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 .
Summary
Claims 1-2, 4-13, and 15-21 are pending in this office action. Claims 16-21 are new. Claims 3 and 14 are cancelled. All pending claims are under examination in this application.
Priority
The current application was filed on February 12, 2024 is a 371 of PCT/EP2022/073482 filed August 23, 2022. The current application claims foreign priority to EP21192699.3 filed August 24, 2021.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 16, and 20-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: Please add a hypen between the number and the full name of the HMO, for example, 2’-fucosyllactose. The acronym can remain unchanged.
Dependent claims 2, 4-12, and 20-22 fail to cure the defects of claim 1.
Claims 2, and 8-9: For consistency purposes within the claim set, please amend the body text to read, “…from XX to XX wt.%,…”
Claim 11: Additionally, please make the word, “…preparations…” singular instead of plural.
Claim 16: In a similar fashion as with claim 1, please insert a hyphen between the number and name of the HMO.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 non-obviousness.
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 1-2, 4-13, and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butz et al. (US2019/0380940A1) in view of Lee et al. (KR20180102431A), Chan et al. (Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic Dermatology, 2019), Huang et al. (WO2018/112187A1), and Ehrnsperger et al. (US2013/0281948A1).
[The Examiner is going to introduce each new reference and then combine them where appropriate to reject the instant claims.]
1. Butz et al.
Butz et al. is the considered the closest prior art as it teaches a foam boosting saccharide blend (see title). In addition, Butz et al. disclose a foam booster that is capable of producing or increasing the amount of foam in any given composition. The foam booster includes a saccharide blend having 30 wt. % to 50 wt. % of an aldohexose or mixture of aldohexoses, 20 wt. % to 55 wt. % of a ketohexose or mixture of ketohexoses; and 10 wt. % to 20 wt. % of a disaccharide or mixture of disaccharides (see abstract).
2. Lee et al.
Lee et al. teach a cosmetic composition for anti-aging comprising fucosyllactose (see title). Additionally, Lee et al. disclose that the present invention relates to a composition for alleviating skin aging and to a functional cosmetic product for alleviating skin aging. According to the cosmetic composition or the functional cosmetic product according to one aspect, fucosyllactose inhibits the expression of MMP-1, IL-6, and IL-8 and significantly increases the synthesis of collagen, and since the fucosyllactose has no toxicity, the fucosyllactose can be safely used for development of a composition for the alleviating skin aging and functional cosmetics (see abstract).
3. Chan et al.
Chan et al. teach comparison of irritancy potential of sodium lauryl sulfate-free aqueous cream to other moisturizers: an intraindividual skin occlusive study (see title). Also, Chan et al. disclose that aqueous cream BP (British Pharmacopoeia) has been used as a moisturizer for xerotic skin conditions since 1958. It is a light, paraffin-based, oil-in-water emulsion, compounded from liquid paraffin, white soft paraffin, phenoxyethanol, purifed water, and emulsifying wax. Cetostearyl alcohol and sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) comprise the emulsifying wax, which provides the consistency and base for the oil-water phase mixing of aqueous cream. However, recent reports on adverse cutaneous reactions from SLS-containing aqueous cream
has attracted criticism to the previously popular moisturizer. This prompted the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency to issue a Drug Safety Update in March 2013 with an official warning that aqueous cream is likely to cause skin irritation. Research has shown that SLS-containing aqueous cream thins the stratum corneum, increases epidermal turnover rate, provokes greater transepidermal water loss (TEWL), decreases corneocyte maturity and size, and accelerates inflammatory protease activity. Several authors have postulated that the skin irritancy effects are secondary to SLS, a known irritant, and have since recommended against the use of SLS-containing aqueous cream, both as a leave-on emollient and a wash-off product.
Despite the recent criticism of aqueous cream, it remains one of the most commonly used, inexpensive moisturizers on the market. In addition, SLS-free aqueous cream is now widely available as a substitute for SLS-containing aqueous cream. To our knowledge, there has not yet been a comprehensive study to evaluate the irritancy potential of SLS-free aqueous cream. Therefore, the aim of this pilot study was to compare the irritancy potential of SLS-free aqueous cream to SLS-containing aqueous
cream and other generic and commercial moisturizers. We hope that this study will aid in appraising moisturizers with the least irritation potential, ensuring safer and more affordable patient care (see page 52, paragraph 1 and 2).
4. Huang et al.
Huang et al. teach amphiphilic polysaccharide derivatives and compositions comprising same (see title). Furthermore, Huang et al. disclose compositions comprising a polysaccharide derivative, wherein the polysaccharide derivative comprises a polysaccharide substituted with a) at least one hydrophobic group, and b) at least one hydrophilic group, wherein the polysaccharide is poly alpha-1,3-glucan, poly alpha-1,6-glucan, or poly alpha-1,3-1,6-glucan (see abstract).
5. Ehrnsperger et al.
Ehrnsperger teach substrate comprising one or more human milk oligosaccharides and disposable absorbent article comprising the substrate (see title). Also, Ehrnsperger disclose that the present disclosure relates to a substrate that includes one or more human milk oligosaccharides. A disposable absorbent
article may include the substrate having one or more human milk oligosaccharides (see abstract).
Combination of Butz et al., Lee et al., Chan et al., and Huang et al.
Regarding instant claim 1, Butz et al., Lee et al., Chan et al., and Huang et al. teach a sulfate-free cleansing composition. The necessary citations of Butz et al., Lee et al., Chan et al., and Huang et al. that pertain to instant claim 1 are presented in Table I.
Table I
Instant Claim 1
Butz et al., Lee et al., Chan et al., and Huang et al. Citations
A sulfate-free cleansing composition comprising:
Butz et al. is directed to a blend of saccharides that can be used as a foam booster or foam-enhancing agent to enhance the foaming capabilities of given composition (see abstract within Butz et al.). The saccharide blend can include a combination of an aldohexose (e.g., glucose or dextrose or both), a ketohexose (e.g. fructose), and a disaccharide (e.g., maltose) (see paragraph [0002] within Butz et al.). The foam boosting saccharide blend comprises dextrose, maltose and maltotriose (see Table 1 within Butz et al.). The formulation of table 3 is set to test the foam boosting blend in which cocoamidopropyl betaine is used and no sulfate derived surfactant is present.
Chan et al. disclose that sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS)-free aqueous cream has a lower irritancy potential than SLS-containing aqueous cream, with the same level of maintenance of skin barrier integrity and hydration. SLS-free aqueous
cream also appears to be less irritating to the
skin than other non-SLS generic and commercial
moisturizers tested (see abstract and page 25, paragraph 1 and 2; both within Chan et al.).
The use of human milk oligosaccharides is not foreseen within Butz et al.
at least one zwitterionic surfactant containing at least 8 carbon atoms, and at least one human milk oligosaccharide selected from the group consisting of 2' fucosyllactose (2'-FL), 3-fucosyllactose (3-FL),difucosyllactose (DFL), lacto-N-fucopentaose I (LNFP-1), 3'sialyllactose sodium salt (3'SL), 6'sialyllactose sodium salt (6'SL), lacto-N-neotetraose (LNnT), lacto-N-tetraose (LNT) and mixtures thereof.
However, Lee et al. incorporates human milk oligosaccharides into their cosmetic.
Lee et al. disclose a cosmetic composition for improving skin aging, comprising fucosyllacatose wherein the fucosyllactose is derived from human breast milk (see claims 1, 6, and paragraph [0004]; all within Lee et al.).
Furthermore, Lee et al. disclose the use of surfactants (comprising zwitterionic surfactants) (see paragraph [0042] within Lee et al.).
Huang et al. supports Lee et al. disclose the use of zwitterionic surfactants (see page 61, line 32 within Huang et al.).
Furthermore, Butz et al. disclose the use of amphoteric surfactants (equivalent to zwitterionic surfactants; see PTO-892 NPL X; NF). Butz et al. disclose the use of the amphoteric surfactant, cocoamidopropyl betaine (see Table 3 within Butz et al.; 19 carbons).
Therefore, a skilled artisan (POSITA; person of ordinary skill in the art) would consult the disclosures of Butz et al., Lee et al., Chan et al., and Huang et al. to teach all the elements of instant claim 1.
Regarding instant claim 2, Butz et al., Lee et al., Chan et al., and Huang et al. teach wherein the at least one human milk oligosaccharide is present in the amount from 0.01 to 10 wt.-%, based on the total weight of the composition. Lee et al. disclose the composition may contain 0.001 wt% to 50 wt% of fucosyllactose (including 2-fucosyllactose and 3-fucosyllactose; see paragraph [0004] within Lee et al.; also see PTO-892 NPL V; NF) relative to the total weight of the cosmetic (see paragraph [0018] within Lee et al.).
Regarding instant claim 4, Butz et al., Lee et al., Chan et al., and Huang et al. teach wherein the composition further comprises at least one non-ionic surfactant. Butz et al. disclose the use of at least one non-ionic surfactant (see paragraph [0011] within Butz et al.).
Regarding instant claim 5, Butz et al., Lee et al., Chan et al., and Huang et al. teach wherein the at least one non-ionic surfactant is selected from the group consisting of alkyl (poly)glucosides, (poly)glyceryl fatty acid esters and polyethyleneglycol (PEG) based surfactants. Butz et al. disclose non-limiting examples of nonionic surfactants include polyethoxylated compounds, polypropoxylated compounds, alkanolamides, amine oxides, or fatty acids of polyhydric alcohols, or combinations thereof (see paragraph [0011] within Butz et al.).
Regarding instant claim 6, Butz et al., Lee et al., Chan et al., and Huang et al. teach wherein the at least one non-ionic surfactant is selected from the group consisting of lauryl glucoside, glyceryl stearate, PEG-100 stearate, PEG-200 hydrogenated glyceryl palmate and PEG-7 glyceryl cocoate. Please see the discussion and citations within instant claim 5. Butz et al. does not list specific examples of non-ionic surfactants. However, a skilled artisan (POSITA) would select, for example, common non-ionic surfactants such as PEG-100 stearate, PEG-200 hydrogenated glyceryl palmate and PEG-7 glyceryl cocoate (all common within cosmetics).
Regarding instant claims 7, 17-18, and 21, Butz et al., Lee et al., Chan et al., and Huang et al. teach wherein the at least one zwitterionic surfactant is selected from the group consisting of alkyl amidopropyl betaines. Butz et al. disclose the use of the zwitterionic/amphoteric surfactant, cocoamidopropyl betaine (see Table 3 within Butz et al.; 19 carbons).
Regarding instant claim 8, Butz et al., Lee et al., Chan et al., and Huang et al. teach wherein the at least one surfactant present in an amount from 25 to 75 wt.-%, based on the total weight of the cleansing composition. Huang et al. disclose a product comprising: from about 1 % to about 60% by weight of a surfactant…(see claim 21 within Huang et al.).
Regarding instant claim 9, Butz et al., Lee et al., Chan et al., and Huang et al. teach wherein the cleansing composition comprises at least 35 wt.-% of water, based on the total weight of the cleansing composition. Butz et al. disclose water contents from a hand soap example ranging from 36%-46% by weight (see Example 5 within Butz et al.).
Regarding instant claim 10, Butz et al., Lee et al., Chan et al., and Huang et al. teach wherein the cleansing composition is a rinse-off composition. Butz et al. disclose the rinse off formulation (hand soap) and its testing for foam, the foam volume produced, the bubble sizeproduced, the lubricity of the formulation, the foam density produced, and the difficulty to rinse off the formulation (see Example 5 within Butz et al.).
Regarding instant claim 11, Butz et al., Lee et al., Chan et al., and Huang et al. teach wherein the cleansing composition is a shower gel, a liquid soap, a wash gel, a body wash, a soap bar, a foam bath, a shampoo or a shaving preparation. Butz et al. disclose the composition is a cleansing composition such as a shampoo, body wash, soap, hand cleanser, etc. (see paragraph [0011] within Butz et al.).
Regarding instant claim 12, Butz et al., Lee et al., Chan et al., and Huang et al. teach wherein the cleansing composition further comprises at least one humectant. Huang et al. disclose that personal care products can include the polysaccharide derivatives as disclosed herein, and can further comprise personal care active ingredient materials including sun screen agents, moisturizers, humectants…(see page 51, lines 27-29 within Huang et al.).
Regarding instant claims 13 and 15, Butz et al., Lee et al., Chan et al., and Huang et al. teach a method of increasing the foaming properties of sulfate-free cleansing compositions comprising at least one surfactant, said method comprising the step of adding at least one human milk oligosaccharide into said cleansing composition. Please see the discussion and citations within instant claim 1 incorporating all the instant claim 13 limitations. Furthermore, Butz et al. disclose the enhancement of foaming properties (foam volume and booster; see paragraphs [0009] and [0012] within Butz et al.).
Regarding instant claim 19, Butz et al., Lee et al., Chan et al., and Huang et al. teach wherein the at least one surfactant further comprises at least one non-ionic surfactant selected from the group consisting of alkyl (poly)glucosides, (poly)glyceryl fatty acid esters and polyethyleneglycol (PEG) based surfactants. Furthermore, Lee et al. disclose the use of surfactants (comprising non-ionic surfactants) (see paragraph [0042] within Lee et al.). Huang et al. supports Lee et al. disclose the use of non-ionic surfactants (see page 61, line 32 within Huang et al.). Alkyl (poly)glucosides (APGs) are commonly used within the cosmetic arts (see PTO-892 NPL U).
Regarding instant claim 22, Butz et al., Lee et al., Chan et al., and Huang et al. teach wherein the at least one humectant is sodium hyaluronate. Lee et al. disclose hyaluronic acid in the dermis layer of the skin (see paragraph [0003] within Lee et al.). Additionally, Huang et al. disclose the use of hyaluronic acid within their skin care product (see page 52, lines 9-10 within Huang et al.). Instant claim 12 further supports the use of the cleansing agent comprising a humectant. It would therefore be within the scope of a skilled artisan (POSITA) to use the commercially available sodium salt of hyaluronic acid as a humectant.
Combination of Butz et al., Lee et al., Chan et al., Huang et al., and Ehrnsperger et al.
Regarding instant claims 16 and 20, Butz et al., Lee et al., Chan et al., Huang et al., and Ehrnsperger et al. teach wherein the at least one human milk oligosaccharide is selected from the group consisting of 3-fucosyllactose (3-FL), difucosyllactose (DFL), 3'sialyllactose sodium salt (3'SL), 6'sialyllactose sodium salt (6'SL), lacto-N-neotetraose (LNnT), lacto-N-tetraose (LNT) and a mixture of 2'-FL/DFL. Ehrnsperger et al. disclose use of a single oligosaccharide represented from the Markush Group and use of mixtures of 2'-FL/DFL (see claim 3 within Ehrnsperger et al.) within various cosmetic products disclosed within Ehrnsperger et al.
This technology is analogous to the cleansing compositions disclosed above. It would therefore lie within the scope of a skilled artisan (POSITA) to integrate (substitute) these HMOs within the for the 2’-fucosyllactose used within Lee et al.
Analogous Art
The Butz et al., Lee et al., Chan et al., Huang et al., and Ehrnsperger et al. references are directed to the same field of endeavor as the instant claims, that is, a sulfate-free cleansing composition disclosed within instant claim 1.
Obviousness
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleansing composition disclosed by Butz et al., using the teachings of Lee et al. and Ehrnsperger et al. to incorporate human milk oligosaccharides, additionally, the teachings of Chan et al. to produce a sulfate-free cosmetic, and further in light of the claim-specific features described in Huang et al. regarding surfactants and humectants, in order to arrive at the subject matter of the instant claims.
The Butz et al., Lee et al., Chan et al., Huang et al., and Ehrnsperger et al. references all have considerable overlap with the development of personal care cosmetics. In this instance, Butz et al., Lee et al., and Ehrnsperger et al. supply the cosmetic formulation for a body care composition comprising human milk oligosaccharides, Chan et al. supports the production of a sulfate-free cosmetic, while Huang et al. supplies cosmetic specific claimed features regarding surfactants and humectants. All references are directed to personal care cosmetics and therefore constitute analogous art under MPEP §2141.01(a). A POSITA would have reasonably consulted the five references when seeking to improve or adapt a sulfate-free cleansing composition.
Starting with Butz et al., the skilled person only had to try the necessary claim limitations disclosed by Chan et al., Lee et al., Huang et al., and Ehrnsperger et al. The combination of Butz et al., Chan et al., Lee et al., Huang et al., and Ehrnsperger et al. would allow one to arrive at the present application without employing inventive skill. This combination of the cleansing composition taught by Butz et al. along with the use of the necessary claim limitations taught by Chan et al., Lee et al., Huang et al., and Ehrnsperger et al. would allow a research and development scientist (POSITA) to develop the invention taught in the instant application. It would have only required routine experimentation to modify the cleansing composition disclosed by Butz et al. with the use of the necessary claim limitations taught by Chan et al., Lee et al., Huang et al., and Ehrnsperger et al. Incorporating the disclosure of Butz et al. into the sulphate-free cosmetic suggested by Chan et al., and the human milk oligosaccharides (HMOs) and claim-specific surfactants and humectants by Lee et al., Ehrnsperger et al., and Huang et al. represents a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, consistent with MPEP §2143 and KSR.
Furthermore, the additional claim limitations taught by Chan et al., Lee et al., Huang et al., and Ehrnsperger et al. would have been viewed by a POSITA as routine design optimizations or known modifications to expand and develop the personal care cosmetic. Implementing these features in Butz et al.’s cleansing composition would not require more than ordinary skill or routine experimentation.
Accordingly, the combination of Butz et al., supplemented by Chan et al., Lee et al., Huang et al., and Ehrnsperger et al. provides all the elements of the claimed invention. The resulting cleansing composition cosmetic constitutes no more than the predictable outcome of combining familiar prior art components, and therefore the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The instant claim amendments were sufficient to address the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections and the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection. The Examiner thanks the Applicant for filing a terminal disclaimer to remove the NSDP rejection. Therefore, they are all withdrawn from the non-final office action dated January 20, 2026.
The amendments did necessitate a new ground of rejection.
Applicant Argument: The Applicant argues that the Butz et al. reference does not reference the use of HMOs.
Examiner’s Rebuttal: Since the Examiner has constructed a 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection, the Lee et al. citation is being relied on to supply the HMO [2’-fucosyllactose (2’-FL)]. Simple substitution of the non-HMO oligosaccharide within Butz et al. for the HMO oligosaccharide 2’-FL would be carried out under routine experimental conditions by a skilled artisan (POSITA). Motivation would be to attempt formulation of the cleansing composition with alternative oligosaccharides such as HMOs. This is exemplified within the Ehrnsperger et al. reference (see instant claims 16 and 20; also see the specification for the application of their composition within Ehrnsperger et al.).
Applicant Argument: The Applicant argues that citations by themselves do not teach or suggest the instant application.
Examiner’s Rebuttal: The Applicant is correct. Since the Examiner has constructed a 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection, it is the combination of the references that teach and/or suggest to a skilled artisan (POSITA) the instant application.
Butz et al., Lee et al., and Ehrnsperger et al. supply the cosmetic formulation for a body care composition comprising human milk oligosaccharides, Chan et al. supports the production of a sulfate-free cosmetic, while Huang et al. supplies cosmetic specific claimed features regarding surfactants and humectants.
Yes, the secondary references of Chan et al., Lee et al., Huang et al., and Ehrnsperger et al. do not claim map with instant claim 1. However, they both support the use of several components discussed within Butz et al.
In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Note that "same field of endeavor" and "reasonably pertinent" are two separate tests for establishing
analogous art; it is not necessary for a reference to fulfill both tests in order to qualify as analogous art. See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212. The examiner must determine whether a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention when analyzing the obviousness of the subject matter under examination. When more than one prior art reference is used as the basis of an obviousness rejection, it is not required that the references be analogous art to each other. See Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMbH v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 66 F.4th 1373, 1380, 2023 USPQ2d 552 (Fed. Cir. 2023) and Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 84 F.4th 990, 1007, 2023 USPQ2d 1202 (Fed. Cir. 2023) [see M.P.E.P. 2141.01(a)].
Applicant Argument: The Applicant argues that the Examiner used impermissible hindsight reasoning to construct the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection.
Examiner’s Rebuttal: The Examiner respectfully disagrees. However, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight [or piece-meal reasoning.] But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).]
Applicant Argument: The Applicant argues that the Huang et al. reference teaches polysaccharides that are longer in general than HMOs.
Examiner’s Rebuttal: The Examiner has supplied the Huang et al. citation ONLY to give an example of surfactants and humectants that might be used by a skilled artisan (POSITA). The additives mentioned as claim limitations are common within the art. Therefore, the bar to incorporate the Huang et al. citation is low. The Applicant’s argument that the polysaccharides are generally longer than the shorter chain HMOs is not pertinent here.
Applicant Argument: The Applicant argues that there is no motivation to combine the references.
Examiner’s Rebuttal: The Examiner is relying on the following motivation (why):
Motivation would be to attempt formulation of the cleansing composition with alternative oligosaccharides such as HMOs. This is exemplified within the Ehrnsperger et al. reference (see instant claims 16 and 20; also see the specification for the application of their composition within Ehrnsperger et al.).
Thus, the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection for instant claims 1-2, 4-13, and 15-22 is maintained.
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 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 JOHN W LIPPERT III whose telephone number is (571)270-0862. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Robert A Wax can be reached on 571-272-0623. 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.
/JOHN W LIPPERT III/Examiner, Art Unit 1615
/Robert A Wax/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Prosecution Insights