DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant’s Amendments and Remarks, filed 3 August 2026, in the matter of Application N° 18/718,702. Said documents have been entered on the record. The Examiner further acknowledges the following:
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 2 has been canceled.
Claims 1 and 3 have been amended. Claim 3 has been amended to depend from claim 1 following the cancellation of claim 2. Claim 1 has been amended to define the zinc carboxylate as comprising zinc neodecanoate and that said zinc carboxylate is encapsulated. Support is found for both additions to claim 1 in the originally-filed disclosure.
No new matter has been added.
Thus, claims 1 and 3-14 now represent all claims currently under consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
No new Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) have been filed for consideration.
Withdrawn Rejections
Rejection under 35 USC 102
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 successfully overcomes the previously raised anticipation rejection, but only to claims 1 and 4-8 over Lawshe et al. As such, the rejection is withdrawn, in part.
Rejection under 35 USC 102
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 successfully overcomes the previously raised anticipation rejection, but only to claims 1 and 4-8 over Piorkowski. As such, the rejection is withdrawn, in part.
Rejection under 35 USC 102
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 successfully overcomes the previously raised anticipation rejection, but only to claims 1, 4, 7, and 8 over Brooks. As such, the rejection is withdrawn, in part.
Rejection under 35 USC 103
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 successfully overcomes the previously raised obviousness rejection, but only to claims 1 and 3-8 over Lawshe et al. As such, the rejection is withdrawn, in part.
Rejection under 35 USC 103
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 successfully overcomes the previously raised anticipation rejection, but only to claims 1 and 4-8 over Lawshe et al. As such, the rejection is withdrawn, in part.
Maintained Rejections
The following rejections are maintained from the previous Office Correspondence dated 7 May 2026 since the art that was previously cited continues to read on the previously recited limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9-11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lawshe et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication Nº 2007/0049511 A1; IDS reference). [emphasis added to reflect claims withdrawn from the rejection]
The invention of instant claim 9 recites a method of delivering a malodor-counteracting effect to a surface containing a source of malodor, said method comprising the step of delivering a malodor-reducing composition containing zinc carboxylate to the surface from an aqueous medium.
Lawshe discloses a laundry detergent formulation comprising zinc ricinoleate, alcohol ethoxylate C14-C15 7EO (nonionic), and perfume. See ¶[0137]:
PNG
media_image1.png
354
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Examiner submits that the foregoing is considered to meet the compositional limitations as instantly recited and therefore meets the recited “delivery” limitation, noting that the overall medium of the composition is water. Furthermore, the reference defines pure zinc ricinoleate as being “waxy solids and substantially insoluble in water” and that “the solubilization of zinc ricinoleate is not an easy task.” See ¶[0025]. Considering this disclosure, the Examiner submits that the above formulation would be considered by the ordinarily skilled artisan as providing a dispersion or suspension of zinc ricinoleate.
Lawshe also discloses the practiced compositions as being a fabric cleansing compositions for neutralizing malodors (see e.g., Abstract; claim 1). The disclosure of a laundry detergent directly discloses that the composition is applied to soiled fabric and that it will neutralize malodors of any kind.
Such is considered to teach the limitations recited by instant method claims 9-11, 13, and 14.
The reference is thus considered to anticipate the instantly claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with regard to the rejection of claims 9-11, 13, and 14 under pre-AIA 35 USC 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lawshe et al. have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s response addressing the rejection indicate that claim 2 was not rejected and that its limitations have been amended into instant claim 1. Additionally, the claim has been amended to further define the zinc carboxylate as zinc ricinoleate.
The Examiner, in response, acknowledges the amendments to claim 1 and has withdrawn the rejection over claims 1 and 4-8.
However, Applicant’s amendment does not apply to claims 9-11, 13, and 14 and is not addressed by the response. As such, the Examiner considers the filed response as having conceded the rejection to these claims.
Thus, for these reasons, the above rejection is hereby maintained over claims 9-11, 13, and 14.
Claims 9-11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Piorkowski (US Pre-Grant Publication Nº 2020/0199493 A1; IDS/ISR reference).
The limitations of the instantly claimed invention are discussed above.
Piorkowski discloses a unit dose detergent product comprising a pouch comprising a water-soluble polymer which encapsulates a detergent composition comprising zinc ricinoleate, water, an alkali ethoxy alkyl sulfate surfactant, an ethoxylated alcohol nonionic surfactant, and a third surfactant (see e.g., Abstract; claims). The third surfactant is further defined in claim 3 of the reference as comprising a non-ionic alkyl alkoxy sorbitan. Paragraph [0018] further defines these surfactants as sorbitan oleate based surfactants such as TWEEN and SPAN.
Claim 4 of the reference discloses that zinc ricinoleate is added as a melt of a zinc ricinoleate solid. Claim 10 and ¶[0021] disclose methods whereby the zinc ricinoleate is melted and then combined with a surfactant solution. Paragraph [0012] adds that the zinc ricinoleate is present as either a solution or suspension.
Paragraphs [0005] and [0006] defines zinc ricinoleate as having been used in deodorants as an odor-absorbing agent and as providing malodor reduction. Thus, disclosure of the practiced composition as a unit dose detergent formulation is considered to expressly teach the recited method of delivering a malodor-counteracting effect to a surface as recited by claim 9.
Paragraph [0002] discloses that unit dose detergent compositions are well-known to have use in washing machines. Such is considered to disclosed the application of the practiced composition to an “inanimate surface” as recited by claims 10, 13, and 14. Furthermore, the recited limitations of odors originating from human, animal, body or waste, or food are all odors that are readily understood as being treated or reduced when the ordinarily skilled consumer uses such malodor treating compositions in a washing machine. Such is thus considered to meet the limitations of claim 11.
The reference is thus considered to teach each of the instantly claimed limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with regard to the rejection of claims 9-11, 13, and 14 under pre-AIA 35 USC 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Piorkowski have been fully considered, but are not wholly persuasive.
Applicant’s response addressing the rejection indicate that claim 2 was not rejected and that its limitations have been amended into instant claim 1. Additionally, the claim has been amended to further define the zinc carboxylate as zinc ricinoleate.
The Examiner, in response, acknowledges the amendments to claim 1 and has withdrawn the rejection over claims 1 and 4-8.
However, Applicant’s amendment does not apply to claims 9-14 and is not addressed by the response. As such, the Examiner considers the filed response as having conceded the rejection to these claims.
Thus, for these reasons, the above rejection is hereby maintained over claims 9-14.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brooks (US Pre-Grant Publication Nº 2020/0046619 A1; US publication of WO 2018/087147 A1; IDS/ISR reference). [emphasis added to reflect claims withdrawn from the rejection]
The limitations of the instantly claimed invention are discussed above.
Brooks discloses a deodorant composition comprising a deodorizing agent which comprises zinc neodecanoate and a fragrance (perfume) (see e.g., claims 1-3 and 6).
Claim 7 discloses that the composition of claim 6 is an antiperspirant deodorant composition, which the ordinarily skilled artisan will understand as being a product that delivers a malodor reducing composition for the purposes of reducing odor on a surface. Claims 10, 11, and 15 further delineate that the composition is applied to a human to treat body odor.
The foregoing is thus considered to expressly meet the instantly recited limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with regard to the rejection of claims 9-11 under pre-AIA 35 USC 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brooks have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s response addressing the rejection indicate that claim 2 was not rejected and that its limitations have been amended into instant claim 1. Additionally, the claim has been amended to further define the zinc carboxylate as zinc ricinoleate.
The Examiner, in response, acknowledges the amendments to claim 1 and has withdrawn the rejection over claims 1, 4, 7, and 8.
However, Applicant’s amendment does not apply to claims 9-11 and is not addressed by the response. As such, the Examiner considers the filed response as having conceded the rejection to these claims.
Thus, for these reasons, the above rejection is hereby maintained over claims 9-11.
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, 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. Applicants are 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 9-11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawshe et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication Nº 2007/0049511 A1; IDS reference). [emphasis added to reflect claims withdrawn from the rejection]
The limitations of claims 1, 4-11, 13, and 14 are discussed above.
The limitations of claim 2 recite that the zinc carboxylate is in an encapsulated form. Claim 12 narrows the nonionic surfactant to an ethoxylated fatty acid.
Lawshe discloses a laundry detergent formulation comprising zinc ricinoleate, alcohol ethoxylate C14-C15 7EO (nonionic), and perfume. See ¶[0137]:
PNG
media_image1.png
354
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Examiner submits that the foregoing is considered to meet the compositional limitations as instantly recited and therefore meets the recited “configured to be dispersed” limitation, noting that the overall medium of the composition is water. Furthermore, the reference defines pure zinc ricinoleate as being “waxy solids and substantially insoluble in water” and that “the solubilization of zinc ricinoleate is not an easy task.” See ¶[0025]. Considering this disclosure, the Examiner submits that the above formulation would be considered by the ordinarily skilled artisan as providing a dispersion or suspension of zinc ricinoleate.
Regarding zinc ricinoleate, the reference further defines it as being the malodor neutralizing agent. See e.g., ¶[0010]. The malodor neutralizing agent is further taught as being presented in the practiced formulations in several preferred forms including being encapsulated. See ¶[0018].
The use of an encapsulating form would minimally present the ordinary skilled artisan with a reasonable expectation of being able to control the rate with which the odor neutralizing agent was released to the surface being treated.
Regarding the limitations of claim 12, the reference discloses in the above table that Alcohol Ethoxylate C14-C15 7EO (nonionic) is the nonionic surfactant used for that formulation. Thus, while that surfactant anticipates the composition of claim 5, the indicated surfactant is not an ethoxylated fatty acid.
However, compositions such as fabric softeners are taught and suggested by the reference. See e.g., ¶[0013] and ¶[0030]. The reference additionally defines fabric softeners further as including nonionic softeners such as ethoxylated fatty acid ethanolamides. See ¶[0113], ¶[0114], and ¶[0132].
Based on the combined teachings of the reference, the Examiner submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success at producing the instantly claimed composition and arriving at the recited method of treatment. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and absent a clear showing of evidence to the contrary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with regard to the rejection of claims 9-11, 13, and 14 under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Lawshe et al. have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant traverses the rejection on the grounds arguing that Lawshe does not teach the use of zinc neodecanoate. The Examiner has considered the amendment to claim 1 persuasive and has withdrawn the rejection over claims 1-8 and 12.
Applicant’s remarks appear to address the invention recited by claims 9-14 stating that ¶[0018] does not provide a person of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of producing a zinc carboxylate in encapsulated form.
The Examiner, in response, respectfully disagrees and maintains the rejection to claims 9-14 for the reasons of record. The Examiner submits that in response to Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., encapsulated zinc carboxylate) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s arguments, for the above reasons, are found unpersuasive. Said rejection is therefore maintained.
Claims 9-11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks (US Pre-Grant Publication Nº 2020/0046619 A1; US publication of WO 2018/087147 A1; IDS/ISR reference). [emphasis added to reflect claims withdrawn from the rejection]
The limitations of the instantly claimed invention are discussed above.
Brooks discloses a deodorant composition comprising a deodorizing agent which comprises zinc neodecanoate and a fragrance (perfume) (see e.g., claims 1-3 and 6).
Claim 7 discloses that the composition of claim 6 is an antiperspirant deodorant composition, which the ordinarily skilled artisan will understand as being a product that delivers a malodor reducing composition for the purposes of reducing odor on a surface. Claims 10, 11, and 15 further delineate that the composition is applied to a human to treat body odor.
The limitations of claim 4 are anticipated by the above disclosure. Claim 4 alternatively recites that the zinc carboxylate is dispersed in an oil phase comprising a surfactant, and optionally at least one perfumery ingredient and/or solvent.
The reference teaches that suitable product formats include emulsions or gels. See ¶[0050]. The reference additionally discloses that deodorant compositions encompass fabric care products such as detergents, conditioners, and softeners. See ¶[0086].
The foregoing is considered to teach and suggest the limitations of instant claims 4, 13, and 14.
Based on the combined teachings of the reference, the Examiner submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success at producing the instantly claimed composition and arriving at the recited method of treatment. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and absent a clear showing of evidence to the contrary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with regard to the rejection of claims 9-11, 13, and 14 under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Brooks have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant traverses the rejection on the grounds that Brooks relates to anhydrous deodorant formulations and that it suggests the inclusion of zinc neodecanoate either in neat form or dissolved in a solvent. The reference is further directed to encapsulating fragrance ingredients, rather than zinc neodecanoate.
The foregoing is persuasive in overcoming the rejection to claims 1, 4, 7, and 8 as indicated above.
Applicant additionally states that there is no guidance in Brooks for encapsulating zinc carboxylates and no reasonable expectation that encapsulated zinc carboxylates would be effective for aqueous dispersal.
To this, the Examiner submits that in response to Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., encapsulated zinc carboxylate) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The invention recited by claims 9-11, 13, and 14 does not require that zinc carboxylate be encapsulated, nor is the zinc carboxylate limited to zinc neodecanoate.
Applicant’s arguments, for the above reasons, are found unpersuasive. Said rejection is therefore maintained.
New Rejections
Applicants’ amendments have necessitated the following ground(s) of rejection:
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, 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. Applicants are 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 and 3-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawshe et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication Nº 2007/0049511 A1; of record) in view of Brooks (US Pre-Grant Publication Nº 2020/0046619 A1 (cited); US Publication of WO 2018/087147 A1; of record).
The limitations of instant claim 1, as amended recite a malodor-reducing composition comprising a zinc carboxylate comprising zinc neodecanoate, and one or more ingredients selected from a perfume ingredient, a perfume solvent, a surfactant, and mixtures thereof. The composition is further recited as being “configured to” be dispersed in an aqueous medium.
Lawshe discloses a fabric cleansing composition for neutralizing malodors comprising a liquid detergent (surfactant), a non-ionic surfactant, an anionic surfactant, and a metallic salt comprising zinc ricinoleate (see e.g., claim 1). In addition to the surfactant component, the reference discloses that the practiced compositions may also contain a fragrance. See ¶¶[0047]-[0050]. Therein, the fragrance component is taught as being distinct from the zinc carboxylate component insomuch as the latter generally has no effect on carbonylic groups that comprise typical perfume and fragrance components. See also ¶[0021].
Thus, from the disclosure provided by Lawshe, the ordinarily skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in producing a formulation containing an odor-absorbing zinc carboxylate, such as zinc ricinoleate with a fragrance/perfume component. Zinc ricinoleate is taught as possessing odor absorbing properties. See e.g., ¶[0007].
Where Lawshe is deficient is with respect to the amended zinc carboxylate component; it does not teach using zinc neodecanoate.
Brooks is considered to remedy this deficiency.
Brooks discloses a deodorizing composition comprising zinc neodecanoate (see e.g., claim 1). Claim 2 discloses that the deodorizing agent is in the form of a solution or a blend of zinc neodecanoate and a solvent therefor. Claim 3 discloses that the deodorizing agent dissolved or mixed with a fragrance component (i.e., perfumery solvent) comprises at least one fragrance ingredient. Paragraph [0043] teaches that the fragrance component, or any fragrance ingredients forming a part of the fragrance component may be presented in the form of free fragrance oil, or in encapsulated form, or both as free oil and in encapsulate form.
When considered in view of the teachings of the claims, the Examiner submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of producing a composition which comprises a dissolved form of zinc neodecanoate.
The Examiner submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art in possession of the teachings of Lawshe and Brooks, would have been motivated to modify the former by using zinc neodecanoate instead of zinc ricinoleate.
Brooks is on record as teaching formulations with both zinc neodecanoate and zinc ricinoleate. However, the key contribution made by Brooks is that zinc neodecanoate provides improved user results over its ricinoleate counterpart (see e.g., Examples 1, 3, and 4). Here, the Examples show that cosmetic composition containing zinc neodecanoate had significantly lower malodor intensity under the arms (Ex. 1), improved fragrance linearity (fragrance better retained at 24h; Ex. 3; Fig 3), and in aerosol form, the neodecanoate formulation left less white powdery residue (Ex. 4).
MPEP §2144.06(II) states that “[i]n order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art, and cannot be based on Applicant’s disclosure or the mere fact that the components at issue are functional or mechanical equivalents.”
In the instant case, the Examiner has demonstrated the requisite showing of equivalency in the cited prior art references. Lawshe establishes that zinc ricinoleate (a carboxylate of zinc) functions as odor absorbing compound. Brooks recognizes this as well (see e.g., ¶[0006]). However, Brooks also compares zinc ricinoleate to neodecanoate and recognizes the latter as possessing advantages over zinc ricinoleate, as discussed above.
Thus, what the combined teachings provide is clear teaching and motivation to modify Lawshe by substituting in zinc neodecanoate for zinc ricinoleate.
The foregoing teachings of Lawshe are considered to additionally read on the limitations of instant claims 3-6 and 12. Therein, the practiced composition is one that is encapsulated and additionally contains a nonionic surfactant that is the form of an ethoxylated fatty acid (see e.g., claim 5).
Paragraph [0013], for instance discloses that although “described herein in terms of a liquid laundry detergent, other cleansing and treating materials, such as fabric softeners, stain treaters, dryer sheets or the like”. Brooks provides similar end-uses for its practiced compositions. See e.g., ¶¶[0050] and [0083]-[0086].
Such disclosures are considered to teach the limitations recited by instant claims 7 and 8.
Lastly, the preceding is also considered to teach the limitations recited by claims 9-11, 13, and 14. Therein, disclosure of compositions used for fabric care is considered to teach the application of the instant composition to an inanimate object (i.e., towels, clothing, etc.) that capture odors (i.e., body, waste from humans or animals, etc.) and which may be used to clean the surfaces of other inanimate surfaces (e.g., a kitchen towel).
Based on the combined teachings of the references, the Examiner submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success at producing the instantly claimed composition and arriving at the recited method of using it. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and absent a clear showing of evidence to the contrary.
All claims have been rejected; no claims are allowed.
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP §706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Jeffrey T. Palenik whose telephone number is (571) 270-1966. The Examiner can normally be reached on 9:30 am - 7:00 pm; M-F (EST).
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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jeffrey T. Palenik/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Prosecution Insights