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
Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration dated February 6, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are pending.
Claim 13 is cancelled.
Claims 1-3, 9-11, 14 and 19 are currently amended.
Claim 20 is new.
Claim 11 remains withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-10, 12 and 14-20 as filed on February 6, 2026 are under consideration.
This action is made FINAL.
Withdrawn Objections / Rejections
In view of the amendment of the claims, all previous claim objections are withdrawn and all previous claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Objections
Claims 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the final wherein clause “the sunscreen is the leave-on” should presumably recite “the sunscreen in the leave-on” and “butyldibenzoylmethane” should presumably recite “butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane” and “pheylbenzimidazole” should presumably recite “phenylbenzimidazole”. Appropriate correction is required.
Maintained Grounds of Rejection / New Grounds of Rejection Necessitated by Amendment
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-9, 12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crookham et al. (US 6,576,228, published June 10, 2003, of record) in view of Roudot et al. (WO 2021/122041, published June 24, 2021, filed December 3, 2020, of record); Alard et al. (US 2014/0339128, published November 20, 2014, of record); and Capretta et al. (US 2012/0039966, published February 16, 2012, of record).
Crookham teaches personal wash sunscreen compositions comprising (title; abstract; claims, e.g., claims 1, 9; Table 1):
2 to 80 wt% first anionic surfactant which is a fatty acid (soap) or synthetic anionic surfactant inclusive of sodium lauryl ether sulfates (sodium laureth sulfate, SLeS) (column 5, line 1 through column 7, line 12; Table 3), as required by instant claims 4, 14, 15;
0 to 25 wt% second surfactant selected from inter alia amphoteric/zwitterionic surfactant (column 7, line 13 through column 8, line 20), as required by instant claim 16;
0 to 15 wt% free fatty acid;
0 to 20 wt% water-soluble structurant such as polyalkylene glycol (polymer, adjuvant) (column 9, lines 4-53), as required by instant claims 17, 18; and
0.1 to 10 wt% sunscreen having an SPF from greater than 2 to 25 inclusive of phenylbenzimadazole sulphonic acid (water-soluble UVB sunscreen) and salts thereof, wherein the sunscreen has a solubility greater than 0.1% in water (0.1% = 0.001 g sunscreen / 1 g composition ~= 1 g sunscreen / 1 L assuming a composition density of water or about 1 g/mL), as required by instant claims 2, 9.
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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05. Crookham further teaches a method wherein a skin substrate was rubbed with a wet bar, rinsed under tap water, and blotted dry with a paper towel (column 12, lines 63-67), as required by instant claim 12.
Crookham does not specifically teach a wash-off composition comprising 0.1 to 5 wt% of a water-soluble UVA sunscreen comprising disodium phenyl dibenzimidazole tetrasulfonate and applying a leave-on sunscreen composition as required by claim 1.
Crookham does not specifically teach a wash-off composition comprising 0.5 to 5 wt% of disodium phenyl dibenzimidazole tetrasulfonate and applying a leave-on sunscreen composition comprising inter alia octyl methoxy cinnamate (ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate) as required by claim 20.
Crookham does not teach benzylidene camphor sulfonic acid as required by claim 2.
Crookham does not teach terephthalylidene dicamphor sulfonic acid as required by claim 3.
Crookham does not teach the leave-on sunscreen comprises an organic UVA sunscreen, an organic UVB sunscreen or/and an inorganic sunblock as required by claim 5.
Crookham does not teach the organic UVA sunscreen is butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane or diethylamino hydroxybenzoyl hexyl benzoate; the organic UVB sunscreen is ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate, octocrylene, phenyl benzimidazole sulphonic acid, or ethyl hexyl salicylate; and the inorganic sunblock is zinc oxide or titanium dioxide as required by claim 6.
Crookham does not teach the leave-on sunscreen is a cream, stick, lotion, gel or spray as required by claim 7.
Crookham does not teach the leave-on sunscreen is applied one minute to one hour after rinsing as required by claim 8.
Crookham does not teach the leave-on sunscreen further comprises inter alia citrate esters as required by claim 19.
These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Roudot, Alard and Capretta.
Roudot teaches cosmetic compositions comprising water-soluble UV-screening agents comprising at least one UVA agent and at least one UVB agent (title; abstract; claims, e.g., 1, 3, 4; paragraph [0036]). UVA agents are chosen from terephthalylidene dicamphor sulfonic acid and more particularly disodium phenyldibenzimidazoletetrasulfonate (claim 7), as required by instant claim 3. UVB agents are chosen from benzylidenecamphor compounds such as benzylidenecamphorsulfonic acid or/and phenylbenzimidazole compounds inclusive of phenylbenzimadazlesulphonic acid (claims 8, 9; paragraph [0047]), as required by instant claim 2. The compositions comprise 0.2 to 40 wt% of the agents such as 8 wt% phenylbenzimadazlesulphonic acid and 3.3 wt% terephthalylidene dicamphor sulfonic acid (claim 10; paragraphs [0049]-[0051], [0206]).
Alard teaches a method for protecting skin against UV using two compositions, the sun protection indices of which are different, the method consisting in applying to the skin a first composition and then later applying a second composition onto the residual deposit of the first composition; the method makes it possible to obtain a synergistic effect (title; abstract; claims; paragraphs [0033], [0034]). Drying of the first composition may be performed; the second composition is applied within 2 hours (paragraphs [0037], [0131], [0134]). The first composition comprises at least one UV-screening agent chosen from organic UV-screening agents and mineral UV-screening agents (paragraphs [0042], [0048], [0049]), as required by instant claim 5. Organic UV-screening agents are preferably chosen from inter alia ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate (octyl methoxycinnamate) and butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane (paragraph [0085]) as required by instant claim 6. Mineral UV-screening agents are inter alia titanium oxide (paragraphs [0086], [0087]), as required by instant claim 6. The first composition is in the form of a cream or a lotion (paragraph [0136]), as required by instant claim 7. The first composition further comprises nonvolatile polar oils inclusive of citric acid esters (paragraphs [0102], [0106], [0109]), as required by instant claim 19. Alard further teaches sunscreens should be re-applied throughout the duration of sun exposure because the efficacy of applied sunscreens is known to decrease over time (paragraph [0004]).
Capretta teaches consumer products in which a rinse-off care product is used in conjunction with a traditional leave-on product; the product is a deodorant (title; abstract; claims). The rinse-off product may further comprise inter alia sunscreens (paragraph [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sunscreen of the personal wash sunscreen compositions of Crookham comprising anionic surfactants inclusive of sodium lauryl ether sulfates to comprise UVA agents chosen from terephthalylidene dicamphor sulfonic acid and disodium phenyldibenzimidazoletetrasulfonate and UVB agents chosen from phenylbenzimadazlesulphonic acid and benzylidenecamphorsulfonic acid as taught by Roudot in order to reap the expected benefit of broad spectrum UVA and UVB protection. There would be a reasonable expectation of success because Crookham exemplifies phenylbenzimadazole sulphonic acid as a suitable soluble sunscreen.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Crookham in view of Roudot to further comprise the subsequent application of the two compositions of Alard – the first in the form of a cream or lotion comprising organic UV-screening agents inclusive of ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate (octyl methoxycinnamate) and butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane and mineral UV-screening agents inclusive of titanium oxide and optionally further comprising oils inclusive of citric acid esters – because Capretta teaches it is known to use a rinse-off product in conjunction with a traditional leave-on product. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reap the expected benefit of the synergistic effect in photoprotection taught by Alard when a sunscreen is applied to the residual deposit of another sunscreen.
Regarding claims 8, 13, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Crookham in view of Roudot, Alard and Capretta to apply the first of the two compositions of Alard as soon as possible after blotting the skin dry with a paper towel, such as within two hours as taught by Alard, in order to maximize the efficacy of photoprotection, particularly when exposure to sunlight is expected. One would have been motivated to do so because the efficacy of applied sunscreens is known to decrease over time (e.g., Alard, paragraph [0004]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crookham et al. (US 6,576,228, published June 10, 2003, of record) in view of Roudot et al. (WO 2021/122041, published June 24, 2021, filed December 3, 2020, of record); Alard et al. (US 2014/0339128, published November 20, 2014, of record); and Capretta et al. (US 2012/0039966, published February 16, 2012, of record) as applied to claims 1-9, 12 and 14-20 above, and further in view of Soudant (FR 2,758,721, published May 14, 2017, as evidenced by the Google translation, of record).
The teachings of Crookham, Roudot, Alard and Capretta have been described supra.
They do not teach a UVAPF of at least 4 as required by claim 10.
This deficiency is made up for in the teachings of Soudant.
Soudant teaches a method of skin photo-protection comprising a first step of applying an anti-solar composition having high UVB protection and a second step of applying an anti-solar composition having high UVA protection; the combination is synergistic (title; abstract; claims). The compositions can have sun protection factors of 2 to 50 for UVB and from 2 to 25 for UVA; weak UVA protection factors are between 2 and 5 and strong between 5 and 25 (page 3), as required by instant claim 10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Crookham in view of Roudot, Alard and Capretta to impart a sun protection factor from 5 to 25 for UVA as taught by Soudant in order to impart strong UVA protection.
Response to Arguments: Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s assertion at page 7 of the Remarks that the references fail to teach unexpected and synergistic increases in SPF is acknowledged but not found persuasive because Alard expressly teaches a synergistic effect is expected when two sunscreen compositions, the sun protection indices of which are different, are applied one on top of another as set forth in the rejections. "Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention, just as unexpected results are evidence of unobviousness thereof." In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 538, 152 USPQ 602, 604 (CCPA 1967). See MPEP 716.02(c).
Applicant’s reproduction of select data from the specification at pages 7-8 of the Remarks is acknowledged, however, Applicant is reminded that the content of the specification has already been considered as part of the Graham analysis. It is not seen how the highlighted results are unexpected in comparison to the prior art when the prior art of record (e.g., Alard) expressly teaches synergism is expected. See MPEP 716.02 for information regarding allegations of unexpected results. It is also not seen how the highlighted results for the combination of select exemplary cleansers (e.g., Table 1) and select exemplary leave on sunscreens (e.g., Tables 2, 5, 7-9) are commensurate with any pending claim.
Therefore, the evidence of record weighs toward the obviousness of the generic methods claimed and the rejections over Crookham are properly maintained in modified form as necessitated by amendment.
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 1-10, 12 and 14-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,883,516 in view of Crookham et al. (US 6,576,228, published June 10, 2003, of record); Alard et al. (US 2014/0339128, published November 20, 2014, of record); and Capretta et al. (US 2012/0039966, published February 16, 2012, of record).
The instant claims are drawn to a first method comprising the steps of applying a composition comprising (i) 0.1 to 5 wt% water-soluble UVA sunscreen comprising disodium phenyl dibenzimidazole tetrasulfonate, (ii) 0.1 to 5 wt% water-soluble UVB sunscreen comprising phenyl benzimidazole sulfonic acid, (iii) 3 to 80 wt% surfactant and (iv) a carrier, rinsing, and applying a sunscreen composition. The UVA sunscreen may further comprise terephthalyidene dicamphor sulfonic acid or the UVB sunscreen may further comprise benzylidene camphor sulfonic acid. The surfactant may be synthetic, may be anionic or may be amphoteric. The composition may further comprise an adjuvant or polymers. The sunscreen may comprise an organic UVA sunscreen inclusive of butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane, may be in the form of a cream, or may comprise agents inclusive of citrate esters. The sunscreen composition may be applied one minute to one hour after rinsing. The surface may be dried after rinsing. The method may result in an SPF of at least 15 or a UVAPF of at least 4. The instant claims are also drawn to a second method comprising the steps of applying a composition comprising (i) 0.5 to 5 wt% disodium phenyl dibenzimidazole tetrasulfonate, (ii) 0.5 to 3 wt% phenyl benzimidazole sulfonic acid, (iii) 10 to 15 wt% SLeS and (iv) a carrier, rinsing, and applying a sunscreen composition comprising a sunscreen inclusive of octyl methoxy cinnamate (ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate).
The patent claims are drawn to a method comprising the step of applying a composition comprising (i) 0.1 to 10 wt% water-soluble UVA sunscreen / terephthalylidene dicamphor sulfonic acid or/and di sodium phenyl dibenzimidazole tetra sulfonate, (ii) 0.1 to 10 wt% water-soluble UVB sunscreen / phenyl benzimidazole sulfonic acid or/and benzylidene camphor sulfonic acid, (iii) 3 to 80 wt% surfactant and (iv) a carrier and the step of rinsing, wherein the protection factor (UVB or SPF, UVA) is at least 8.
The instantly claimed method differs from the method of the patent claims primarily with respect to the additional step of applying a second sunscreen composition and also with respect to select details of the compositions. However, these differences are obvious in view of the prior art as elaborated supra. In view of Crookham it would have been obvious to substitute synthetic anionic surfactants inclusive of SLeS or/and amphoteric/zwitterionic surfactants for the surfactant of the patent claims and it would have been obvious to modify the composition of the patent claims to further comprise polyalkylene glycols in order to provide structure to the composition. In view of Crookham it would have been obvious to modify the method of the patent claims to further comprise a step of drying with a paper towel in order to hasten drying. In view of Alard and Capretta it would have been obvious to modify the method of the patent claims in view of Crookham to further comprise the subsequent application of the two compositions of Alard – the first in the form of a cream or lotion comprising organic UV-screening agents inclusive of ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate and butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane and mineral UV-screening agents inclusive of titanium oxide and optionally further comprising oils inclusive of citric acid esters – because Capretta teaches it is known to use a rinse-off product in conjunction with a traditional leave-on product. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reap the expected benefit of the synergistic effect in photoprotection taught by Alard. It would have been obvious to modify the method of the patent claims in view of Crookham, Alard and Capretta to apply the first of the two compositions of Alard as soon as possible after blotting the skin dry with a paper towel, such as within two hours as taught by Alard, in order to maximize the efficacy of photoprotection. One would have been motivated to do so because the efficacy of applied sunscreens is known to decrease over time.
Claims 1-10, 12 and 14-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6-9 of copending Application No. 18/800,184 in view of Crookham et al. (US 6,576,228, published June 10, 2003, of record); Roudot et al. (WO 2021/122041, published June 24, 2021, filed December 3, 2020, of record); Alard et al. (US 2014/0339128, published November 20, 2014, of record); and Capretta et al. (US 2012/0039966, published February 16, 2012, of record).
The instant claims have been described supra.
The copending claims are drawn to a method comprising the step of applying a composition comprising (i) 0.1 to 10 wt% water-soluble sunscreen / terephthalylidene dicamphor sulfonic acid or/and phenyl benzimidazole sulfonic acid, (ii) 3 to 80 wt% surfactant and (iii) a carrier and the step of rinsing, wherein the UV (UVB or SPF, UVA) protection is higher than 30%.
The instantly claimed method differs from the method of the copending claims primarily with respect to the additional step of applying a second sunscreen composition and also with respect to select details of the compositions. However, these differences are obvious in view of the prior art as elaborated supra. In view of Crookham it would have been obvious to substitute synthetic anionic surfactants inclusive of SLeS or/and amphoteric/zwitterionic surfactants for the surfactant of the copending claims and it would have been obvious to modify the composition of the copending claims to further comprise polyalkylene glycols in order to provide structure to the composition. In view of Crookham it would have been obvious to modify the method of the copending claims to further comprise a step of drying with a paper towel in order to hasten drying. In view of Roudot it would have been obvious to modify the water-soluble sunscreen to further comprise combinations of terephthalylidene dicamphor sulfonic acid, disodium phenyldibenzimidazoletetrasulfonate, benzylidenecamphorsulfonic acid or/and phenylbenzimadazlesulphonic acid because it is prima facie obvious to combine equivalents known in the art for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06. In view of Alard and Capretta it would have been obvious to modify the method of the copending claims in view of Crookham and Roudot to further comprise the subsequent application of the two compositions of Alard – the first in the form of a cream or lotion comprising organic UV-screening agents inclusive of ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate and butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane and mineral UV-screening agents inclusive of titanium oxide and optionally further comprising oils inclusive of citric acid esters – because Capretta teaches it is known to use a rinse-off product in conjunction with a traditional leave-on product. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reap the expected benefit of the synergistic effect in photoprotection taught by Alard. It would have been obvious to modify the method of the copending claims in view of Crookham, Roudot, Alard and Capretta to apply the first of the two compositions of Alard as soon as possible after blotting the skin dry with a paper towel, such as within two hours as taught by Alard, in order to maximize the efficacy of photoprotection. One would have been motivated to do so because the efficacy of applied sunscreens is known to decrease over time.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments: Double Patenting
Applicant’s remark that these rejections need not be addressed because allowable subject matter has not been identified is acknowledged, however, Applicant is reminded 37 CFR 1.111 requires Applicant to address all rejections in order to be entitled to further reconsideration or further examination. A complete response to a nonstatutory double patenting (NDP) rejection is either a reply by applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims or the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321 in the pending application(s) with a reply to the Office action (see MPEP § 1490 for a discussion of terminal disclaimers). Such a response is required even when the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is provisional. MPEP 804 I(B)(1). Therefore, the double patenting rejections are properly maintained and made again.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Barreleiro et al. (WO 2010/003843 A2, as evidenced by the Google translation) teaches surfactant-containing rinse-off products comprising beneficial substances inclusive of UV filters comprising a mixture of UVA and UVB absorbers (title; abstract; claims).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALISSA PROSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-5164. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th, 10 am - 6 pm.
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.
/ALISSA PROSSER/
Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/BENNETT M CELSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1600