CTNF 18/720,237 CTNF 98172 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 19-38 are pending in this office action. Claims 1-18 are cancelled. All pending claims are under examination in this application. Priority The current application was filed on June 14, 2024 is a 371 of PCT/EP2022/085439 filed December 12, 2022. The current application claims foreign priority to FR2113867 filed December 17, 2021. Information Disclosure Statement Receipt of the Information Disclosure Statement filed on August 28, 2024 is acknowledged. A signed copy of the document is attached to this office action. Claim Objections Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informality: Claim 26 has the plural typo within the text “…hydrotropes(s)…”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 20 recites the substituents in table form. Claims may contain tables either if necessary to conform to 35 U.S.C. 112 or if otherwise found to be desirable. See MPEP 2173.05(s). When such a patent is printed, however, the table will not be included as part of the claim, and instead the claim will contain a reference to the table number. Where possible, claims are to be complete in themselves. Incorporation by reference to a specific figure or table "is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a drawing or table into the claim. Incorporation by reference is a necessity doctrine, not for applicant' s convenience.” Ex parte Fressola, 27USPQ2d 1608, 1609 (Bd, Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) (citations omitted). In the instant case, there is a more practical way to define the invention without the use of a table. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 19-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roudot et al. (WO2014/111571A1) in view of Pan et al. (US2017/0281505A1) and Li (WO2018/114213A1) . [The Examiner is going to introduce each reference and then combine them where appropriate to reject the instant claims.] 1. Roudot et al. Roudot et al. is considered the closest prior art to the present invention as it teaches a cosmetic or dermatological emulsion comprising a merocyanine and an emulsifying system containing an amphiphilic polymer comprising at least one 2-acrylamidomethylpropanesulfonic acid unit (see title). In addition, Roudot et al. disclose that the present invention relates to a cosmetic or dermatological composition in emulsion form, comprising, in a physiologically acceptable support: a) at least one aqueous phase, and b) at least one oily phase, and c) at least one merocyanine compound of formula (1) or one of the E/E- or E/Z-geometrical isomer forms thereof, in which: R is a C1-C22 alkyl group, a C2-C22 alkenyl group, a C2-C22 alkynyl group, a C3-C22 cycloalkyl group or a C3-C22 cycloalkenyl group, the said groups possibly being interrupted by one or more O, and d) at least one emulsifying system containing at least one amphiphilic polymer comprising at least one 2- acrylamidomethylpropanesulfonic acid unit. Another subject of the present invention consists of a non-therapeutic cosmetic process for caring for and/or making up a keratin material, comprising the application, to the surface of the said keratin material, of at least one composition according to the invention as defined above. The invention also relates to a non-therapeutic cosmetic process for limiting the darkening of the skin and/or improving the colour and/or uniformity of the complexion, comprising the application, to the surface of the keratin material, of at least one composition as defined previously. The invention also relates to a non-therapeutic cosmetic process for preventing and/or treating the signs of ageing of a keratin material, comprising the application, to the surface of the keratin material, of at least one composition as defined previously (see abstract). PNG media_image1.png 200 400 media_image1.png Greyscale 2. Pan et al. Pan et al. teach photo-stabilized compositions and methods of use (see title). Furthermore, Pan et al. disclose that the present disclosure relates to cosmetic compositions and methods of using the cosmetic compositions to benefit the skin. The cosmetic compositions typically include: (a) resveratrol, polydatin, or a mixture thereof; (b) baicalin; (c) optionally, one or more solubilizers; and (d) a cosmetically acceptable carrier. The compositions provide multiple benefits to skin. For example, the compositions are particularly useful for providing anti-aging benefits to skin, for whitening the skin, and for improving skin's appears (e.g., radiance and firmness) (see abstract). 3. Li Li teaches water-in-oil emulsion containing baicalin, a xanthine base, a vitamin B3, and a polyvalent metal cation salt (see title). In addition, Li discloses water-in-oil emulsion containing baicalin, a xanthine base, a vitamin B3, and a polyvalent metal cation salt. The present invention aims to propose, for the field of caring for and/or making up keratin materials, especially the skin, a novel composition in water-in-oil emulsion form, containing at least: a) a continuous oily phase, and b) a discontinuous aqueous phase dispersed in said oily phase; c) at least baicalin and/or a derivative thereof and/or a plant extract containing said compound(s); and d) at least one vitamin B3 and/or a derivative thereof; and e) at least one xanthine base and/or a plant extract containing same; and f) at least one polyvalent cation salt. The invention also relates to a process for caring for and/or making up keratin materials, such as the skin, characterized in that it comprises the application to the keratin materials of a composition as defined previously (see abstract). Combination of Roudot et al. and Pan et al. Regarding instant claim 19, Roudot et al. and Pan et al. teach a cosmetic composition comprising at least one merocyanine and at least one hydrotrope. The necessary citations of Roudot and Pan et al. that pertain to instant claim 19 are presented in Table I. Table I Instant Claim 19 Roudot and Pan et al. Citations A composition comprising: PNG media_image2.png 200 400 media_image2.png Greyscale Roudot et al. relates to a cosmetic or dermatological composition in emulsion form, comprising, in a physiologically acceptable support: a) at least one aqueous phase, and b) at least one oily phase, and c) at least one merocyanine compound, and d) at least one emulsifying system containing at least one amphiphilic polymer comprising at least one 2-acrylamidomethylpropane-sulphonic acid unit (see p. 1, ln. 5-12; p. 5-7, ln. 36; table; p. 22, ln. 29-34; also see Examples; all within Roudot et al.). PNG media_image3.png 200 400 media_image3.png Greyscale (see p. 6, ln 7-13 within Roudot et al.) PNG media_image4.png 200 400 media_image4.png Greyscale Pan et al. is also within the cosmetic arts comprising merocyanine and hydrotropes (see abstract and paragraph [0025]; both within Pan et al.). Pan et al. disclose a non-limiting list of possible hydrotropes includes nicotinamide, caffeine, sodium PCA, sodium salicylate, urea, and hydroxyethyl urea (see paragraph [0020] within Pan et al.). Therefore, a skilled artisan (POSITA; person of ordinary skill in the art) would consult the disclosures of Roudot et al. and Pan et al. to teach all the elements of instant claim 19. The remainder of the instant claims which are directly dependent on claim 19 are taught in full by the combination of Roudot et al. and Pan et al. Regarding instant claims 20 and 21, Roudot et al. and Pan et al. teach the composition of instant claim 19, wherein the at least one merocyanine of formula (I), E/E- or E/Z- geometric isomer thereof is chosen from compounds A-G. Roudot et al. disclose every compound but amide B (see p. 6-7, Table within Roudot et al.). [Compound 2 from the Table corresponds to the merocyanine of instant claim 21.] Regarding instant claim 22, Roudot et al. and Pan et al. teach wherein the total amount of merocyanine(s) of formula (I) ranges from 0.1 % to 25% by weight, relative to the total weight of the composition. Roudot et al. disclose the merocyanines of formula (1) according to the invention are preferably present in the compositions according to the invention in a concentration ranging from 0.1 % to 10% by weight and preferentially from 0.2% to 5% by weight relative to the total weight of the composition (see p. 7, ln. 12-15 within Roudot et al.). Regarding instant claims 23 and 25, Roudot et al. and Pan et al. teach wherein the at least one hydrotrope is chosen from nicotinamide, caffeine, or mixtures thereof. Pan et al. disclose the use of nicotinamide, caffeine, or mixtures thereof (see claim 5 within Pan et al.). Regarding instant claim 24, Roudot et al. and Pan et al. teach the desired hydrotrope group. Pan et al. disclose hydrotropes which align with more than two with the instant claim 24 members list (see paragraph [0036] within Pan et al.). Regarding instant claim 26, Roudot et al. and Pan et al. teach wherein the total amount of hydrotropes(s) ranges from 0.1 % to 20% by weight, relative to the total weight of the composition. Pan et al. disclose a non-limiting list of possible hydrotropes includes nicotinamide, caffeine, sodium PCA, sodium salicylate, urea, and hydroxyethyl urea. The total amount of the one or more hydrotropes in the composition may be about 0.001 wt. % to about 30 wt. %, based on the total weight of the composition (see paragraph [0020] within Pan et al.). Regarding instant claims 27 and 28, Roudot et al. and Pan et al. teach wherein the weight ratio of the total amount of merocyanine(s) of formula (I) to the total amount of hydrotrope(s) ranges from 1:100 to 8:1. Pan et al. disclose that one or more hydrotropes in the composition may be about 0.001 wt. % to about 30 wt. %, based on the total weight of the composition (see paragraph [0020] within Pan et al.), and the one or more UV filters (merocyanine) in the composition may be about 0.001 wt. % to about 30 wt. %, based on the total weight of the composition (see paragraph [0026] within Pan et al.). Therefore, the weight ratio of the total amount of merocyanine(s) of formula (I) to the total amount of hydrotrope(s) ranges from 30:0.001 to 0.001:30. Regarding instant claim 29, Roudot et al. and Pan et al. teach comprising two different hydrotropes chosen from nicotinamide and caffeine, wherein the weight ratio of the total amount of hydrotropes chosen from nicotinamide and the total amount of hydrotropes chosen from caffeine ranges from 1:5 to 5:1. Pan et al. disclose that one or more hydrotropes in the composition may be about 0.001 wt. % to about 30 wt. %, based on the total weight of the composition (see paragraph [0020] within Pan et al.). Therefore, a skilled artisan (POSITA) could select the weight ratio of the total amount of hydrotropes chosen from nicotinamide and the total amount of hydrotropes chosen from caffeine ranges from 1:5 to 5:1. Regarding instant claim 30, Roudot et al. and Pan et al. teach further comprising at least one alcohol. Roudot et al. disclose formulations that comprise an alcohol (see Examples 5-6 within Roudot et al.). Regarding instant claim 32, Roudot et al. and Pan et al. teach further comprising at least one polyol. Roudot et al. disclose that the aqueous phase of the formulations can comprise polyols (see p. 22, ln. 31 within Roudot et al.). Regarding instant claim 33, Roudot et al. and Pan et al. teach further comprising at least one fatty phase. Roudot et al. disclose that the oily phase of the formulations can comprise fatty acids (see p. 22, ln. 1 within Roudot et al.). Regarding instant claim 34, Roudot et al. and Pan et al. teach wherein the at least one merocyanine of formula (I) is a UV-screening agent, and wherein the composition is in an aqueous medium. Pan et al. disclose merocyanines as UV filtering agents (see claim 12 within Pan et al.). Furthermore, Roudot et al. disclose the use of an aqueous phase (see abstract within Pan et al.). Regarding instant claim 35, Roudot et al. and Pan et al. teach further comprising at least one additional UVscreening agent different from the at least one merocyanine of formula (I). Roudot et al. disclose further comprising at least one additional UVscreening agent different from the at least one merocyanine of formula (I) (see additional UV-screening agents on p. 23 within Roudot et al.). Regarding instant claim 36, Roudot et al. and Pan et al. teach wherein the salicylic acid salt is chosen from sodium salicylate, lysine salicylate, arginine salicylate, magnesium salicylate, or mixtures of two or more thereof. Pan et al. disclose the use of salicylic derivatives as UV filters (see claim 12 within Pan et al.). Therefore, a skilled artisan (POSITA) would encompass some if not all the instant claim 36 limitations. Regarding instant claim 37, Roudot et al. and Pan et al. teach wherein the composition is a composition for treating keratin materials. Roudot et al. disclose wherein the composition is a composition for treating keratin materials (see abstract within Roudot et al.). Regarding instant claim 38, Roudot et al. and Pan et al. teach a method for treating keratin materials, comprising applying to the keratin materials a composition of instant claim 1. Please see the discussion and citations within instant claim 1. Additionally, Roudot et al. disclose the application of this composition for the care of keratin materials (see abstract within Roudot et al.). Combination of Roudot et al., Pan et al., and Li Regarding instant claim 31, Roudot et al., Pan et al., and Li teach further comprising at least one alkylene carbonate. Li discloses the use of propylene carbonate to modify a lipophilic clay for the care of keratin materials (see abstract and p. 48, paragraphs 9 and 11 within Li). Analogous Art The Roudot et al., Pan et al., and Li references are directed to the same field of endeavor as the instant claims, that is, a composition comprising at least one merocyanine and at least one hydrotrope as disclosed within instant claim 1. Obviousness Analysis 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 merocyanine composition disclosed by Roudot et al., using the teachings of Pan et al., and in light of the claim specific example within Li in order to arrive at the subject matter of the instant claims. The Roudot et al., Pan et al., and Li references all have considerable overlap for merocyanine cosmetic formulations comprising hydrotropes. In this instance, Roudot et al. supplies the preparation of merocyanine cosmetics, Pan et al. supports the use of hydrotropes within their cosmetic formulation, while Li supplies the claim specific example using propylene carbonate. All references are directed to the preparation of cosmetics for the care of keratin materials and therefore constitute analogous art under MPEP §2141.01(a). A POSITA would have reasonably consulted the three references when seeking to develop a merocyanine composition comprising at least one hydrotrope. Starting with Roudot et al., the skilled person only had to try the necessary claim limitations disclosed by both Pan et al. and Li. The combination of Roudot et al., Pan et al., and Li would allow one to arrive at the present application without employing inventive skill. This combination of the merocyanine composition taught by Roudot et al. along with the use of the necessary claim limitations taught by both Pan et al. and Li. 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 merocyanine composition disclosed by Roudot et al. with the use of the necessary claim limitations taught by both Pan et al. and Li. Incorporating the disclosure of Roudot et al. into the modified merocyanine cosmetics taught by both Pan et al. and Li. 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 both Pan et al. and Li. would have been viewed by a POSITA as routine design optimizations or known modifications for merocyanine cosmetic compositions. Implementing these features in Roudot et al.’s merocyanine treatment for keratin materials would not require more than ordinary skill or routine experimentation. Accordingly, the combination of Roudot et al., supplemented by both Pan et al. and Li. provides all the elements of the claimed invention. The resulting merocyanine cosmetic composition 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. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 19-22 and 31 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-4, 18, and 21 of co-pending Application No. 18/706,178 (reference application) in view of Pan et al. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant claims and that of Application ‘178 encompass merocyanine cosmetics for the treatment of keratin materials. The difference between the instant claims and that of Application ‘178 is the presence of a hydrotrope. However, Pan et al. teach photo-stabilized compositions and methods of use (see title). Furthermore, Pan et al. disclose that the present disclosure relates to cosmetic compositions and methods of using the cosmetic compositions to benefit the skin. The cosmetic compositions typically include: (a) resveratrol, polydatin, or a mixture thereof; (b) bai calin; (c) optionally, one or more solubilizers; and (d) a cosmetically acceptable carrier. The compositions provide multiple benefits to skin. For example, the compositions are particularly useful for providing anti-aging benefits to skin, for whitening the skin, and for improving skin's appears (e.g., radiance and firmness) (see abstract). It would have been prima facie obvious to provide the hydrotropes with application ‘178 as part of the cosmetic formulation as suggested by Pan et al. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so as both Pan et al. and Application ‘178 are directed to merocyanine comprising cosmetics. This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 19-22, 31, and 35 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-4, 16, and 19-20 of co-pending Application No. 18/706,020 (reference application) in view of Pan et al. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant claims and that of Application ‘020 encompass merocyanine cosmetics for the treatment of keratin materials. The difference between the instant claims and that of Application ‘020 is the presence of a hydrotrope. However, Pan et al. teach photo-stabilized compositions and methods of use (see title). Furthermore, Pan et al. disclose that the present disclosure relates to cosmetic compositions and methods of using the cosmetic compositions to benefit the skin. The cosmetic compositions typically include: (a) resveratrol, polydatin, or a mixture thereof; (b) bai calin; (c) optionally, one or more solubilizers; and (d) a cosmetically acceptable carrier. The compositions provide multiple benefits to skin. For example, the compositions are particularly useful for providing anti-aging benefits to skin, for whitening the skin, and for improving skin's appears (e.g., radiance and firmness) (see abstract). It would have been prima facie obvious to provide the hydrotropes with application ‘020 as part of the cosmetic formulation as suggested by Pan et al. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so as both Pan et al. and Application ‘020 are directed to merocyanine comprising cosmetics. This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 19-24, 26, 30-32, 35, and 37 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-4, 8-14, and 16-20 of co-pending Application No. 18/706,437 (reference application) in view of Pan et al. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant claims and that of Application ‘437 encompass merocyanine cosmetics for the treatment of keratin materials. The difference between the instant claims and that of Application ‘437 is the presence of a hydrotrope. However, Pan et al. teach photo-stabilized compositions and methods of use (see title). Furthermore, Pan et al. disclose that the present disclosure relates to cosmetic compositions and methods of using the cosmetic compositions to benefit the skin. The cosmetic compositions typically include: (a) resveratrol, polydatin, or a mixture thereof; (b) bai calin; (c) optionally, one or more solubilizers; and (d) a cosmetically acceptable carrier. The compositions provide multiple benefits to skin. For example, the compositions are particularly useful for providing anti-aging benefits to skin, for whitening the skin, and for improving skin's appears (e.g., radiance and firmness) (see abstract). It would have been prima facie obvious to provide the hydrotropes with application ‘437 as part of the cosmetic formulation as suggested by Pan et al. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so as both Pan et al. and Application ‘437 are directed to merocyanine comprising cosmetics. This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion No claims are allowed. 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 Application/Control Number: 18/720,237 Page 2 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/720,237 Page 3 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/720,237 Page 4 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/720,237 Page 5 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/720,237 Page 6 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/720,237 Page 7 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/720,237 Page 8 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/720,237 Page 9 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/720,237 Page 10 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/720,237 Page 11 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/720,237 Page 12 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/720,237 Page 13 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/720,237 Page 14 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/720,237 Page 15 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/720,237 Page 16 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/720,237 Page 17 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/720,237 Page 18 Art Unit: 1615
Prosecution Insights