thereof” (page 6 line 5). Zhu teaches that the biosurfactant (sophorolipids) is present in the composition of the invention in an amount of 0.1% to 30 wt%, with a most preferable 0.5 to 10 wt%. Further, Zhu teaches the inclusion of an additional surfactant, or co-surfactant. Examples of such co-surfactants include amphoteric surfactants, such as “coco amido propyl betaine, cocoamido hydroxyl sultaine, cocamphoacetate, sodium methyl cocoyl taurate, and combinations thereof” (page 15 line 6). Sodium methyl cocoyl taurate is a member of the acyl taurate family of surfactants. Zhu continues that this additional surfactant may be present in an amount ranging from 0.1 to 70 wt% relative to the total weight of the composition (page 15 line 19).
Gupta teaches an invention that relates to the field of skin decontamination from harmful substances, such as nanoparticles, microplastic particles, and viruses (abstract). A typical embodiment as taught by Gupta comprises at least one water-soluble polymer, at least one phyllosilicate, charcoal and/or graphite, and water. Further, the invention is free of penetration enhancers (page 4 lines 5-12). The composition may also comprise other additional ingredients such as preservatives, gelation or viscosity increasing agents, and, notably, anti-inflammatory agents. These anti-inflammatory agents are beneficial for skin barrier function as taught by Gupta (page 12 line 17). One such agent is polycitronellol acetate, which may be included in a preferable range of 0.05 to 2% by weight (page 12 line 21).
Nehme teaches qualities of emulsions in an effort to apply to the cosmetic field, as well as nutraceutical and pharmaceutical, a way to incorporate bioactive ingredients into oil-in-water emulsions (abstract). Nehme teaches that there are three main classifications of oil-in-water emulsions: micro-emulsions, mini or nano-emulsions, and macro-emulsions (introduction par. 1). These emulsions are distinguished by the droplet size of the emulsion. Nehme teaches that micro-emulsion droplet size ranges from 10-100 nm, mini or nano-emulsion droplet size ranges from 200-1000 nm, and macro-emulsion droplet sizes are greater than 1 micrometer in diameter (introduction par. 1). Nehme continues to state that “based on smaller droplets, micro-emulsions are thermodynamically more stable” (introduction par. 1). In other words, the smaller the droplet size, the more stable the emulsion is. Nehme does not teach the use of Brookhaven Dynamic Light Scattering in particular. However, as this is a method of characterizing the droplets, the method of measuring the size will not have any effect on the overall physical property of droplet size. The droplet size of the prior art, when informed by Nehme, will have the claimed droplet size range regardless of how it is measured.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to produce a cosmetic cleansing or personal care composition as taught by Mitra with modifications as taught by Zhu, Gupta, and Nehme. As all references above relate to cosmetic compositions and developments in the field, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the various teachings into a single embodiment that includes the polymer product as taught by Mitra alongside the surfactant as taught by Zhu, with the addition of polycitronellol acetate as taught by Gupta in the specific O/W emulsion droplet size as taught by Nehme.
Regarding claim 1, Mitra teaches a hydrophobic polymer that is the reaction product of a natural or food-derived oil (i.e. linseed oil) and a methacrylate or acrylate polymer (i.e. isobutyl methacrylate). The resulting composition is an oil-in-water emulsion. Mitra teaches the oil in the cleansing coagulant system is present in a range from about 30% to about 45% by weight, and the polymer in the range from about 0.1% to about 20% by weight, both based on the weight of the cleansing coagulant system, as described supra. When the linseed oil is 45% and the isobutyl methacrylate is 15%, the linseed oil in the reaction product of the oil and polymer is 45/(45+15)=75%, and the isobutyl methacrylate is 25%. These amounts lie within the ranges as claimed in the instant claim Mitra also teaches the inclusion of water, as described supra. As Mitra continues that one or more surfactants may be included, and Zhu teaches a biosurfactant along with an additional surfactant, it would have been obvious to include 0.5 to 10 wt% the biosurfactant, including rhamnolipids and a co-surfactant, including sodium methyl cocoyl taurate at 0.1 to 70 wt% as taught by Zhu in the composition as taught by Mitra. Gupta teaches the inclusion of 0.05 to 2% by weight polycitronellol acetate as an anti-inflammatory agent. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to include polycitronellol in a capacity as an anti-inflammatory agent that imparts an ideal property of the composition as taught by Gupta. The composition as a whole would ideally have oil-in-water droplet size in the range of micro-emulsions or mini/nano-emulsions, as these are more stable emulsions as taught by Nehme. Therefore, it would have been obvious to develop the composition to have a droplet size in the range of 10-100 nm (for a micro-emulsion) or 200-1000 nm (for a mini/nano-emulsion) as thermodynamic stability is a desirable property in cosmetic compositions. The combination of the teachings as described supra would impart the benefits of the polymer as described by Mitra, along with the biosurfactant and co-surfactant benefits as taught by Zhu, as well as including the anti-inflammatory component of polycitronellol acetate taught by Gupta, with the stability as taught by Nehme. Gupta teaches polycitronellol acetate as an anti-inflammatory agent in cosmetic compositions from 0.05 to 2% by wt. As evidenced by the specification polycitronellol acetate has a distance (Ra) less than 13.4 MPa0.5 (see Table 1, pp. 9-11). and would necessarily solubilize the reaction product of the linseed oil and poly(isobutyl methacrylate) (claim 1 component A). Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Regarding claim 1 and the limitation “one or more solvents capable of solubilizing the reaction product of (a)”, the inclusion of polycitronellol acetate (one or more solvents) is included as an anti-inflammatory, which would necessarily also function as a solvent for the reaction product of (a) (e.g., linseed oil and poly(isobutyl methacrylate)) as taught by Mitra. As evidenced by the instant specification polycitronellol acetate is necessarily a solvent that is capable of solubilizing the reaction product of (a) (e.g., see Table 1, pp. 9-11). Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claims 2, 3 and 8, linseed oil is necessarily a natural or food-derived oil (claim 3), and poly(isobutyl methacrylate) is a methacrylate polymer (as in claim 2), as taught by Mitra. The resulting polymer derived from these two ingredients would be a hydrophobic polymer (as in claim 8). Therefore, claims 2 and 8 are rejected.
Regarding claims 4 and 7, Applicant has elected isobutyl methacrylate as the monomer (as in claim 4), which then is developed into a polymer (as in claim 7). Mitra teaches isobutyl methacrylate as a monomer to polymerize into poly(isobutyl methacrylate). Therefore, claims 4 and 7 are rejected.
Regarding claim 6, Mitra teaches the oil in the cleansing coagulant system is present in a range from about 30% to about 45% by weight, and the polymer in the range from about 0.1% to about 20% by weight, both based on the weight of the cleansing coagulant system, as described supra. When the linseed oil is 45% and the isobutyl methacrylate is 15%, the linseed oil in the reaction product of the oil and polymer is 45/(45+15)=75%, and the isobutyl methacrylate is 25%. These amounts lie within the ranges as claimed in the instant claims. Therefore, claim 6 are rejected.
Regarding claim10, Gupta teaches polycitronellol acetate as an anti-inflammatory agent in cosmetic compositions from 0.05 to 2% by wt. As evidenced by the specification polycitronellol acetate would necessarily solubilize the reaction product of the linseed oil and poly(isobutyl methacrylate) (claim 1 component A). Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Regarding claims 11-17, Zhu teaches the inclusion of a biosurfactant (such as rhamnolipids) as well as the inclusion of an additional surfactant, or co-surfactant, alongside the biosurfactant(as in claim 14). In particular, Zhu teaches that this co-surfactant may be sodium methyl cocoyl taurate. Sodium methyl cocoyl taurate is an anionic surfactant (as in claim 15) of the acyl taurate family (as in claims 16 and 17).
Regarding claim 18, the amount of oil and polymer in the overall cleansing coagulant has been described supra. When the cleansing coagulant system is 10% of the final cosmetic composition, the amount of reaction product of the oil and polymer is (45%+15%)x10%=6% reaction product in the overall composition. This is within the range as claimed in instant claim 18(a). As polycitronellol acetate would be included as an anti-inflammatory and has solvent properties, it would be obvious to include it in the final composition in the amount described by Gupta (i.e. 0.05-2 wt%), which lies within the range claimed by instant claim 18(b). As Zhu teaches the inclusion of a biosurfactant and co-surfactant, it would be obvious to include these in the composition as taught by Mitra, as described supra. Zhu teaches the inclusion of the biosurfactant (rhamnolipids) in 0.1 to 30 wt%, as described supra. Zhu also teaches the co-surfactant as described supra in 0.1 to 70 wt%, which is inclusive of the instantly claimed amount in instant claim 18(c)(ii). The final component as claimed in the instantly claimed composition is water, which is taught by Mitra to be present in 1 to 90 wt%. This overlaps with the instantly claimed amount of water in claim 18(d). The overall emulsion would also ideally have smaller droplet size diameter, as this is taught by Nehme to impart thermodynamic stability. Further, Nehme teaches the potential droplet sizes for micro-emulsions as described supra (i.e. 10-100 nm) and mini/nano-emulsions (i.e. 200-1000 nm). Therefore, it would be obvious to select a droplet size between 10 and 1000 nm to encourage stability of the product. All of these components in these amounts read on instant claim 18. See MPEP 2144.05: 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 reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Therefore, claim 18 is rejected.
Regarding newly added claim 21, Mitra teaches the hydrophobic polymer may be the reaction product of 75 wt. % linseed oil and 25 wt. % isobutyl methacrylate, as described supra. The teachings of Zhu, as described supra, would suggest the inclusion of a biosurfactant such as a rhamnolipid, as well as an acyl taurate co-surfactant. Polycitronellol acetate would be reasonably included in the composition as well, albeit for anti-inflammatory purposes. However, the reason for inclusion is not relevant; the ingredient would have the same property as a solvent regardless of the reason for its inclusion, as described supra. The resulting composition as taught by Mitra and modified by Zhu and Gupta would comprise 75 parts by weight linseed oil and 25 part by weight isobutyl methacrylate, wherein the rhamnolipid and acyl taurate are included as surfactant and co-surfactant, wherein the polycitronellol acetate is included as an anti-inflammatory that would inevitably act as a solvent in the composition.
Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, filed 9/1/2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the references cited in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 “does not adequately explain why a person or ordinary skill would have made the particular combination… or reasonably expected it to produce the claimed small-droplet oil-in-water dispersion.” Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive. In response to Applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teaching of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
As all the refences described supra relate to cleansing compositions that may be used for the skin, they would reasonably be combined to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. All references relate to compositions that are intended to be use on “keratinous tissue such as skin…” and is intended to cleanse these surfaces. The teachings of Mitra would be reasonably expected to be informed by the teachings of Zhu, as the inventions relate to the same field that one of ordinary skill in the art would be expected to combine the two. Applicant argues that Mitra and Zhu are of different objectives, and there exists no link between the two teachings. This is not found persuasive, as Mitra teaches that the composition as described by the invention may include one or more surfactants included in the composition for cleansing skin. Zhu teaches that biosurfactants, such as rhamnolipids, can be successfully integrated into compositions designed to cleanse skin. One would therefore expect the inclusion of a biosurfactant of rhamnolipids into a composition as taught by Mitra, wherein the composition as taught by Mitra may comprise a surfactant, to be successful. One would select the biosurfactant as taught by Zhu to incorporate into Mitra as Zhu teaches that these biosurfactants are “all-natural and consumer-friendly.” As one may include a surfactant as suggested by Mitra, and Zhu teaches compositions comprising a surfactant for the same purpose of cleansing, one would reasonably be motivated and expect success in applying the surfactant as taught by Zhu to the composition as taught by Mitra. Applicant also argues that Gupta is not combinable with Mitra. This is not found persuasive, as Gupta also teaches a composition for use on the skin to remove harmful substances (i.e. cleanse the skin of harmful substances). Gupta teaches the inclusion of polycitronellol acetate into the composition, albeit for anti-inflammatory purposes instead of as a solvent. However, as described supra, the reason for inclusion is not relevant; the inclusion of polycitronellol acetate as an anti-inflammatory will also result in its use as a solvent. One would be motivated to include an anti-inflammatory such as polycitronellol acetate into a cleansing composition as it is taught to be beneficial for skin barrier function. As both Mitra and Gupta relate to skin cleansing compositions, and Gupta suggests the inclusion of polycitronellol acetate to be beneficial in the composition as an agent beneficial for skin barrier function, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably include the polycitronellol acetate in the amount as described by Gupta to develop a skin cleansing composition that comprises, in part, polycitronellol acetate. Applicant is reminded that 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), see MPEP 2144(II). Regarding the droplet size range as claimed and Nehme’s teachings of emulsification processes, Applicant argues that Nehme’s classification of micro-emulsions as thermodynamically more stable could not inform a composition as taught by Mitra. Applicant argues that Nehme actually teaches compositions in the micrometer droplet size range, and one would therefore not be motivated to develop an emulsion with smaller droplet size that would align with the instantly claimed range. However, this is not found persuasive as Nehme continues to teach that those in the art would prefer droplet sizes of smaller diameter, as demonstrated by the development of protocols to produce emulsions of smaller droplet size. Nehme teaches that these smaller droplet size emulsions are thermodynamically more stable, as described supra, and therefore it would be obvious to develop a composition with greater thermodynamic stability, i.e. smaller droplet size. As Nehme teaches that emulsions can be classified as micro-emulsions (10-100 nm) mini or nano-emulsions (200 -1000 nm) or macro-emulsions (> 1 nm), one would select smaller droplet ranges aligning with micro or mini/nano-emulsion droplet size for greater thermodynamic stability. One would reasonably look to the teachings of Nehme to inform this droplet size selection as Nehme teaches emulsion formation applied to “cosmetic and nutraceutical fields,” which the teachings of Mitra would be classified as. The resulting composition would incorporate the teachings of Mitra, regarding the linseed oil and polymer, informed by the surfactant choice as suggested by Zhu, further informed by the inclusion of polycitronellol acetate as suggested by Gupta, with an emulsion droplet size as suggested by Nehme for reasons of stability.
Applicant is reminded that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Further, Applicant has not shown that the inclusion of rhamnolipids and polycitronellol acetate into the composition as described by Mitra would not have success in developing a cleanser for keratinous tissue such as skin. One would reasonably expect success in incorporating rhamnolipids as a surfactant and polycitronellol acetate as an anti-inflammatory as suggested by the references into a composition as taught by Mitra. This incorporation of these teachings into the composition as taught by Mitra would reasonably be done as all teachings relate to emulsions for cleansing.
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 MATTHEW RYAN BURKE whose telephone number is (571)272-8949. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8am-5pm.
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 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.
/MATTHEW RYAN BURKE/Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/DAVID J BLANCHARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1619
Prosecution Insights