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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim status
Claims 1-31 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1, claims 1-27 and 29-31, directed to a sprayable composition, in the reply filed on 12 Feb 2026 is acknowledged. Applicants also elected, with traverse, that the propellent is dimethyl ether, the polymer is acrylate, the hydrophobic agent is silicone, the polar solute is vitamins, the additive is moisturizing agent and the formulation form is a light liquid in response to the species election requirement. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is a disclosed relationship between the inventions and that there is not a serious burden on the examiner This is not found persuasive because, even though the inventions are related, the product of the instant claims can be made by a different process, for instance with the specific mixing requirements of the method. Thus, the inventions have acquired a separate status and require a different field of search.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 15, 17, 24, and 28 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Claims 15, 17 and 24 are directed to alternative species from the elected species and claim 28 is directed to a restricted process.
Claims 1-14, 16, 18-23, 25-27, and 29-31 are under consideration to the extent of the elected species, i.e., that the propellent is dimethyl ether, the polymer is acrylate, the hydrophobic agent is silicone, the polar solute is vitamins, the additive is moisturizing agent and the formulation form is a light liquid.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. See pages 28, 29, 45 and 53 of the instant specification. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14, 16, 18-23, 25-27, and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 and 7 recite “the one or more polymer or copolymer fragments, or combinations thereof, are sufficient to stabilize the particles of one or more hydrophobic agent(s) in said dispersion, at a level from about 0.05% w/w to about 70% w/w of said one or more hydrophobic agent(s).” It is unclear what the range of 0.05-70% is intended to refer to. The claim previously recites that the one or more hydrophobic agent(s) are from about 0.01% wt. to about 70% wt. and that the one or more polymer or copolymer fragments are present from about 0.01 to about 10% wt. The interpretation of the “at a level from about 0.05% w/w to about 70% w/w of said one or more hydrophobic agent(s)” cited above is not clear. For example, is this intended to be an alternative range for the one or more hydrophobic agent, or is this intended to indicate that the stabilizing function only is required in this more narrowed range. Or this may be interpreted as a range of the polymer that is allowed in comparison to the hydrophobic agent. There are multiple interpretations of this limitation and the claim is indefinite. Claims 2-6, 8-14, 16, 18-23, 25-27, and 29-31 are included in this rejection as they depend directly, indirectly, or include all the limitations of independent claim 1.
Claim 1 recites in the second to last line “the sprayable composition is an aqueous-solute fluid.” This is indefinite as component (iii) of the dispersion is an “aqueous-solute fluid.” It is not clear if this descriptor of an “aqueous-solute fluid” is intended to refer back to component (iii) of the dispersion or if it is intended to define the sprayable composition in some manner. Claims 2-14, 16, 18-23, 25-27, and 29-31 are included in this rejection as they depend directly, indirectly, or include all the limitations of independent claim 1.
Claims 19 and 31 recite “specific gravity is adjusted by the addition of one or more of an antifoam, centrifugation, vacuum, and reduction in viscosity with sweeping mixing.” It is unclear what is meant by adding centrifugation, vacuum and reduction in viscosity with sweeping mixing. These limitations are actions that can be done to the composition but it is not clear in what manner they would be added to the composition.
Claim 27 is unclear if the form of the composition is intended to refer to the composition before it is sprayed or after it is sprayed. The claim refers to the sprayable composition of claim 1 indicating that the form is directed to the composition before spraying. Some of the forms in the claim, however, refer to formulations after spraying. For instance, the form of a mist indicates a sprayed composition and not a sprayable composition. It is not clear if the claim is directed to the composition before or after it is sprayed.
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, 7-14, 16, 18-23, 25-27, and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilmott et al. (US 2014/0271877, published 18 Sep 2014) in view of Kenji et al. (JP2004224706A, published 12 Aug 2004) as evidenced by UMass (UMassAmherst, The Normal Distribution and Standard Deviation).
Wilmott teaches a topical composition for the skin, hair or mucosal comprising 1) 0.01-70 wt% of dispersed submicron particles of hydrophobic agent(s), 2) 10-95 wt% of an aqueous-solvent fluid and 3) 0.01 to 10 wt% of a rheological modifying agent(s) ([0008]). Wilmott teaches that the hydrophobic agent of the dispersion may be an aesthetic modifying agent ([0011], [0012], [0043]), such as silicone such as polysiloxanes and polyalkylsiloxanes ([0065]), rendering obvious the elected species of hydrophobic agent. Wilmott teaches that solutes may be present in the aqueous-solvent fluid ([0008]), rendering obvious the aqueous-solute fluid of the instant claims. Wilmott teaches that the rheological modifying agent may be acrylates ([0071]), rendering obvious the elected species of polymer/copolymer. Wilmott thus renders obvious the dispersion of claim 1. Regarding claim 3, Wilmott teaches that the particles of the hydrophobic agent are from 100 nm to 999 nm ([0008]) and have a solubility of less than about 0.1% by weight in water ([0015]). Wilmott does not describe the distribution of the particles in terms of the standard deviation but this is obvious from the narrow distribution range taught by Wilmott of 90% or more of the hydrophobic agent particles have a size within 100 nm of the average particle size ([0025]). Further, the limitation of 85% or more of a size within ± 2.0 standard deviations is broader that one would expect from a normal distribution of particles. As evidenced by UMass, when considering a normal distribution, 95% of all measurements fall within 2 standard deviations from the mean (pages 7-8). Thus, absent evidence to the contrary, the particles of Wilmott are understood to meet the limitations of claim 3.
Wilmott teaches the dispersion of the invention may be produced in precursor form by mixing an aqueous fluid and hydrophobic agents using processing conditions known in the art such as sonication, bubble method and high pressure/high shear ([0031]). Regarding the functional agent of claims 16 and 29, Wilmott teaches the dispersion composition can contain other suitable adjuvants such as chelating agents ([0082]). Wilmott teaches inclusion of pH adjusters such as citric acid ([0082]), rendering obvious pH lowering by addition of acids as in claims 19 and 31. Wilmott teaches the aqueous-solvent fluid comprises water ([0008]), rendering obvious claim 20. Wilmott teaches the inclusion of vitamin B12 ([0058]), rendering obvious the polar water soluble solutes of claims 21-23. Wilmott teaches that the hydrophobic agent can include therapeutic agents ([0043]) from 1-60% ([0044]) that are moisturizers ([0046]) and provides an example with moisturizing agent from 0-10% ([0089] embodiment A), rendering obvious claims 25 and 30. Regarding claim 26, Wilmott teaches application to an animal ([0123]) rendering obvious veterinary health use and teaches a cosmetic material and dermatologically appropriate material ([0022]) and teaches the inclusion of skin protectants and sunscreen agents ([0046]), rendering obvious a cosmetic use.
Wilmott does not teach the composition as a sprayable composition with the viscosity of the instant claims. These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Kenji.
Kenji teaches sprayable sunscreens (title) and that as a sunscreen cosmetic, a spray type is preferred because it can be easily and widely applied (page 1 lines 12-13). Kenji teaches that spray type cosmetics may be aerosol type with propellants or dispenser type that do not use propellants (page 1lines 14-16) and teaches both as suitable for the compositions (page 2 lines 12-14), rendering obvious the aerosol or pressurized spray dispenser of claim 4. Kenji teaches that for a dispenser of compressed gas aerosol type of spray, if the viscosity is high that it is difficult to spray uniformly in the form of a mist and may lead to clogging (page 1 lines 26-28). Kenji teaches the compositions can be sprayed in a uniform mist over a long period of time (page 2 lines 19-20). Kenji teaches that the average particle diameter of the spray type sunscreen cosmetic is 10-300 nm and has a viscosity of 100 mPas (i.e. 100 cps) or less (page 2 lines 21-25, page 7 lines 22-23) as a higher viscosity may affect sprayability (page 8 line 10).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the composition of Wilmott as a as a sprayable composition with a viscosity of 100 mPas (100 cps) or less. The compositions of Wilmott render obvious the compositional components and they are used in topical applications for the skin. The compositions may further include sunscreen agents, as taught by Wilmott, rendering it obvious to use the compositions as a sunscreen composition. It would have been obvious to have the composition as a sprayable formulation as sprays are preferred for sunscreen cosmetics as they can be easily and widely applied, as taught by Kenji. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to structure the topical sunscreen formulation as a spray type formulation for the benefits of ease of application. Spray formulations may be delivered as aerosol or dispenser types and the viscosity is an important variable to control as it is known to be related to how effective the composition can be sprayed, as taught by Kenji. It is known from Kenji that viscosities that are too high are difficult to spray uniformly and may led to clogging and that viscosities of 100 mPas (100 cps) or less can be sprayed as a uniform mist over a long period of time. It would be desirable to one of ordinary skill to spray the formulation uniformly over a long time without clogging, thereby rendering it obvious to formulate the composition with a viscosity of 100 mPas (100 cps) or less for the benefits of spraying uniformly over a long time. This viscosity range renders obvious the viscosities of claim 2. 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). Regarding claim 27 and the elected species of form as a light liquid, compositions with the same components as the instant claims and with a low viscosity (100 mPas or less) is obvious from the art and the low viscosity composition may be considered a light liquid. The composition with the viscosity obvious from the art renders obvious the limitation of claim 1 of a viscosity sufficient to form a spray of present or desired droplet size upon dispensing from a spray dispenser.
Regarding the limitation of claims 1 and 7 that the ‘one or more polymer or copolymer fragments, or combinations thereof, are sufficient to stabilize the particles of one or more hydrophobic agent(s) in said dispersion,” this limitation is met by the composition rendered obvious as described above. Similarly, claim 11 recites that the polymer reduces Newtonian flow, which is a necessary result of the addition of the acrylate polymer taught by Wilmott. A dispersion comprising hydrophobic agents and acrylate polymers, as recited in the claims, is obvious from the art and would necessarily lead to the stabilizing and reduced Newtonian flow effects. Regarding the process steps of claim 7, the examiner notes that these limitations are product-by-process limitations. “Even 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) (citations omitted). In the instant case, the topical composition with dispersed particles of hydrophobic agent, an aqueous solvent fluid and a rheological modifying agent and formulated as a spray, appears to be the same product claimed and it is not necessary for the art to teach the same processing steps regarding the premix and first/second dispersions with low and high energy mixing. Similarly, claim 8 recites a reduction in viscosity of the second dispersion compared to the first dispersion, but the art teaches the same product with the same viscosities of the instant claims and it is not necessary for it to teach the reduction in viscosity compared to an intermediate composition step. The examiner notes that Wilmott teaches high pressure/high shear mixing and sonication, as described above, and the product rendered obvious appears to be the same as that claimed. Claims 9 and 10 recite functional properties of stability and repulsion of the final product compared to compositions in process steps . The product of Wilmott and Kenji has the same components with the same viscosity and particle size of the instant claims and may be formed by high energy mixing methods described above, and thus the product of Wilmott renders obvious the product of instant claims 9 and 10 and the functional stability and repelling properties recited.
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.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilmott et al. (US 2014/0271877, published 18 Sep 2014) in view of Kenji et al. (JP2004224706A, published 12 Aug 2004) as evidenced by UMass (UMassAmherst, The Normal Distribution and Standard Deviation) as applied to claims 1-4, 7-14, 16, 18-23, 25-27, and 29-31 above and further in view of Hougaz (US 2009/0061001, published 05 Mar 2009).
The teachings of Wilmott and Kenji are described supra.
Wilmott and Kenji do not teach the droplet size, percent of propellent and the elected species of propellen (dimethyl ether). These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Hougaz.
Hougaz teaches sunscreen aerosol sprays (title) and formulations contained in an aerosol container and dispensing in the form of a fine mist, spray or similar to provide a uniform coverage of the composition and thereby providing uniform protection ([0008]). Hougaz teaches spray droplet sizes such as 1.0 micron to 500 microns ([0026]) and that the spray or mist delivers a fine even coverage of a film of the sunscreen composition to skin surfaces ([0026]). Hougaz teaches that the propellent is from 0-30 wt% ([0031]) and teaches various propellants and that a particularly useful propellant is dimethyl ether ([0035]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formulated the composition of Wilmott and Kenji as an aerosol spray such that the droplets would be from 1.0-500 microns and to have included dimethyl ether propellant from 1-30wt%. Aerosol spray formulations for sunscreens is obvious from Wilmott and Kenji. It is known from Kenji to include propellants in the aerosol compositions and dimethyl ether is a preferable propellant for use in sunscreen aerosol sprays, as is known from Hougaz. Thus, one would have a reasonable expectation of success in using dimethyl ether from 1-30% as this is a known propellent and an amount known to be suitable for aerosol sunscreen formulations. Further, the droplet size of 1.0-500 microns is obvious as it is known from Hougaz as suitable for sunscreen formulations as part of providing even coverage and uniform protection to the user.
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.
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, 16, 18-23, 25-27, and 29-31 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of copending Application No. 18/542,085 in view of Kenji et al. (JP2004224706A, published 12 Aug 2004) and Hougaz (US 2009/0061001, published 05 Mar 2009).
The ‘085 application recites
PNG
media_image1.png
333
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2 recites the same processing steps for forming the composition as instant claim 7. The limitation of particle size in claim 3 render obvious instant claim 3. The features of the product in claims 4-7 correspond to the features recited in instant claims 8-11. Claims 8-10 recite acrylate polymers. Claim 12 recites polyalkylsiloxanes hydrophobic agents. Claim 14 renders obvious the limitation of instant claim 16. Claim 15 recites vitamin, sunscreen and moisturizing agents. Claims 17-21 renders obvious claim instant claims 19-23. Claims 25-26 renders obvious instant claims 26 and 27. Claim 27 recites that the composition is a sunscreen spray, rendering obvious a sprayable formulation.
The ‘085 application does not recite the viscosity, aerosol spray, droplet size and propellent of the instant claims. These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Kenji and Hougaz.
The teachings of Kenji and Hougaz are described supra.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the spray composition of the reference application with a viscosity from 100 mPas (100 cps) or less as part of an aerosol spray with 1-30% dimethyl ether propellant and 1-500 micron droplet size. A viscosity that is too high will lead to difficulty with uniform sprays and with clogging and viscosity from 100 mPas (100 cps) or less is suitable for uniform sprays, as taught by Kenji. The inclusion of propellants such a dimethyl ether from 1-30% and forming droplets from 1-500 microns is known from Hougaz as suitable for forming sunscreen formulations that provide even coverage and uniform protection to the user, rendering these features as obvious to one of ordinary skill.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-14, 16, 18-23, 25-27, and 29-31 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 and 30-32 of copending Application No. 18/544,715.
Claim 1 of the ‘715 application recites
PNG
media_image2.png
556
684
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 2-7 render obvious instant claims 2-7. Claims 9-15 render obvious instant claims 8-14. Claim 17 renders obvious instant claim 16. Claim 20 renders obvious instant claim 19. Claim 21 recites polysiloxanes. Claims 22-24 render obvious instant claims 21-23. Claim 25 recites vitamins. Claim 28 recites formulations rendering obvious instant claim 27. Claim 30 renders obvious the functional agents of instant claim 29. Claim 31 renders obvious the agents of claim 30. Claim 32 renders obvious instant claim 31. Thus, the ‘715 application renders obvious the instant claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-14, 16, 18-23, 25-27, and 29-31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 9,357,770 in view of Wilmott et al. (US 2014/0271877, published 18 Sep 2014), Kenji et al. (JP2004224706A, published 12 Aug 2004) and Hougaz (US 2009/0061001, published 05 Mar 2009).
The ‘770 patent recites
PNG
media_image3.png
355
300
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
The hydrophobic agent may be a therapeutic/aesthetic agent (claims 8-10) such as a moisturizer (claim 11) and sunscreen agent (claim 12) and polysiloxanes (claim 14).
The ‘770 patent does not recite acrylates, or that the composition is sprayable and the viscosity, propellant and droplet size/amount. These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Wilmott, Kenji and Hougaz.
The teachings of Wilmott, Kenji and Hougaz are described supra.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated acrylates as a rheological agent and to form the composition as a spray composition with a viscosity from 100 mPas (100 cps) or less as part of an aerosol spray with 1-30% dimethyl ether propellant and 1-500 micron droplet size. The same compositions with aqueous-solvent fluids, hydrophobic agents and rheological agents are taught by Wilmott and acrylates are suitable rheological agents for such compositions providing reasonable expectation of success in their inclusion. The compositions include sunscreen agents, rendering it obvious to use the compositions as a sunscreen composition and thus it would have been obvious to have the composition as a sprayable formulation as sprays are preferred for sunscreen cosmetics as they can be easily and widely applied, as taught by Kenji. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to structure the topical sunscreen formulation as a spray type formulation for the benefits of ease of application. A viscosity that is too high in the spray formulation will lead to difficulty with uniform sprays and with clogging and viscosity from 100 mPas (100 cps) or less is suitable for uniform sprays, as taught by Kenji. The inclusion of propellants such a dimethyl ether from 1-30% and forming droplets from 1-500 microns is known from Hougaz as suitable for forming sunscreen formulations that provide even coverage and uniform protection to the user, rendering these features as obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN C MITCHELL whose telephone number is (571)272-7007. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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 on (571)272-0827. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E.C.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/ANNA R FALKOWITZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1600