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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/29/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 20-39 are pending and under current examination.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections
The rejection of claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims filed 7/29/2026.
All non-statutory double patenting rejections over co-pending application numbers 18/559,736 and 18/567,427 are withdrawn in view of the terminal disclaimers filed and approved 7/29/2026.
All rejections not reiterated have been withdrawn.
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.
Claim 21 is 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 21 recites the limitation “the composition comprises from 25% to 65% by weight of (a)”. This renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if the recited weight percentage refers to the total weight of sodium coco sulfate and disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate or if the weight percentage refers to each component individually.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 20-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lourenco (WO 2020192865, publication date: 10/1/2020, of record), in view of Independent Chemical (Is Sodium Benzoate Safe in Cosmetics?, available 7/17/2019, of record).
Determination of the scope and the content of the prior art
(MPEP §2141.01)
Regarding claim 20, Lourenco teaches a cosmetic composition that may contain sodium coco sulfate ([0033] pg. 16 line 18-19) and disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate ([0033] pg. 10 line 26), benzoic acid and its esters and salts [0097] as a preservative, and hydroxyacetophenone as an antioxidant ([0025 pg. 43 line 24). The formulations of the invention may be in the form of a powder ([00104], pg. 56 line 14) and may optionally contain water [0030]. The Examiner considers the teaching by Lourenco that the composition may optionally contain water to read on the “less than 9.9% by weight of water” limitation of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 21, Lourenco teaches that the percentage of surfactants such as disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate may be from 0.1 to 10% by weight, based on the preparation [0035].
Regarding claims 22, Lourenco teaches that the composition may contain from 0.1 to about 20 wt.% of additives [0030].
Regarding claim 23, Lourenco teaches that the percentage of surfactants may be from 0.1 to 10% by weight, based on the preparation [0035].
Regarding claim 24, Lourenco teaches that the percentage of surfactants such as disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate and sodium coco-sulfate may be from 0.1 to 10% by weight, based on the preparation [0035].
Regarding claim 25, Lourenco teaches that the composition may contain sodium methyl cocoyl taurate ([0033] pg. 17 line 38).
Regarding claim 26, Lourenco teaches that the composition may contain sodium methyl cocoyl taurate ( [0033] pg. 17 line 38) and that the percentage of surfactants such as disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate may be from 0.1 to 10% by weight, based on the preparation [0035].
Regarding claim 27, Lourenco teaches that the composition may include sodium myristoyl glutamate ([0033] pg. 18 line 2).
Regarding claims 28 and 29, Lourenco teaches that the percentage of surfactants may be from 0.1 to 10% by weight, based on the preparation [0035].
Regarding claim 30, Lourenco teaches that the composition may contain from 0.1 to about 20 wt.% of additives [0030].
Regarding claim 31, Lourenco teaches that the percentage of surfactants may be from 0.1 to 10% by weight, based on the preparation [0035] and that the composition may contain from 0.1 to about 20wt.% of additives [0030].
Regarding claim 32, Lourenco teaches that antioxidants such as hydroxyacetophenone may be present in the composition from 0.001 to 30% by weight [0026].
Regarding claim 33, Lourenco teaches that antioxidants such as hydroxyacetophenone may be present in the composition from 0.001 to 30% by weight [0026] and that the composition may contain from 0.1 to about 20wt.% of additives [0030].
Regarding claim 34, Lourenco teaches that citric acid may be present in the composition ([0025] pg. 43 line 12).
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope of the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP §2141.02)
Regarding claim 20, Lourenco does not specifically teach the inclusion of sodium benzoate. However, this deficiency is cured by Independent Chemical.
Independent Chemical teaches that sodium benzoate is a salt of benzoic acid used in cosmetics and personal care products where it acts as a corrosion inhibitor, fragrance ingredient, and preservative (pg. 2, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 21 and 23, Lourenco does not teach a weight percentage of surfactant within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claims 24 and 26, Lourenco does not teach a weight ratio of sodium coco sulfate to disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate or sodium methyl cocoyl taurate.
Regarding claim 31, Lourenco does not teach a weight ratio of sodium benzoate to surfactants present in the composition.
Regarding claim 33, Lourenco does not teach a weight ratio of sodium benzoate to hydroxyacetophenone.
Finding of a Prima Facia Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
Regarding claim 20, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of filing to use sodium benzoate in the cosmetic composition embraced by Lourenco. One would have understood in view of Independent Chemical that sodium benzoate is a salt of benzoic acid used as a preservative in cosmetic and personal care products (pg. 2, first paragraph). It would have been obvious that sodium benzoate is suitable as the benzoic acid salt preservative embraced by Lourenco. The artisan of ordinary skill in the art of filing would have had reasonable expectation of success because Lourenco broadly embraces benzoic acid salts as preservatives in the cosmetic composition. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding the weight percentage of sodium coco sulfate and disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate as specified in claim 21 and 23, MPEP 2144.05 states:
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).
Furthermore, Lourenco teaches that the amount of surfactant may be adjusted depending on the desired preparation of the composition [0035]. The Applicants' specification provides no evidence that the selected weight percentage in claim 21 was not due to routine optimization and/or that the results should be considered unexpected compared to the prior art. Due to the effects of a surfactant on a cosmetic composition, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine these teachings and alter the weight percentage of surfactant present in the composition. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to change the weight percentage of surfactant present as this could be expected to be advantageous for adjusting the surfactant properties of the composition.
Regarding the weight ratio of sodium coco sulfate to disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate or sodium methyl cocoyl taurate as specified in claims 24 and 26, MPEP 2144.05 states:
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).
Furthermore, Lourenco teaches that the amount of surfactant may be adjusted depending on the desired preparation of the composition [0035]. The Applicants' specification provides no evidence that the selected weight ratio in claims 24 and 26 was not due to routine optimization and/or that the results should be considered unexpected compared to the prior art. Due to the effects of a surfactant on a cosmetic composition, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine these teachings and alter the weight ratio of surfactants present in the composition. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to change the weight ratio as this could be expected to be advantageous for altering the surfactant properties of the desired preparation.
Regarding the weight ratio of sodium benzoate to surfactants as specified in claim 31, MPEP 2144.05 states:
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).
Furthermore, Lourenco teaches that the amount of surfactant may be adjusted depending on the desired preparation of the composition [0035]. The Applicants' specification provides no evidence that the selected weight ratio in claim 31 was not due to routine optimization and/or that the results should be considered unexpected compared to the prior art. Due to the effects of a surfactant on a cosmetic composition, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine these teachings and alter the weight ratio of sodium benzoate to surfactants present in the composition. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to change the weight ratio as this could be expected to be advantageous for altering the surfactant properties of the desired preparation.
Regarding the weight ratio of sodium benzoate to hydroxyacetophenone as specified in claim 33, MPEP 2144.05 states:
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).
Furthermore, Lourenco, in view of Independent Chemical, teaches that sodium benzoate may act as a preservative [0097] and that hydroxyacetophenone may be present as an antioxidant ([0025 pg. 43 line 24). The Applicants' specification provides no evidence that the selected weight ratio in claim 33 was not due to routine optimization and/or that the results should be considered unexpected compared to the prior art. Due to the preservative and antioxidant effects of sodium benzoate and hydroxyacetophenone, respectively, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine these teachings and alter the weight ratio of sodium benzoate to hydroxyacetophenone present in the composition. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to change the weight ratio as this could be expected to be advantageous for altering the antioxidant properties or the stability of the formulation.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lourenco (WO 2020192865, publication date: 10/1/2020, of record), in view of Independent Chemical (Is Sodium Benzoate Safe in Cosmetics?, available 7/17/2019, of record), as applied to claims 20-34 above, and further in view of INCIDecoder Sodium Citrate (available 9/21/2020, of record), INCIDecoder Citric Acid (available 1/2/2020, of record), and Dias et. al. (International Journal of Trichology, pg. 95-99, publication year: 2014, of record).
Determination of the scope and the content of the prior art
(MPEP §2141.01)
Lourenco teaches that citric acid may be present in the composition ([0025] pg. 43 line 12) and that the composition may be formulated as a shampoo [0028] and contain buffers [0029].
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope of the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP §2141.02)
Lourenco does not teach the inclusion of sodium citrate in the composition or a specific pH of the composition after dilution in water. However, this deficiency is cured by INCIDecoder Sodium Citrate, INCIDecoder Citric Acid, and Dias.
INCIDecoder Sodium Citrate teaches that sodium citrate is a buffering agent used to adjust the pH of a cosmetic product (pg. 1 details). INCIDecoder Citric Acid teaches that citric acid is a chelating agent (pg. 1, All Functions). Dias teaches that a lower pH in shampoos can cause less frizzing for generating less negative static electricity on the fiber surface and that 75% of salon shampoos tested had a pH less than or equal to 5.0 (pg. 95, Abstract).
Finding of a Prima Facia Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
The idea for combining compounds each of which is known to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a composition which is to be used for the same purpose, flows logically from their having been used individually in the prior art. See In re Kerkhoven 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). As shown by the recited teachings, the instant claims define nothing more than the concomitant use of conventional buffering agents used in cosmetic formulations. It would follow that the recited claims define prima facie obvious subject matter. See MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding the pH of the composition when diluted in water, it would have been prima facie obvious to include citric acid and sodium citrate in a ratio by weight that renders a pH from 3.2 to 5 when the composition is diluted in water. One would have understood that the composition of Lourenco may be formulated as a shampoo and in view of Dias that a lower pH in shampoos can cause less frizzing for generating less negative static electricity on the fiber surface and that 75% of salon shampoos tested had a pH less than or equal to 5.0 (pg. 95, Abstract). It would have been obvious to adjust the weight of the buffering agents sodium citrate and citric acid in such a way that the diluted composition would render a shampoo with a pH of less than 5. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to ensure a pH of less than 5 in order to reduce frizzing of the hair. The artisan of ordinary skill would have had reasonable expectation of success because Lourenco teaches that the composition may contain buffering agents and because Dias teaches that most salon shampoos sampled have a pH of less than 5.
Claims 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lourenco (WO 2020192865, publication date: 10/1/2020, of record), in view of Independent Chemical (Is Sodium Benzoate Safe in Cosmetics?, available 7/17/2019, of record), as applied to claims 20-34 above, and further in view of Stern (U.S. Patent No. 11,045,397, issue date: 6/29/2021, filing date: 11/6/2019, of record).
Applicant’s Invention
Lourenco, in view of Independent Chemical, renders obvious the relevant limitations of claim 20 above. Applicant’s claim 36 further adds the limitation of a cosmetic product, wherein the product comprises the composition of claim 20 and packaging which encloses the composition.
Determination of the scope and the content of the prior art
(MPEP §2141.01)
Regarding claims 36-38, Lourenco teaches the relevant limitations of claim 20 above.
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope of the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP §2141.02)
Regarding claims 36-38, Lourenco does not teach packing that encloses the composition. However, this deficiency is cured by Stern.
Stern teaches a hygiene product pod comprising a water-soluble envelope and a hygiene product sealed in the envelope (col. 1 lines 48-50). The active agent encased in the pod may be in a powdered format (col. 5 line 17). The envelope may be formed of polyvinyl alcohol (col. 3 line 26). The hygiene product pods are configured for single-use applications (col. 1 line 7).
Finding of a Prima Facia Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
Regarding claims 36-38, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of filing to enclose the powder composition of Lourenco in a water-soluble envelope. One would have understood in view of Stern that a water-soluble envelope comprised of polyvinyl alcohol may be used to envelop a wide variety of hygiene products, including those in a powdered format (col. 5 line 17). It would have been obvious to encase the powder composition of Lourenco in such an envelope. One of ordinary skill in the art of filing would have been motivated to include the composition of Lourenco in the envelope embraced by Stern in order to provide single-use portions of the cosmetic composition. The artisan of ordinary skill in the art of filing would have had reasonable expectation of success because Stern teaches that the active agent encased in the pod may be in a powdered format (col. 5 line 17).
Claims 36 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lourenco (WO 2020192865, publication date: 10/1/2020, of record), in view of Independent Chemical (Is Sodium Benzoate Safe in Cosmetics?, available 7/17/2019, of record), as applied to claims 20-34 above, and further in view of Peters (Fast Company, available 2/14/2020, of record).
Applicant’s Invention
Lourenco, in view of Independent Chemical, renders obvious the relevant limitations of claim 20 above. Applicant’s claim 36 further adds the limitation of a cosmetic product, wherein the product comprises the composition of claim 20 and packaging which encloses the composition.
Determination of the scope and the content of the prior art
(MPEP §2141.01)
Regarding claims 36 and 39, Lourenco teaches the relevant limitations of claim 20 above.
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope of the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP §2141.02)
Regarding claims 36 and 39, Lourenco does not teach packing that encloses the composition. However, this deficiency is cured by Peters.
Peters teaches a powder hand wash enclosed in a paper sachet that may be added to a bottle and diluted with water to form a liquid hand wash (pg. 8, first paragraph). The product is designed to shrink packaging waste (pg. 8, second paragraph).
Finding of a Prima Facia Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
Regarding claims 36 and 39, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of filing to enclose the powder composition of Lourenco in paper envelope. One would have understood in view of Peters that a paper envelope may be used to contain a powdered hand wash composition (pg. 8, first paragraph). It would have been obvious to encase the powder composition of Lourenco in such an envelope. One of ordinary skill in the art of filing would have been motivated to include the composition of Lourenco in the envelope embraced by Peters in order to reduce packaging waste. The artisan of ordinary skill in the art of filing would have had reasonable expectation of success because Peters teaches that a powdered hand wash composition may be contained within a paper envelope (pg. 8, first paragraph).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the teachings of Humblebee and Me have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
On page 7, Applicant argues that the combination of references applied against claim 20 fails to disclose or suggest each and every limitation of the claim as amended. This is not found persuasive. In response, the Examiner respectfully draws attention to MPEP 2123 (I), which states: “a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art”. As described in the obviousness rejection above, Lourenco teaches that the composition may contain sodium coco sulfate and disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate as surfactants present in the composition. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have reasonably concluded that the composition may contain both sodium coco sulfate and disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate.
On page 8, Applicant argues that the action fails to identify any reason a person of ordinary skill would have selected these particular components and combined them together, in one composition, in powder form. This is not found persuasive. In response, the Examiner respectfully draws attention to MPEP 2123 (I), which states: “a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments” and MPEP 2123 (II), which states: “disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments”. The broad disclosure of Lourenco, in view of Independent Chemical, teaches the relevant limitations of claim 20. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have reasonably chosen the limitations of the instant claim from the disclosure of Lourenco, in view of Independent Chemical.
On page 9, Applicant argues that the claimed preservative system of sodium benzoate together with hydroxyacetophenone unexpectedly yields formulations that remain transparent upon cold storage. This is not found persuasive. In response, please refer to MPEP 716.02 (b) which details the burden on Applicant to establish that results in a side-by-side comparison to the closest prior art are unexpected and significant. Specifically, Applicant must establish that differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and are of both practical and statistical significance. Additionally, evidence of unexpected properties must be commensurate in scope with the claims.
Differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious: The evidence of unexpected results amounts to decreased flocculation and turbidity of the powder composition dispersed in water after storage at low temperature when it contains sodium benzoate and hydroxyacetophenone as the antimicrobial component compared to other conventional antimicrobial agents. However, the Applicant has not clearly isolated the effect of the preservative system on the turbidity or flocculation of the solution at low temperatures. All exemplary and comparative compositions are mixed with water in a ratio by weight of composition: water outside of the 1:20 range embraced by the instant claim 35. Nor has the Applicant provided any data demonstrating the criticality of both sodium benzoate and hydroxyacetophenone to the stability of the solution at low temperatures. Thus, the Applicant has not clearly demonstrated that only the combination of sodium benzoate and hydroxyacetophenone will produce a stable solution at the dilution ratio recited by the instant claims.
Differences are of both practical and statistical significance: The differences are of practical significance. However, as described above, the Applicant has not clearly demonstrated that the combination of sodium benzoate and hydroxyacetophenone is critical to the stability of the composition at low temperatures. Therefore, the differences are not of statistical significance.
Evidence of unexpected properties must be in commensurate scope with the claims: The evidence of unexpected results amounts to reduced flocculation and turbidity of the inventive composition dispersed in water and stored at low temperatures when compared to compositions that do not contain sodium benzoate and hydroxyacetophenone. However, the amended claim 20 embraces any concentration of sodium coco sulfate, disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate, sodium benzoate, and hydroxyacetophenone. Claim 25 requires the presence of sodium methyl cocoyl taurate in a specific ratio with sodium coco sulfate. In order to be in commensurate scope with the claims, the evidence of unexpected results must demonstrate the unexpected transparency at low temperatures for each and every component at each and every concentration embraced by the claims. The exemplary compositions are limited to a single concentration of sodium coco sulfate, disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate, sodium benzoate, and hydroxyacetophenone, do not contain sodium methyl cocoyl taurate, and contain sodium methyl lauroyl taurate at 11.84-17.63 wt.%, which is outside of the recited percentage range for further surfactant that may be present in the composition (Claim 29 of the instant claims). Furthermore, both the inventive and comparative compositions are mixed with water is a weight ratio that is outside the range embraced by the instant claim 35. Therefore, the evidence of unexpected results is not in commensurate scope with the claims.
Additionally, no side-by-side comparison to the closest prior art is provided to establish unexpectedly superior performance. There is no nexus between the purportedly unexpected property and the differences between the instant invention, as claimed, and the closest prior art. Thus, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
Request for Interview
At page 12 of the response, Applicant set forth a request for an interview with the Examiner to discuss the comparative data presented in the arguments and specification. This request was attached to an amendment which must be acted on by the Office in a timely fashion. In the future, Applicant is invited to contact the Examiner and/or her supervisor directly to arrange any interviews prior to the submission of amendments, so that any remaining issues can be discussed in a timely fashion.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH ANNE MEYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-2271. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm ET.
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, Ali Soroush can be reached at 571-272-9925. 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.
ELIZABETH ANNE MEYERS Examiner, Art Unit 1617
/ALI SOROUSH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1614
Prosecution Insights