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 .
Priority
This Application is a 371 of PCT/US2022/017421, filed Feb. 23, 2022, and claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/155,025, filed Mar. 1, 2021.
Claim Status
Claims 1-2, 6 and 8-20 are currently pending and subject to examination.
Claim Rejections – Overcome by Amendment
The rejection of claims 19-20 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim(s) 1-6, 8-10, 12, 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Sodium Ascorbyl Phosphate” (BASF Cosmetic Solutions, July 2005, p. 1-24, herein “BASF”) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim(s) 1-6, 8-9 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ferrara et al. (Redox Biology, Volume 34, July 2020, 101481, p. 1-7) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim(s) 1-6, 8-10, 12-14, 17-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Latoga & Dee (CA2273391A1, published Dec. 1, 1999) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-14, 17-18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim(s) 1-6, 8-10, 12-18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latoga & Dee (CA2273391A1, published Dec. 1, 1999), as applied to claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-14, 17-18 and 20 above, and further in view of G. Kolaczinski (“Soap – Chemical constituents”, O. Braun-Falco et al. (eds.), Skin Cleansing with Synthetic Detergents, 1992, p. 15-20) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over “Dial NutriSkin White Peach & Shea Butter” (The Dial Corporation, 2014, Glycerin Soap, Mintel Database GNPD AN: 2728723; IDS 08/25/2023, Ref. no. 9), as applied to claims 1-14, 18 and 20 above, and further in view of G. Kolaczinski (“Soap – Chemical constituents”, O. Braun-Falco et al. (eds.), Skin Cleansing with Synthetic Detergents, 1992, p. 15-20) is withdrawn.
The above rejections are overcome by Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112(b) – New Grounds of Rejection Necessitated by Amendment
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 6 and 8-11 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.
One of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the metes and bounds of claims 6 and 8-11 because claims 6 and 8-11 are dependent upon claim 4 and claim 4 was cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 – New Grounds of Rejection Necessitated by Amendment
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 8-13, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Dial NutriSkin White Peach & Shea Butter” (The Dial Corporation, 2014, Glycerin Soap, Mintel Database GNPD AN: 2728723; IDS 08/25/2023, Ref. no. 9) in view of “Sodium Ascorbyl Phosphate” (BASF Cosmetic Solutions, July 2005, p. 1-24, herein “BASF”), as evidenced by G. Kolaczinski, “Soap – Chemical constituents” O. Braun-Falco et al. (eds.), Skin Cleansing with Synthetic Detergents, 1992, p. 15-20 and Allal et al. (Agroforest Syst (2013) 87:1065–1082)) (all of record).
G. Kolaczinski, “Soap – Chemical constituents” O. Braun-Falco et al. (eds.), Skin Cleansing with Synthetic Detergents, 1992, p. 15-20 and Allal et al. (Agroforest Syst (2013) 87:1065–1082)) are used below to evidence the inherent properties of Dial NutriSkin White Peach & Shea Butter.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant argues that Dial fails to disclose gamma-tocopherol. (Remarks, p. 9). These arguments were fully considered but are not persuasive. As stated in the prior office action, this product contains gamma-tocopherol because it contains shea butter and shea butter contains gamma-tocopherol:
Dial NutriSkin White Peach & Shea Butter Glycerin Soap also comprises shea butter (Butyrospermum parkii oil) which in the product description is stated to contain vitamin E. While the product description and ingredients do not name the form of vitamin E, this product inherently contains gamma-tocopherol because the vitamin E in shea butter comprises gamma-tocopherol (Allal et al. (Agroforest Syst (2013) 87:1065–1082)).
Non-final Action, p. 11.
The Applicant argues that the specific weight ratio of Vitamin E to Vitamin C yields unexpected and synergistic results (Remarks, p. 14). These arguments were fully considered but are not persuasive. The Applicant merely applied known weight ratios to yield a synergistic result of these two ingredients that is commonly known in the art as shown by BASF and presented in the prior office action.
Rejection
Claim 1 is directed towards:
A personal care composition comprising a carrier and an antioxidant system comprising one or more antioxidants, wherein the antioxidant system is present in an effective amount to treat, inhibit, or prevent lipid peroxidation of skin;
wherein the one or more antioxidants comprise a combination of vitamin E and vitamin C
wherein the vitamin E and vitamin C are present in the personal care composition in a weight ratio of from about 1:1 to about 60:1:
wherein the vitamin E comprises gamma-tocopherol and
wherein the personal care composition is a solid personal care composition.
The product Dial NutriSkin White Peach & Shea Butter Glycerin Soap appears to be substantially identical to the claimed invention; it is a solid personal care composition, which includes the antioxidants Vitamin E (tocopherol and tocopheryl acetate) and vitamin C (sodium ascorbyl phosphate) which are present in amounts “to give skin its daily dose of nutrition and keep it looking and feeling healthy, protected and beautiful.” The product description explicitly mentions that the shea butter, having vitamins C and E, will “protect it [skin] from environmental damage.” The soap also contains multiple antioxidants, relatively high on the ingredient list, indicating that they comprise a substantial portion of the soap; the product comprises shea butter (Butyrospermum parkii Oil), tocopherol, tocopheryl acetate, sodium ascorbyl phosphate, and retinyl palmitate:
PNG
media_image1.png
262
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Dial Glycerin Soap, p. 2.
Therefore it appears the antioxidant system is present in an effective amount to treat, inhibit, or prevent lipid peroxidation of the skin, even though the exact amounts of antioxidants and the effect on lipid peroxidation are not explicitly mentioned.
Dial NutriSkin White Peach & Shea Butter Glycerin Soap comprises tocopherol and sodium ascorbyl phosphate. Dial NutriSkin White Peach & Shea Butter Glycerin Soap also comprises shea butter (Butyrospermum parkii oil) which in the product description is stated to contain vitamin E. While the product description and ingredients do not name the form of vitamin E, this product inherently contains gamma-tocopherol because the vitamin E in shea butter comprises gamma-tocopherol (Allal et al. (Agroforest Syst (2013) 87:1065–1082) (showing that shea butter comprises gamma-tocopherol in amounts between 6.9 and 42.0 µg/g (Table 4)).
Dial NutriSkin White Peach & Shea Butter Glycerin Soap does not disclose the exact ratio of Vitamin E to Vitamin C. If the ingredients are listed in order of prevalence, then it does comprise Vitamin E and Vitamin C in the claimed ratio because these ingredients are close together in the list.
Even if the Dial product does not comprise Vitamin E and Vitamin C in a ratio between 1:1 and 60:1, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success to include Vitamin C and Vitamin E in this ratio because this ratio is commonly known in the art to be an effective anti-oxidant ratio.
For example, BASF teaches a personal care composition comprising a carrier and an antioxidant system comprising one or more antioxidants, wherein the antioxidant system is present in an effective amount to treat, inhibit, or prevent lipid peroxidation of skin. BASF teaches that sodium ascorbyl phosphate and vitamin E exhibit synergistic effects to reduce lipid peroxidation of the skin. BASF teaches specific examples wherein the Vitamin E and C are present in a 1:1 ratio or a 7:1.1 ratio, falling within the claimed range of 1:1 to 60:1 :
PNG
media_image2.png
493
470
media_image2.png
Greyscale
BASF, p. 7;
PNG
media_image3.png
445
468
media_image3.png
Greyscale
BASF, p. 22.
PNG
media_image4.png
631
474
media_image4.png
Greyscale
BASF, p. 11.
PNG
media_image5.png
986
482
media_image5.png
Greyscale
BASF p. 6.
Therefore, claim 1 was prima facie obvious at the time of filing.
Claim 2 is directed towards The personal care composition of claim 1, wherein the one or more antioxidants comprises comprise selenium, carotenoids, lycopene, lutein, zeaxanthin, one or more vitamins, or combinations thereof. The dial product additionally comprises retinyl palmitate, a form of Vitamin A. Therefore, claim 2 was prima facie obvious at the time of filing.
Claim 6 is directed towards the personal care composition of claim 4, wherein the vitamin E comprises one or more of alpha-tocopherol, gamma-tocopherol, beta- tocopherol, delta-tocopherol, alpha-tocotrienol, gamma-tocotrienol, beta-tocotrienol, delta- tocotrienol, or any combination thereof. Claims 8-10 are directed towards the personal care composition of claims 4 and/or 8, respectively, wherein the personal care composition comprises sodium ascorbyl phosphate. Claim 11 is directed towards the personal care composition of claim 10, wherein the vitamin E comprises gamma-tocopherol.
As shown in the rejection of claim 1, the product comprises shea butter (Butyrospermum parkii Oil), tocopherol, tocopheryl acetate, sodium ascorbyl phosphate, and retinyl palmitate. While the product description and ingredients do not name the form of vitamin E, this product inherently contains gamma-tocopherol because the vitamin E in shea butter comprises gamma-tocopherol (Allal et al. (Agroforest Syst (2013) 87:1065–1082)).
Therefore, claims 6 and 8-11 were prima facie obvious a the time of filing.
Claim 12 is directed towards the personal care composition of claim 1, wherein the carrier comprises a cleansing component and wherein the cleansing component comprises a soap. Claim 13 is directed towards the personal care composition of claim 12, wherein the soap comprises a fatty acid soap. Claim 14 is directed towards the personal care composition of claim 12, wherein the soap comprises C16-C18 fatty acids and C12-C14 fatty acids.
Dial NutriSkin White Peach & Shea Butter Glycerin Soap comprises a soap which comprises C16-C18 fatty acids and C12-C14 fatty acids.
PNG
media_image1.png
262
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Dial Glycerin Soap, p. 2.
The soaps in the ingredient list above (sodium tallowate, sodium cocoate, sodium palm kernelate, sodium palmate) comprise C16-C18 fatty acids and C12-C14 fatty acids.
PNG
media_image6.png
597
815
media_image6.png
Greyscale
G. Kolaczinski, “Soap – Chemical constituents” O. Braun-Falco et al. (eds.), Skin Cleansing with Synthetic Detergents, 1992, p. 15.
Therefore, claims 12-14 were prima facie obvious at the time of filing.
Claim 17 is directed towards the personal care composition of claim 1, wherein the personal care composition is a solid personal care composition.
Dial NutriSkin White Peach & Shea Butter is a bar soap, a solid personal care composition.
Therefore, claim 17 was prima facie obvious at the time of filing.
Claim 18 is directed towards a method for preparing the personal care composition of claim 1 for treating or preventing lipid peroxidation of the skin, the method comprising contacting the carrier and the antioxidant system with one another.
While the product, Dial NutriSkin White Peach & Shea Butter, does not teach a method for preparing the personal care composition of claim 1, the method comprising contacting the carrier and the antioxidant system with one another, this method is inherent in a formulation comprising a carrier and an antioxidant system. In order to make the formulation, it is necessary to contact the carrier and the antioxidant.
Therefore, claim 18 was prima facie obvious at the time of filing.
Claim 19 is directed towards a method for preventing pollution-induced lipid peroxidation of skin in a subject in need thereof, the method comprising contacting the personal care composition skin of the subject with the personal care composition of claim 1. Claim 20 is directed towards a method for treating or reducing lipid peroxidation of skin in a subject in need thereof, the method comprising contacting the personal care composition skin of the subject with the personal care composition of claim 1.
The product description of Dial explicitly mentions that the shea butter, having vitamins C and E, will “protect it [skin] from environmental damage.” While the product, Dial NutriSkin White Peach & Shea Butter, does not teach the method of claim 20, this method is inherent in a bar soap formulation. A bar soap product is applied to the skin, and when applied to the skin, it will reduce lipid peroxidation of the skin because it comprises antioxidants. “Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device” (MPEP § 2112.02). Furthermore, it is known that products comprising Vitamin E and Vitamin C synergistically reduce/ prevent lipid peroxidation of the skin induced by chemical stressors, as shown by BASF in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 19-20 were prima facie obvious at the time of filing.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6 and 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Dial NutriSkin White Peach & Shea Butter” (The Dial Corporation, 2014, Glycerin Soap, Mintel Database GNPD AN: 2728723; IDS 08/25/2023, Ref. no. 9) in view of “Sodium Ascorbyl Phosphate” (BASF Cosmetic Solutions, July 2005, p. 1-24, herein “BASF”), as evidenced by G. Kolaczinski, “Soap – Chemical constituents” O. Braun-Falco et al. (eds.), Skin Cleansing with Synthetic Detergents, 1992, p. 15-20 and Allal et al. (Agroforest Syst (2013) 87:1065–1082)) (all of record), as applied to claims 1-2, 6, 8-13, and 16-20 above, and further in view of G. Kolaczinski, “Soap – Chemical constituents” O. Braun-Falco et al. (eds.), Skin Cleansing with Synthetic Detergents, 1992, p. 15-20 (all of record).
The rejection of claims 1-2, 6, 8-13 and 16-20 above as obvious over Dial Nutriskin in view of BASF is incorporated herein by reference.
Claim 15 is directed towards the personal care composition of claim 14, wherein the C16-C18 fatty acids are present in an amount from about 85 wt% to about 95 wt% and wherein the C12-C14 fatty acids are present in an amount from about 5 wt% to about 15 wt%, based on the total weight of the soap. Claim 16 is directed towards the personal care composition of claim 14, wherein the C16-C18 fatty acids are present in an amount of about 92.5 wt% and wherein the C12-C14 fatty acids are present in an amount of about 7.5 wt%, based on the total weight of the soap.
As shown in the rejection of claims 12-14 above as anticipated by Dial NutriSkin White Peach & Shea Butter, this product comprises the oils sodium tallowate, sodium cocoate, sodium palm kernelate, sodium palmate. While the product label does not show the relative amounts of these ingredients and the fatty acids, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success to formulate a similar product with the claimed amounts of C12-C14 and C16-C18 fatty acids because these ranges are generally known in the art and it is known to optimize the amounts of these fatty acids within this range.
For example, see the teachings of Kolaczinski: “Different chain lengths of fatty acids will produce different foaming properties, and, hence, make it possible to cater for different uses. Thus, C12 and C14 soaps are quick-foaming, although the lather will be coarse and unstable; C16 and C18 soaps are slow foamers, but will produce a dense and stable lather, Accordingly, every soapmaker will try to find his particular ideal fat base, the usual proportions nowadays being 75-85 % tallow and 15-25 % coconut oil” (Kolaczinski, p. 16). In Fig. 1 (p. 15), Kolaczinski teaches that tallow is made almost entirely of C16-C18 fatty acids and coconut oil is predominantly C12-C14 fatty acids. Kolaczinski shows a typical fatty acid chain length distribution in soap, which comprises 12.3% C12-C14 fatty acids and 80.2% C16-C18 fatty acids (Fig. 2):
PNG
media_image7.png
655
595
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Kolaczinski, p. 18.
The claimed ranges are so similar to those taught within the prior art that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Moreover, as shown above, Kolaczinski teaches that it is routine to optimize fatty acid profile around this range.
Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See also Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997) (under the doctrine of equivalents, a purification process using a pH of 5.0 could infringe a patented purification process requiring a pH of 6.0-9.0); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%); In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205-206 (CCPA 1946) (prior art showed an angle in a groove of up to 90° and an applicant claimed an angle of no less than 120°); In re Becket, 88 F.2d 684 (CCPA 1937) ("Where the component elements of alloys are the same, and where they approach so closely the same range of quantities as is here the case, it seems that there ought to be some noticeable difference in the qualities of the respective alloys."); In re Dreyfus, 73 F.2d 931, 934, 24 USPQ 52, 55 (CCPA 1934)(the prior art, which taught about 0.7:1 of alkali to water, renders unpatentable a claim that increased the proportion to at least 1:1 because there was no showing that the claimed proportions were critical); In re Lilienfeld, 67 F.2d 920, 924, 20 USPQ 53, 57 (CCPA 1933)(the prior art teaching an alkali cellulose containing minimal amounts of water, found by the Examiner to be in the 5-8% range, the claims sought to be patented were to an alkali cellulose with varying higher ranges of water (e.g., "not substantially less than 13%," "not substantially below 17%," and "between about 13[%] and 20%"); K-Swiss Inc. v. Glide N Lock GmbH, 567 Fed. App'x 906 (Fed. Cir. 2014)(reversing the Board's decision, in an appeal of an inter partes reexamination proceeding, that certain claims were not prima facie obvious due to non-overlapping ranges); In re Brandt, 886 F.3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018)(the court found a prima facie case of obviousness had been made in a predictable art wherein the claimed range of "less than 6 pounds per cubic feet" and the prior art range of "between 6 lbs./ft3 and 25 lbs./ft3" were so mathematically close that the difference between the claimed ranges was virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality.).
MPEP 2144.05.I.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 809, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989)(Claimed ratios were obvious as being reached by routine procedures and producing predictable results); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(Claimed amount of wash solution was found to be unpatentable as a matter of routine optimization in the pertinent art, further supported by the prior art disclosure of the need to avoid undue amounts of wash solution); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(Claims were unpatentable because appellants failed to submit evidence of criticality to demonstrate that that the wear resistance of the protective layer in the claimed thickness range of 50-100 Angstroms was "unexpectedly good"); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art.").
MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Therefore, claims 14-15 were prima facie obvious at the time of filing.
Given the above teachings, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious at the time of filing.
Conclusion
No claim is found to be allowable.
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 HEATHER DAHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-0436. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Jeffrey Lundgren can be reached on (571) 272-5541. 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 86-217-9197 (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.
/HEATHER DAHLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1629
/JEFFREY S LUNDGREN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1629