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
Response to Amendment
Status of the Claims
Receipt of Applicant’s response, filed 09 Jun 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-5 and 8-31 remain pending in the application.
Claims 1, 3, 8-14, 16, 18-22, 25- 29, and 31 are amended.
Claims 6 and 7 are cancelled.
Claim 28 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Claim 28 is directed to a restricted process.
Claims 1-5, 8-27, and 29-31 are under consideration. The previous election of species requirement has been withdrawn.
Objections Withdrawn
Objections to the Specification
The specification objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 09 Mar 2026 are hereby withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments of the specification.
Rejections Withdrawn
Rejections Pursuant to 35 USC § 112
The rejections of claims pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 09 Mar 2026 are hereby withdrawn in light of applicants amendment of the claims.
Rejections Pursuant to 35 USC § 103
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment of the claims. The claims require a sprayable composition comprising polymer or copolymer fragments and require steps of low energy and ultra-high energy mixing and that the polymer/copolymer fragments provide at least a 10% reduction in viscosity compared to unfragmented polymers. It is understood that ultra high mixing would impart distinct fragmenting to polymers and the required reduction in viscosity would require a certain level of fragmentation present, thus further defining the “polymer or copolymer fragments” as recited. The prior art does not teach sprayable compositions with such polymer fragmentation.
Rejections Pursuant to Double Patenting
The rejections under Double Patenting are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment of the claims. New rejections are made over applications 18/542,085 and 18/544,715.
New Grounds of Objections/Rejections
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 14, 24 and 31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 the “optionally, one or more additives” in step a) should be marked with a “(iv)” for consistency with items (i), (ii), and (iii) in the claim.
In claim 14 the parenthesis around “or alkenyl” should be removed for improved readability.
In claim 24, the period in “1.5-penthylene” should be a comma.
In claim 31, the semicolon separating “antifoam from “or by treating” should be changed to a comma.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-27, and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The amendment filed 09 Jun 2026 has introduced new matter into the claims.
Amended claim 1 recites “v) optionally water; and c) optionally one or more additional additives”.
Amended claim 1 recites “subjecting the first dispersion to ultra-high energy mixing to form a second dispersion with an average hydrophobic particle size which is less than 5 microns.”
Amended claim 1 recites “wherein the second dispersion can be adjusted post high energy mixing to modify the physical properties including…rheometry…optionally, by additional of an additive including a therapeutic agent or aesthetic modifying agent to make the one or more dispersions.”
Amended claim 1 recites adjustments made with sequestants and texture modifiers.
Claims 2-5, 8-27 are included in these rejections as they depend directly, indirectly, or include all the limitations of independent claim 1.
Amended claim 10 recites “repulsive force determined by Coulomb’s Law.”
Amended claim 16 recites “specific gravity adjusters.”
Amended claim 19 recites “low refractive index solvent/solute.”
Amended claim 20 recites that the composition “contains a quantity sufficient amount of water.”
Amended claim 21 recites that “polar solutes…decrease the freezing point of the one or more dispersions.”
Claims 22-24 are included in this rejection as they depend directly, indirectly, or include all the limitations of independent claim 1.
Amended claim 26 recites construction, paint and adhesive applications.
Amended claim 27 recites a “flowable fluid which possesses a shear thinning effect.”
Amended claim 27 recites the form of a paste.
Amended claim 31 recites “low refractive index solvent/solute.”
The response filed 09 Jun 2026 indicates that support for amended claim 1 can be found in claims 7, 8 and paragraph [0067], [0068], [0071], and [00296] of the specification. This has been fully considered but is not found persuasive. The originally filed disclosure does not provide support for optional water and additional additives beyond the water and additives of the one or more dispersions and does not support “low refractive index solvent/solute” and does not provide support for the broad class of sequestrants and texture modifiers and does not provide support repulsive forces determined by Coulomb’s Law or the broad group of specific gravity adjusters or that water is used to quantity sufficient or that polar solutes decrease the freezing point or construction, paint and adhesive applications or a flowable fluid which possesses a shear thinning effect or the form of a paste. Further, paragraph [0071] discloses particle sizes after low energy mixing and not the resulting particle size after high energy mixing. Paragraph [00296] indicates changes to the pH, viscosity, refractive index and specific gravity done post treatment of the second dispersion but does not disclose adjusting rheometry, or adding therapeutic agents or aesthetic modifying agents post treatment of the second dispersion.
Instant claims 1, 10, 16, 19, 20, 21, 26, and 27 now recite limitations, which were not clearly disclosed in the specification as filed, and now change the scope of the instant disclosure as filed. Such limitations recited in newly amended claim 1, 10, 16, 19, 20, 21, 26, and 27, which did not appear in the specification, as filed, introduce new concepts and violate the description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C 112. Applicant is required to provide sufficient written support for the limitations recited in present claim 1, 10, 16, 19, 20, 21, 26, and 27 in the specification or claims, as-filed, or remove these limitations from the claims in response to this Office Action.
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 1-5, 8-27, 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 recites “an average hydrophobic particle size.” It is unclear if this is intended to refer to the “particles of one or more hydrophobic agent(s)” or to some other particles with hydrophobic properties in the dispersion. Claims 2-5, 8-27, and 29-31 are included in these rejections as they depend directly, indirectly, or include all the limitations of independent claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “all based on the total weight of the dispersion” and “in said dispersion.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 1 previously recites “one or more dispersions”, which encompasses multiple dispersions, and it is unclear whether “the dispersion” and “said dispersion” includes just one or more than one dispersion. Amending the claim to recite “the one or more dispersion” and “said one or more dispersion” would overcome this rejection. Claims 2-5, 8-27, and 29-31 are included in these rejections as they depend directly, indirectly, or include all the limitations of independent claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “the one or more polymer or copolymer fragments…are sufficient to stabilize the particles of one or more hydrophobic agent(s)…at a level from about 0.01% wt to about 70% wt of said one or more hydrophobic agent(s), in said dispersion.” The wording of this limitation is unclear what as to what is intended with stabilizing the hydrophobic agent at a level of 0.01-70% of the hydrophobic agent. For instance, it is not clear if this is intended to indicate that the polymer stabilizes the hydrophobic agent present between 0.01-70% or if stabilizing the hydrophobic agent from 0.01-70% of the hydrophobic agent is intended to indicate stability of up to 70% of the hydrophobic agent that is in the dispersion. Claims 2-5, 8-27, and 29-31are included in these rejections as they depend directly, indirectly, or include all the limitations of independent claim 1.
Claim 1 recites that the “second dispersion can be adjusted…to make the one or more dispersions.” The one or more dispersions are required as part of the claim and the adjustments are needed to “make the one or more dispersions” but the limitation “can” suggests that this adjustment step is not required. It is unclear if this adjustment is needed to make the one or more dispersions or if it is optional. Claims 2-5, 8-27, and 29-31 are included in these rejections as they depend directly, indirectly, or include all the limitations of independent claim 1.
Claim 1 recites that the “second dispersion can be adjusted…to make the one or more dispersions.” It is unclear what the intention of this limitation is. The limitation “the second dispersion” implies a single dispersion, but “one or more dispersions” indicates that more that one dispersion may be present. It is unclear in what manner the second dispersion is intended to relate to the more than one dispersion. For example, it is not clear if “the second dispersion” is intended to encompass the formation of multiple second dispersions that become the more than one final dispersion or if only one second dispersion is intended to be present. Claims 2-5, 8-27, and 29-31 are included in these rejections as they depend directly, indirectly, or include all the limitations of independent claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “1) the one or more dispersions, or 2) any blend of the one or more dispersions.” It is unclear what distinction there is between “the one or more dispersions” and a “blend of the one or more dispersions.” The one or more dispersions are part of the same sprayable composition and when more than one dispersion is present it would be blended in some manner. Thus, it is not clear what distinction there is between components 1) and 2) of the claim. Claims 2-5, 8-27, and 29-31 are included in these rejections as they depend directly, indirectly, or include all the limitations of independent claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “physical properties including pH, viscosity….” Use of the term “including” (which is synonymous with “comprising”, see MPEP 2111.03) before the list of properties is unclear as it opens the list to unrecited elements whereas a Markush claim requires selection from a closed group (see MPEP 2117(I)). Claims 2-5, 8-27, and 29-31 are included in these rejections as they depend directly, indirectly, or include all the limitations of independent claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “other additives can be incorporated including....” Use of the term “including” (which is synonymous with “comprising”, see MPEP 2111.03) before the list of additives that can be incorporated is unclear as it opens the list to unrecited elements whereas a Markush claim requires selection from a closed group (see MPEP 2117(I)). Claims 2-5, 8-27, and 29-31 are included in these rejections as they depend directly, indirectly, or include all the limitations of independent claim 1.
Claim 8 recites “in the one or more dispersions, the one or more polymer of copolymer fragments, or combinations thereof, of the second dispersion.” It is unclear if the limitation that follows is in reference to the one or more dispersions or to the second dispersion.
Claim 9 recites “in the one or more dispersions, the one or more polymer of copolymer fragments, or combinations thereof, of the second dispersion which is subjected to high energy mixing.” It is unclear if the limitation that follows is in reference to the one or more dispersions or to the second dispersion. Additionally it is unclear if this limitation is intended to require an additional mixing step or not. Claim 1 recites that the first dispersion undergoes high energy mixing to form the second dispersion. It is unclear if the limitation of claim 9 is intended to refer to this mixing process or to a different mixing process done to the second dispersion.
Claim 9 recites “the low energy mechanical mixing that is the standard practice.” It is unclear what is meant by “the standard practice” and how this relates to the low energy mechanical mixing. For example, if it is not clear if this is intended to require a specific type of mixing that is considered “standard practice.”
Claim 13 recites “carbohydrate-based monomer units or derivates thereof including cellulose and derivatives, xanthan gum, and alginic acid.” Use of the term “including” (which is synonymous with “comprising”, see MPEP 2111.03) before the list of carbohydrate components is unclear as it opens the list to unrecited elements whereas a Markush claim requires selection from a closed group (see MPEP 2117(I)).
Claim 17 recites “the sprayable composition of claim 15, wherein the one or more active or therapeutic agent(s) comprise one or more hydrophobic agent(s).” This is unclear as claim 15 refers to the one or more hydrophobic agent’(s) comprising one or more active agents and is unclear if the one or more hydrophobic agents of claim 17 is the same as the hydrophobic agents of claim 15 or if they are different.
Claim 19 is indefinite in the recitation of “specific gravity is adjusted by…treating…reduction in viscosity with sweeping mixing.” It is unclear what is meant by treating with reduction in viscosity as a reduction in viscosity is a result and not a treatment. It is unclear if this is intended to refer to a specific method step that causes a reduction in viscosity to adjust the specific gravity or if something else is intended with the limitation.
Claim 19 is indefinite in the recitation that the refractive index is adjusted up or down “by the addition of a high or low refractive index solvent/solute or water respectively.” The use of “respectively” is understood to correlate the previous components with the function of adjusting the refractive index up or down. However, there are three items (high refractive index solvent, low refractive index solvent, and water) and it is unclear what manner these components correlate with adjusting up or down.
Claim 21 is unclear in the recitation of “the sprayable composition of claim 1, which contains one or more polar solutes.” This limitation indicates that polar solutes are present but this lacks proper antecedent basis as claim 1 does not recite polar solutes.
Claim 25 recites “the one or more active or therapeutic ingredients(s)” which lacks proper antecedent basis as these components are not recited in claim 1.
Claim 27 recites “the sprayable composition of claim 1, before or after spraying.” It is unclear what is intended by “before or after spraying” and how this relates to the “sprayable composition.” For example, if the composition is “after spraying” then it is understood that the composition is no longer a “sprayable composition” as it has already been sprayed.
Claim 31 is indefinite in the recitation of “specific gravity is adjusted by…treating…reduction in viscosity with sweeping mixing.” It is unclear what is meant by treating with reduction in viscosity as a reduction in viscosity is a result and not a treatment. It is unclear if this is intended to refer to a specific method step that causes a reduction in viscosity to adjust the specific gravity or if something else is intended with the limitation.
Claim 31 is indefinite in the recitation that the refractive index is adjusted up or down “by the addition of a high or low refractive index solvent/solute or water respectively.” The use of “respectively” is understood to correlate the previous components with the function of adjusting the refractive index up or down. However, there are three items (high refractive index solvent, low refractive index solvent, and water) and it is unclear what manner these components correlate with adjusting up or down.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 recites the average particle size is from about 100 nm to about 5 μm. Claim 1, however, recites that the particle size is “less than 5 microns. The limitation “about 5 μm” is understood to be open to values greater than 5 microns and thus claim 3 broadens size limitation of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-5, 8-27, and 29-31 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-27 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
659
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
481
644
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
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).
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 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 1-5, 8-27, 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_image3.png
556
684
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 2-7 render obvious instant the process steps of low and high energy mixing and the spray droplets, propellents and viscosities as instantly claimed. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 09 Jun 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states that they will make a determination of the need for a terminal disclaimer upon allowance of the instant claims. The examiner notes that this is not a proper response to a rejection and a matter may be held in abeyance only in response to an OBJECTION or REQUIREMENTS AS TO FORM (see MPEP 37 CFR 1.111(b) and 714.02).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights