DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-17 and 25-27 are pending.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-17 and 25-27 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.
Regarding Claim 1:
The claim states “at least about 15%...at least about 10%...” The phrase “at least about” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if it is open to concentrations less than 15% if they are about 15%.
Regarding Claim 4:
The claim states “active agent comprises…a surfactant…a fragrance…”. This limitations renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if the “active agent” is required to be distinct from the fragrance or surfactant optionally required by claim 1. The limitation is further indefitne because “active agent” is not preceded by a definite article such as “the”. Therefore it is not clear if the active agent of claim 4 is in additional to or further limiting the active agent of claim 1.
Regarding Claims 9-15:
The claims limit the “skin oil”, “fragrance”, “surfactant”, and “adjuvant”, however these limitations are only required in the alternative in claim 1. It is therefore not clear if they are being required in the respective claims or only limited when present.
Regarding claim 16:
The claim requires “aluminum sulfate”, “citric acid”, “sodium bicarbonate”, and “shea butter”. It is not clear if these features are further limiting the active agent, organic acid, carbonate, and skin oil respectively, or in addition to them.
The claim refers to “a fragrance” and “a surfactant”. Claim 1 already provides antecedent basis for these limitations. It is therefore not clear if they are additional, or further limiting.
Regarding Claim 17:
Claim 17 is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 16, additionally it is not claim is the copper sulfate of option (c) is equivalent to the active agent.
Regarding options (d), (e), and (f) it is not clear if the active agent is being required, if it is limited to the fragrance or surfactant or something else.
The remaining claims are indefinite as they depend from an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8, 12, 13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rau (USPN 6,121,215).
Regarding Claim 1:
Rau teaches the rapidly disintegrating buoyant composition (product floats) (see col. 4 lines 65-67), comprising: a) an active agent (surfactant) (see col. 6 lines 40-50), b) at least about 15% w/w of an organic acid (25% citric acid) (see col. 6 lines 40-50), c) at least about 10% w/w of a carbonate (70% sodium bicarbonate) (see col. 6 lines 40-50, and d) about 1% w/w to about 30% w/w of a skin oil, a fragrance (1% fragrance) (see (col. 6 lines 40-50), a surfactant, an adjuvant, or a combination thereof.
Regarding Claim 2:
Rau teaches the rapidly disintegrating buoyant composition of claim 1, wherein the rapidly disintegrating buoyant composition has an equivalent ratio of the organic acid to the carbonate of from about 0.3 to about 1.1 (25% citric acid to 70% sodium bicarbonate is about 0.4) (see col. 6 lines 40-45).
Regarding Claim 4:
Rau teaches the rapidly disintegrating buoyant composition of claim 1, wherein active agent comprises a clarifier, an algicide, a phosphate removal composition, a surfactant (see col. 6 lines 40-50), an enzyme, a purifying agent, a scale reducing agent, a flocculant, a chelating agent, alkalinity stabilizing agent, non-chlorine oxidant, a fragrance, a dye, a water stabilizer/conditioner, a calcium hardness adjusting agent, a buffering agent, a cyanuric acid removal agent, a chlorine and/or chloramine reducing agent, or a combination thereof.
Regarding Claim 5:
Rau teaches the rapidly disintegrating buoyant composition of claim 1, wherein the organic acid comprises aconitic acid, adipic acid, ascorbic acid, benzoic acid, citric acid (see col. 6 lines 40-50), gluconic acid, glutaric acid, glyceric acid, lactic acid, malic acid, malonic acid, succinic acid, tartaric acid, or a combination thereof.
Regarding Claim 6:
Rau teaches the rapidly disintegrating buoyant composition of claim 1, wherein the organic acid is present in an amount of from about 20% w/w to about 75% w/w (25% citric acid) (see col. 6 lines 40-50).
Regarding Claim 7:
Rau teaches the rapidly disintegrating buoyant composition of claim 1, wherein the carbonate comprises a bicarbonate (sodium bicarbonate), a carbonate, a sesquicarbonate, or a combination thereof.
Regarding Claim 8:
Rau teaches the rapidly disintegrating buoyant composition of claim 1, wherein the carbonate is present in an amount of from about 10% w/w to about 75% w/w (70% sodium bicarbonate) (see col. 6 lines 40-50).
Regarding Claim 12:
Rau teaches the rapidly disintegrating buoyant composition of claim 1, wherein the surfactant comprises a non-ionic surfactant, a cationic surfactant, an anionic surfactant (see col. 5 lines 44-45), a zwitterionic surfactant, an N-oxide surfactant, or a combination thereof.
Regarding Claim 13:
Rau teaches the rapidly disintegrating buoyant composition of claim 1, wherein the surfactant ranges of from about 1% w/w to about 5% w/w (4%) (see col. 6 lines 40-50).
Regarding claim 15:
Rau teaches the rapidly disintegrating buoyant composition of claim 1, the adjuvant ranges from about 0% w/w to about 30% w/w (Rau does not teach any adjuvant, therefore the concentration is about 0%).
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 nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3, 11, 25, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rau (USPN 6,121,215).
Regarding Claim 3:
Rau teaches the rapidly disintegrating buoyant composition of claim 1, wherein the rapidly disintegrating buoyant composition has an equivalent ratio of the organic acid to the carbonate of about 0.4 (see col. 6 lines 40-50). Rau further teaches that the combination of acidic to alkaline material can be varied dependent on the desired pH (see col. 5 lines 25-27). Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to adjust the equivalent ratio and use a ratio from about 0.6 to about 1.1 in order to optimize the pH. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding Claim 11:
Rau teaches the rapidly disintegrating buoyant composition of claim 1, wherein the fragrance ranges from about 0% to 10% (see col. 6 lines 4-6). Given that the prior art range of 0% to 10% encompasses the claimed range of 1% w/w to about 5% w/w a prima facie case of obviousness exists and one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to use a concentration within the claimed range (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 25:
Rau teaches the process for preparing a rapidly disintegrating buoyant composition of claim 1, which comprises: (i) mixing the stated ingredients a)-d) to obtain a mixed composition, (ii) spraying the mixed composition with a solution to obtain a moistened solid mixture (sprayed with distilled water) (see col. 7 lines 22-25), (iii) blending the moistened solid mixture to obtain a mixed solid mixture, (iv) adding a portion of the mixed solid mixture to a mold (spherical molds) to obtain a molded, mixed solid mixture (see col. 7 lines 46-48); and (iv) drying the shaped composition (equilibrate) to obtain a shaped rapidly dissolving buoyant composition (see col. 7 lines 46-48).
Rau does not teach (v) applying a pressure of about 60 psi to about 500 psi to the molded, mixed solid mixture to obtain a shaped composition. Rau further teaches applying 7000 psi to the mixture (see col. 7 line 67-col. 8 line 20) and that the density of the object was less effective (see col. 8 lines 45-50). Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to adjust the pressure are try between 60 and 500 psi. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding Claim 26:
Rau teaches the shaped composition (balls) prepared by the process of claim 25 (see col. 7 lines 19-21).
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rau (USPN 6,121,215) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Basilan (WO 2020/210184).
Regarding Claim 9:
Rau teaches the rapidly disintegrating buoyant composition of claim 1, wherein eh composition comprises skin conditioning agents (humectants and emollients) (see col. 5 lines 16-20).
Rau does not teach a skin oil comprises an avocado butter, an avocado oil, an almond butter, an almond oil, an olive butter, an olive oil, a shea butter, a shea oil, a cocoa butter, a cocoa oil, a coconut butter, a coconut oil, or a combination thereof.
Basilan teaches a fast dissolving composition (see abstract) comprising shea butter (see para. 0031).
Rau and Basilan are analogous inventions in the art of dissolving tablets. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the shea butter of Basilan to the composition of Rau because it is the simple addition of a known skin conditioning compound to a known composition, obviously resulting skin conditioning with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
__,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 10:
Rau teaches the rapidly disintegrating buoyant composition of claim 1, wherein eh composition comprises skin conditioning agents (humectants and emollients) (see col. 5 lines 16-20).
Rau does not teach a skin oil or a skin oil concentration ranges from about 1% w/t to about 5% w/w. Rau further teaches that fragrance, colorants, humectants, and emollients may be present in about 0 to 10 % (see col. 6 lines 4-6)
Basilan teaches a fast dissolving composition (see abstract) comprising skin oil (shea butter) (see para. 0031).
Rau and Basilan are analogous inventions in the art of dissolving tablets. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the shea butter of Basilan to the composition of Rau because it is the simple addition of a known skin conditioning compound to a known composition, obviously resulting skin conditioning with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
__,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.). It would have further been obvious to use about 1% to about 5% skin oil because it is within the range of additives that Rau is open to (see Rau col. 6 lines 4-6) and through routine experimentation one skilled in the art would have found a workable range. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim(s) 14 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rau (USPN 6,121,215) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of de Rijk (US 2008/0035580).
Regarding Claim 14:
Rau teaches the rapidly disintegrating buoyant composition of claim 1.
Rau does not teach an adjuvant comprises sodium gluconate, edetic acid, a salt of edetic acid, a N-(1- carboxyethyl)-iminodiacetic acid, a salt of N-(1-carboxyethyl)-iminodiacetic acid, a salt of aconitic acid, a salt of adipic acid, a salt of ascorbic acid, a salt of benzoic acid, a salt of citric acid, a salt of gluconic acid, a salt of glutaric acid, a salt of glyceric acid, a salt of lactic acid, a salt of malic acid, a salt of malonic acid, a salt of succinic acid, a salt of tartaric acid, or a combination thereof.
De Rijk teaches a composition for treating water comprising an adjuvant selected from a salt of gluconic acid (see para. 0154).
Rau and de Rijk are analogous inventions in the art of water treatments/additives. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the salt of a gluconic acid of de Rijk to the composition of Rau because it provides metal chelation functions and can help prevent iron oxide staining (see de Rijk para. 0154) and because it is the simple addition of a known additive to a known composition, obviously resulting in additional activity to the compound with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 27:
Rau teaches the method for treating a water system, which comprises: adding the rapidly disintegrating buoyant compositions of claim 1 to the water of the water system (adding to bath) (see col. 4 line 60-col. 5 line 5).
Rau does not teach that the water system is recirculating.
De Rijk teaches adding a composition to a recirculating water system (hot tub or pool) (see Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to add the composition of Rau to a recirculating water system, as disclosed by de Rijk because through routine experimentation one skilled in the art would have found appropriate uses for the known compound. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rau (USPN 6,121,215) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Basilan (WO 2020/210184) and Moore et al (US 2008/0000838).
Regarding Claim 16:
Rau teaches the rapidly disintegrating buoyant composition of claim 1 comprising, citric acid in an amount of from about 23% w/w to about 47% w/w (25 %) (see col. 6 lines 40-50), sodium bicarbonate (see col. 6 lines 40-50), a fragrance in an amount of about 0.9% w/w (1%) (see col. 6 lines 40-50), and a surfactant (see col. 6 lines 40-50)
Rau does not teach an aluminum sulfate in an amount of about 19.5% w/w, the amount of sodium bicarbonate in an amount from about 32% w/w to about 56% w/w, shea butter in an amount of about 0.5% w/w, the surfactant in an amount of about 0.3% w/w, or wherein the equivalent ratio of citric acid to carbonate ranges from about 0.3 to about 1.1.
Rau further teaches that the combination of acidic to alkaline material can be varied dependent on the desired pH (see col. 5 lines 25-27). Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to adjust the equivalent ratio and use a ratio from about 0.3 to about 1.1 in order to optimize the pH. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). It would further be obvious that the amount of sodium bicarbonate is from about 32% to about 56 % w/w when the equivalent ratio is from about 0.3 to about 1.1 because the concentration and ratio are mathematically related.
Rau further teaches that the surfactant concentration can vary (see col. 6 lines 1-2) and that different surfactants have different effectiveness (see col. 6-col. 7 surfactant table). It would therefore have been obvious to one skilled in the art to adjust the surfactant concentration and use a concentration of about 0.3% w/w dependent on the type of surfactant in order to optimize the associated foaming. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Basilan teaches a fast dissolving composition (see abstract) comprising skin oil (shea butter) (see para. 0031).
Rau and Basilan are analogous inventions in the art of dissolving tablets. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the shea butter of Basilan to the composition of Rau because it is the simple addition of a known skin conditioning compound to a known composition, obviously resulting skin conditioning with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
__,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.). It would have further been obvious to use about 0.5% shea butter because it is within the range of additives that Rau is open to (see Rau col. 6 lines 4-6) and through routine experimentation one skilled in the art would have found a workable range. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Moore teaches a water treatment compound comprising 10 to 20% aluminum sulfate. Given that the prior art range include the claimed value of 19.5% w/w it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to select a concentration of 19.5%. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Rau, as modified, and Moore are analogous inventions in the art of compositions added to bodies of water. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the aluminum sulfate of Moore to the composition of Rau because it is the simple addition of a known compound to a known composition, obviously resulting flocculation occurring (see Moore para. 0018) with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 17:
Rau teaches the rapidly disintegrating buoyant composition of claim 1 comprising, citric acid (see col. 6 lines 40-50), sodium bicarbonate (see col. 6 lines 40-50), a fragrance in an amount of about 1% w/w (1%) (see col. 6 lines 40-50), and a surfactant (see col. 6 lines 40-50)
Rau does not teach an aluminum sulfate in an amount of about 19.5% w/w, the amount of citric acid is 12.6% w/w, the amount of sodium bicarbonate 66.1% w/w, shea butter in an amount of about 0.5% w/w, the surfactant in an amount of about 0.3% w/w.
Rau teaches the acid component is present in an amount of 2-50% (see col. 5 lines 49-50) and the bicarbonates is present in an amount of 35-95% (see col. 6 lines 1-4). Rau further teaches that the amount of acid to carbonate can be varied dependent on the desire pH (see col. 5 lined 25-28). Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to adjust the citric acid concentration to about 12.6% and the sodium bicarbonate to about 66.1% in order to optimize the pH of the composition. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Rau further teaches that the surfactant concentration can vary (see col. 6 lines 1-2) and that different surfactants have different effectiveness (see col. 6-col. 7 surfactant table). It would therefore have been obvious to one skilled in the art to adjust the surfactant concentration and use a concentration of about 0.3% w/w dependent on the type of surfactant in order to optimize the associated foaming. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Basilan teaches a fast dissolving composition (see abstract) comprising skin oil (shea butter) (see para. 0031).
Rau and Basilan are analogous inventions in the art of dissolving tablets. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the shea butter of Basilan to the composition of Rau because it is the simple addition of a known skin conditioning compound to a known composition, obviously resulting skin conditioning with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
__,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.). It would have further been obvious to use about 0.5% shea butter because it is within the range of additives that Rau is open to (see Rau col. 6 lines 4-6) and through routine experimentation one skilled in the art would have found a workable range. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Moore teaches a water treatment compound comprising 10 to 20% aluminum sulfate. Given that the prior art range include the claimed value of 19.5% w/w it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to select a concentration of 19.5%. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Rau, as modified, and Moore are analogous inventions in the art of compositions added to bodies of water. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the aluminum sulfate of Moore to the composition of Rau because it is the simple addition of a known compound to a known composition, obviously resulting flocculation occurring (see Moore para. 0018) with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Options (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) are provided in the alternative, therefore only option (a) is addressed in the rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5133. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5 F: 8-12.
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, Ramdhanie Bobby can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/CLAIRE A NORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 6/25/2026
Prosecution Insights