DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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.
Status of the Claims
The claims filed 06/09/2026 are under consideration.
Claims 1-6 and 8-15 are pending.
The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application. Rejections not reiterated herein have been withdrawn.
Withdrawn
The rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 7, and 15 under 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anon, MINTEL, 2011 (cited on IDS dated 05/15/2025) has been withdrawn because of Applicant’s amendment.
Rejections based on Jouy have been modified to address applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on Jouy, US 20190240123 A1 has been withdrawn because of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claim 7 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-14 of US 18291956 in view of Jouy, US 20190240123 A1 and Willemin, US 20080014162 A1 has been withdrawn because of Applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that although Jouy teaches polyoxyethylenated derivatives of glyceryl esters of fatty acids, e.g., PEG-7 glyceryl cocoate as an art recognized equivalent for the polyglyceryl fatty acid esters, e.g., polyglyceryl-2 laurate (Joy, e.g., 0021-0025), comparison of examples IE1 and CE4 in the specification show unexpected results. Specifically, Applicant argues comparative example 4 does not comprise oxyethylenated glyceryl cocoates comprising from 1 to 30 oxyethyelene groups as compared with invention example 1. Applicant argues the results of the stickiness of the composition of invention example 1 and comparative example 4, as shown in table 4 of the specification, shows that compositions not containing oxyethylenated glyceryl cocoates comprising from 1 to 30 oxyethyelene groups show higher stickiness than compositions containing oxyethylenated glyceryl cocoates comprising from 1 to 30 oxyethyelene groups in combination with polyglyceryl-5 laurate. Applicant argues the skilled artisan would not have known the combination of components (i)-(iii) would result in a composition which can deliver active ingredient hydroxypropyl tetrahydropyrantriol effectively with good skin sensory property.
This argument is unpersuasive.
The submission of objective evidence of patentability does not mandate a conclusion of patentability in and of itself. See MPEP 716.01(d).
Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention, just as unexpected results are evidence of nonobviousness. See MPEP 716.02(c).
The data in Table 4 shows reduced stickiness compared to compositions comprising a single fatty acid ester of glycerol or polyglycerol. However, Jouy teaches compositions comprising at least two fatty acid esters of glycerol or polyglycerol, which is optionally polyoxyalkylenated (Jouy, e.g., 0024) show improved sensory properties including reduced tackiness and improved slip, and make it possible to reduce the shininess and/or sheen of the skin to which it is applied (Jouy, e.g., 0001-0006, 0019, and 0284-0286, and claim 23). Thus, to the extent that tackiness and stickiness refer to the same sensory property, the proffered data appears to confirm the result expected from Jouy.
The proffered data is not a comparison with the closest prior art. See MPEP 716.02(e).
The closest prior art, e.g., Anon or Jouy, independently teach compositions comprising at least two fatty acid esters of glycerol or polyglycerol, which is optionally polyoxyalkylenated. Anon teaches PEG-20 glyceryl triisostearate which is an oxyalkylenated fatty acid ester of glycerol in combination with polyglyceryl-10 isostearate which is a fatty acid ester of polyglycerol. Jouy exemplifies a composition comprising a C-glycoside and two fatty acid esters of polyglycerol. Since the closest prior art already contains two fatty acid esters of glycerol or polyglycerol, data would need to show an unexpected result stemming from modifying compositions already containing two fatty acid esters of glycerol or polyglycerol with oxyethylenated glyceryl cocoates comprising from 1 to 30 oxyethyelene groups, e.g., PEG-7 glyceryl cocoate (Jouy, e.g., 0024-0025). Data comparing the closest prior art could show, for example, that modifying Jouy’s exemplified formulation by substitution of PEG-7 glyceryl cocoate for polyglyceryl-2 laurate provides unexpected results.
The proffered data is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See MPEP 7016.02(d).
The data has been shown for two specific non-ionic surfactants, i.e., PEG-7 glyceryl cocoate in combination with polyglyceryl-5 laurate, in combination with a number of specific ingredients and wherein the composition is in a single form. However, the claimed invention does not require the detailed combination of ingredients including the two specific surfactants. Moreover, Applicant’s result challenges the prior art’s expectation that compositions comprising at least two fatty acid esters of glycerol or polyglycerol, including those which are polyoxyalkylenated, have similar properties. In this context the skilled artisan would be unable to extrapolate the proffered results over the full scope of the invention as claimed, e.g., wherein surfactant (ii) is a fatty acid ester of polyglycerol, since the expectation of similar properties would then be in doubt. Thus, even if unexpected results are shown, the proffered data is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention.
Applicant argues Willemin does not cure the deficiency of Jouy. Applicant argues a conclusion that Claims 9-14 are obvious over these references cannot be supported and withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
This argument is unpersuasive because Jouy is not found to be deficient for the reasons discussed above.
Applicant requests the double patenting rejection be held in abeyance, but indicates a terminal disclaimer can be filed, if necessary, at the time of allowance of the present application. The double patenting rejection is maintained at this time as modified to address Applicant’s amendment.
Rejections Addressing Applicant’s 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.
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 1-6, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anon, MINTEL, 2011 (cited on IDS dated 05/15/2025) and Jouy, US 20190240123 A1.
Anon teaches a composition comprising:
PEG-20 glyceryl triisostearate which is an oxyalkylenated fatty acid ester of glycerol;
hydroxypropyl tetrahydropyrantriol which is C-β-D-xylopyranoside-2-hydroxypropane recited in claim 2 and within the scope of the cosmetic active compound formula of claim 1; and
polyglyceryl-10 isostearate which is a fatty acid ester of polyglycerol.
The composition is applied to skin which is a keratin material.
Anon teaches an oxyalkylenated fatty acid ester of glycerol, i.e., PEG-20 glyceryl triisostearate. However, Anon does not expressly teach a surfactant selected from the group consisting of oxyethylenated glyceryl cocoates comprising from 1 to 30 oxyethylene groups.
However, Jouy teaches polyoxyethylenated derivatives of glyceryl esters of fatty acids, include, e.g., PEG-7 glyceryl cocoate (Jouy, e.g., 0024-0025) - which meets the limitations of claims 1, (iii), 8 and 14. Jouy teaches polyoxyethylenated derivatives of glyceryl esters of fatty acids, e.g., PEG-7 glyceryl cocoate as an art recognized equivalent for the polyglyceryl fatty acid esters, e.g., polyglyceryl-2 laurate (Joy, e.g., 0021-0025). Further, Jouy suggests species within the genus of oxyethylenated glyceryl fatty acids will have similar properties. That is, since PEG-20 glyceryl triisostearate is a species within the genus of oxyethylenated glyceryl fatty acids, the skilled artisan would have expected other species within this genus, e.g., PEG-7 glyceryl cocoate could be used to predictably arrive at compositions having similar properties.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to modify compositions taught by Anon by including PEG-7 glyceryl cocoate corresponding to the claimed oxyethylenated glyceryl cocoates comprising from 1 to 30 oxyethylene groups as suggested by Jouy with a reasonable expectation of success. Since Anon’s composition already contains a species within the genus of oxyethylenated glyceryl fatty acidesters, i.e., PEG-20 glyceryl triisostearate, the skilled artisan would have expected other species within this genus, e.g., PEG-7 glyceryl cocoate could be used to predictably arrive at compositions having similar properties. The skilled artisan may have seen this modification as the substitution of one nonionic surfactant - polyoxyethylenated derivatives of glyceryl fatty acid ester - for another to achieve predictable results. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. See MPEP 2144.06. The skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success since Jouy suggests polyoxyethylenated derivatives of glyceryl esters of fatty acids will have similar properties and recognizes them as nonionic surfactants useful in cosmetic compositions.
Applicable to claim 3: Jouy exemplifies C-13-D-xylopyranoside-2-hydroxypropane in an amount of 9 wt% (Jouy, e.g., example 1).
Applicable to claims 4 and 5: Jouy exemplifies compositions comprising two glyceryl fatty acid esters, e.g., polyglyceryl-5 laurate or polyglyceryl-2 laurate (Jouy, e.g., example 1, table in 0297). Anon teaches polyglyceryl-10 isostearate which is named.
Applicable to claims 6 and 8: Jouy teaches wherein the fatty acid esters of glycerol or polyglycerol are present in the composition in an amount ranging from 0.1-20%, preferably 1%-10%, and more preferably 1.5-7% by weight (Jouy, e.g., 0050-0052). 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). MPEP 2144.05. The claimed range is within/overlapping with the range suggested by Jouy.
Applicable to claim 15: Jouy teaches the composition used in a non-therapeutic method which comprises applying the composition to keratin materials (Jouy, e.g., 0281-0286).
Accordingly, the subject matter of claims 1-6, 8 and 15 would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention, absent evidence to the contrary.
Claims 1-6, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jouy, US 20190240123 A1.
Jouy teaches cosmetic compositions comprising at least two fatty acid esters of polyglycerol (Jouy, e.g., title). Jouy teaches compositions comprising a C-glycoside and fatty acid esters of polyglycerol (Jouy, e.g., example 1), wherein the compositions comprise at least two fatty acid esters of glycerol or polyglycerol.
Jouy exemplifies compositions comprising two fatty acid esters, e.g., polyglyceryl-5 laurate or polyglyceryl-2 laurate (compare claim 5), and a C-glucoside within the scope of claims 1 and 2, e.g., C-13-D-xylopyranoside-2-hydroxypropane in an amount within the scope of claim 3.
Although Jouy exemplifies a composition comprising a C-glycoside and two fatty acid esters of polyglycerol, Jouy does not exemplify a single composition further comprising an oxyalkylenated fatty acid ester of glycerol.
Jouy teaches the fatty acid ester of glycerol or polyglycerol may be optionally polyoxyalkylenated, e.g., oxyalkylenated glycerol esters or polyoxyethylenated derivatives of glyceryl esters of fatty acids, e.g., PEG-7 glyceryl cocoate (Jouy, e.g., 0024-0025) - which meets the limitations of claims 1, (iii), 7-8 and 14 – and wherein the fatty acid esters of glycerol or polyglycerol are present in the composition in an amount ranging from 0.1-20%, preferably 1%-10%, and more preferably 1.5-7% by weight (Jouy, e.g., 0050-0052). The combination of at least two fatty acids offers the benefits of stability, good sensory properties, e.g., less tackiness, and/or mor slip, and make it possible to reduce the shininess and/or sheen of the skin to which it is applied (Jouy, e.g., 0001-0006, 0019, and 0284-0286, and claim 23).
Jouy teaches polyoxyethylenated derivatives of glyceryl esters of fatty acids, e.g., PEG-7 glyceryl cocoate as an art recognized equivalent for the polyglyceryl fatty acid esters, e.g., polyglyceryl-2 laurate (Joy, e.g., 0021-0025).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to modify a composition exemplified in Jouy comprising a C-glycoside and at least one fatty acid ester of polyglycerol by including at least one polyoxyethylenated fatty acid ester of glycerol, e.g., PEG-7 glyceryl cocoate, with a reasonable expectation of success. The skilled artisan may have seen this modification as combining equivalent non-ionic surfactants known for reducing shine when applied to skin to arrive at a third composition useful for the same purpose. Alternatively, the skilled artisan may have seen this modification as substitution one known non-ionic surfactant for another where each were known for reducing shine when applied to skin. See MPEP 2144.06. The skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success since Jouy expressly suggests these modifications would maintain the reported benefits.
Applicable to claim 3: Jouy exemplifies C-13-D-xylopyranoside-2-hydroxypropane in an amount of 9 wt% (Jouy, e.g., example 1).
Applicable to claims 4 and 5: Jouy exemplifies compositions comprising two glyceryl fatty acid esters, e.g., polyglyceryl-5 laurate or polyglyceryl-2 laurate (Jouy, e.g., example 1, table in 0297).
Applicable to claims 6 and 8: Jouy teaches wherein the fatty acid esters of glycerol or polyglycerol are present in the composition in an amount ranging from 0.1-20%, preferably 1%-10%, and more preferably 1.5-7% by weight (Jouy, e.g., 0050-0052). 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). MPEP 2144.05. The claimed range is within/overlapping with the range suggested by Jouy.
Applicable to claim 15: Jouy teaches the composition used in a non-therapeutic method which comprises applying the composition to keratin materials (Jouy, e.g., 0281-0286).
Accordingly, the subject matter of claims 1-6, 8 and 15 would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention, absent evidence to the contrary.
Claim(s) 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either
(i) Jouy, US 20190240123 A1 as applied to claims 1-6, 8 and 15 above, or
(ii) Anon, MINTEL, 2011 (cited on IDS dated 05/15/2025) and Jouy, US 20190240123 A1 as applied to claims 1-6, 8 and 15 above,
each further in view of Willemin, US 20080014162 A1.
Jouy or Anon and Jouy independently teaches the composition of claim 1 as enumerated above. Neither Jouy, nor Anon and Jouy, expressly teach the composition further comprising a peeling agent selected from the group consisting of N-substituted aminosulfonic acid compounds and α-hydroxy acids.
Willemin teaches methods for treating skin with compositions comprising at least one C-glycoside (Willemin, e.g., title, abstract, claims). Compositions further comprise actives which may be desquamating (peeling) agents such as α-hydroxy acids or aminosulfonic acids (Willemin, e.g., 0070-0078, 0113, and claim 9). These may be present in the composition in an amount ranging from 0.1-30wt% (Willemin, e.g., 0114).
The peeling agents are effective for combating ageing and promote cell renewal (Willemin, e.g., 0011). C-glycosides counteract the negative skin reactions caused in some people by the peeling agents (Willemin, e.g., 0016).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to modify compositions of Jouy, or Anon and Jouy, with a peeling agent selected from α-hydroxy acids or aminosulfonic acids with a reasonable expectation of success. Since Jouy and Anon independently teach cosmetic compositions comprising C-glycosides, Willemin provides a teaching which would have prompted the skilled artisan to add a peeling agent to these compositions with a reasonable expectation of success. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification to reduce skin ageing appearance and promote cell renewal in the same way suggested by Willemin. The skilled artisan would have seen this modification as the use of a known technique to improve similar C-glycoside containing compositions in the same way. The skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Willemin expressly teaches C-glycosides may be used with peeling agents to reduce the irritant effect of peeling agents.
Applicable to claim 10: Willemin teaches (N-2-hydroxyethylpiperazine-N-2-ethane) sulfonic acid (Willemin, e.g., 0078, 0113).
Applicable to claims 11 and 13 and 14: Willemin teaches peeling agents, e.g., α-hydroxy acids or aminosulfonic acids in amounts ranging from 0.1 to 30% by weight (Willemin, e.g., 0114).
Applicable to claim 12: Willemin teaches α-hydroxy acids including lactic acid, glycolic acid or citric acid (Willemin, e.g., 0011, 0057, 0073 and example 2, 0457).
Accordingly, the subject matter of claims 9-14 would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention, absent evidence to the contrary.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) 1-6, and 8-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-14 of US 18291956 in view of Jouy, US 20190240123 A1 and Willemin, US 20080014162 A1.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The reference claims teach an oil in water emulsion, i.e., the recited materials in an aqueous phase, comprising C-glycosides as per (i), and at least one at least one non-ionic surfactant selected from fatty acid esters of polyglycerol as per (ii). See reference claims 1-14.
The reference claims do not expressly teach the composition comprising oxyalkylenated fatty acid esters of glycerol.
However, Jouy teaches similar compositions comprising a C-glycoside and fatty acid esters of polyglycerol, wherein the compositions comprise at least two fatty acid esters of glycerol or polyglycerol, which is optionally polyoxyalkylenated, e.g., oxyalkylenated glycerol esters or polyoxyethylenated derivatives of glyceryl esters of fatty acids, e.g., PEG-7 glyceryl cocoate (Jouy, e.g., 0024-0025) - which meets the limitations of claims 1, (iii), 7-8 and 14 – and wherein the fatty acid esters of glycerol or polyglycerol are present in the composition in an amount ranging from 0.1-20%, preferably 1%-10%, and more preferably 1.5-7% by weight (Jouy, e.g., 0050-0052). The combination of at least two fatty acids offers the benefits of stability, good sensory properties, e.g., less tackiness, and/or mor slip, and make it possible to reduce the shininess and/or sheen of the skin to which it is applied (Jouy, e.g., 0001-0006, 0019, and 0284-0286, and claim 23).
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). MPEP 2144.05. The claimed range is within/overlapping with the range suggested by Jouy.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to modify compositions of the reference claims by including oxyalkylenated glycerol esters or polyoxyethylenated derivatives of glyceryl esters of fatty acids, e.g., PEG-7 glyceryl cocoate in an amount ranging from 0.1-20% by weight as suggested by Jouy with a reasonable expectation of success. Jouy provides a teaching which would have prompted the skilled artisan to include an additional glyceryl fatty acid ester since Jouy clearly teaches the combination of polyoxyethylenated derivatives of glyceryl esters of fatty acids, e.g., PEG-7 glyceryl cocoate and fatty acid esters of polyglycerol. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to include an additional polyoxyethylenated derivatives of glyceryl esters of fatty acids, e.g., PEG-7 glyceryl cocoate for the benefits reported by Jouy. The skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Jouy suggests this modification for improving compositions comprising a C-13-D-xylopyranoside-2-hydroxypropane and polyglyceride fatty acid esters.
Applicable to claims 9-14:
The combined teachings of the reference claims and Jouy do not expressly teach compositions further comprising a peeling agent selected from the group consisting of N-substituted aminosulfonic acid compounds and α-hydroxy acids. However, Willemin teaches these features in similar C-glycoside containing compositions as enumerated above.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to modify compositions suggested by the combined teachings of the reference claims and Jouy with a peeling agent selected from α-hydroxy acids or aminosulfonic acids with a reasonable expectation of success. Since, the reference claims and Jouy teach cosmetic compositions comprising C-glycosides, Willemin provides a teaching which would have prompted the skilled artisan to add a peeling agent to these compositions with a reasonable expectation of success. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification to reduce skin ageing appearance and promote cell renewal in the same way suggested by Willemin. The skilled artisan would have seen this modification as the use of a known technique to improve similar C-glycoside containing compositions in the same way. The skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Willemin expressly teaches C-glycosides may be used with peeling agents to reduce the irritant effect of peeling agents.
Additional teachings of Jouy and Willemin with respect to claims 9-14 enumerated above are reiterated here.
Accordingly, the subject matter of claims 1-6, and 8-15 would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention, absent evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
No claim is 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM A CRAIGO whose telephone number is (571)270-1347. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9am - 6pm, PDT.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM CRAIGO/Examiner, Art Unit 1615
/SUSAN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Prosecution Insights