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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Formal Matters
Claims 1-16 are pending and under examination.
Priority
This application is a continuation of 17/885,065 filed on 8/10/2022, which is a continuation of 17/108,988 filed on 12/1/2020, which is a continuation of 16/356,689 filed on 3/18/2019, which is a continuation of 15/799,507 filed on 10/31/2017, which is a continuation of 14/959,893 filed on 12/4/2015, which claims priority from US provisional application 62/087,658 filed on 12/4/2014.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements from 7/22/2024 and 9/26/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objection
Claim 1 is objected to for the misspelling of “sterate” which needs to be “stearate”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-16 are 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation sunflower, and the claim also recites (helianthus annuus) (one particular species of sunflower) which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Applicant may remove the “(helianthus annuus)” from the claim.
Claims 2-16 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claims.
Claim 4 is indefinite because it is not clear if this is supposed to be toward an active step of “applying the composition to hyperpigmented skin” and further if the hyperpigmented skin should also have fine lines or wrinkles since claim 1, on which claim 4 depends, has the composition being applied to fine lines or wrinkles. It is unclear if applicant might be trying to perform the method to do both functions simultaneously or is trying to introduce a different method to the one that was introduced in claim 1. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner will consider that both “fine lines or wrinkles” and “hyperpigmented skin” must be present.
Claim 5 is rejected as being dependent on an indefinite claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the menyanthes trifoliata extract" in the claim with dependent to claim 1, which does not include a menyanthes trifoliata extract. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this claim should be dependent on claim 12 where a menyanthes trifoliata extract is introduced.
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) 1-3, 6, 7, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by L’Occitane (Immortelle Divine Cream, (first review 15 years ago (around 2011), https://au.loccitane.com/immortelle-divine-cream-27DC050I23.html?srsltid=AfmBOoo91EYgpe1WCVVxyeaj0bXeM_FRtQ-ZfMlt9CHjdvgGEVYNRRsj) as evidenced by Sicka than average (Why the L’Occitane Immortelle Divine Skincare Range is a Miracle Worker, March 11, 2014, https://sickathanaverage.com/why-the-loccitane-immortelle-divine-skincare-range-is-a-miracle-worker/).
L’Occitane teaches a cream (a type of emulsion) composition with anti-aging properties that helps target wrinkles and uneven skin tone. L’Occitane teaches the application area being skin on face and neck (Application area). L’Occitane teaches its ingredients are “AQUA/WATER - C12-15 ALKYL BENZOATE - CAPRYLIC/CAPRIC TRIGLYCERIDE - GLYCERIN - OENOTHERA BIENNIS (EVENING PRIMROSE) OIL - PENTYLENE GLYCOL - CETEARYL ALCOHOL - DIMETHICONE - TAPIOCA STARCH - ASCORBYL GLUCOSIDE - GLYCERYL STEARATE - HYDROXYETHYL ACRYLATE/SODIUM ACRYLOYLDIMETHYL TAURATE COPOLYMER - CAMELINA SATIVA SEED OIL - CETYL ALCOHOL - BELLIS PERENNIS (DAISY) FLOWER EXTRACT - LANSIUM DOMESTICUM LEAF EXTRACT - HELICHRYSUM ITALICUM EXTRACT - HELICHRYSUM ITALICUM FLOWER/STEM EXTRACT - ECHIUM PLANTAGINEUM SEED OIL - HELICHRYSUM ITALICUM FLOWER OIL - MYRTUS COMMUNIS OIL - BORAGO OFFICINALIS SEED OIL - HELIANTHUS ANNUUS (SUNFLOWER) SEED OIL - ADENOSINE - SODIUM HYALURONATE - PEG-100 STEARATE - SUCROSE PALMITATE - CETEARYL GLUCOSIDE - TOCOPHERYL ACETATE - SODIUM CITRATE - SODIUM HYDROXIDE - MALTODEXTRIN - ETHYLHEXYLGLYCERIN - GLYCERYL LINOLEATE - STEARIC ACID - PALMITIC ACID - DISODIUM EDTA - SORBITAN ISOSTEARATE - POLYSORBATE 60 - ZINC GLUCONATE - MAGNESIUM ASPARTATE - CITRIC ACID - COPPER GLUCONATE - TOCOPHEROL - POTASSIUM PHOSPHATE - POTASSIUM CHLORIDE - DISODIUM PHOSPHATE - SODIUM CHLORIDE - POTASSIUM SORBATE - SODIUM BENZOATE - CHLORPHENESIN - PARFUM/FRAGRANCE - PHENETHYL ALCOHOL - CETYL PALMITATE - BENZYL ALCOHOL - BENZYL SALICYLATE - COUMARIN - CITRAL - GERANIOL - LIMONENE – LINALOOL” (Ingredients, INCI List). Sicka the average also evidences that this product (Divine Cream) was available on March 11, 2014 and even provides that it was launched in the US in late 2013.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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(a) 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.
Claims 4, 5 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over L’Occitane (Immortelle Divine Cream, (first review 15 years ago (around 2011), https://au.loccitane.com/immortelle-divine-cream-27DC050I23.html?srsltid=AfmBOoo91EYgpe1WCVVxyeaj0bXeM_FRtQ-ZfMlt9CHjdvgGEVYNRRsj) and WO2011049273A1 (with Google English translation) as evidenced by Sicka than average (Why the L’Occitane Immortelle Divine Skincare Range is a Miracle Worker, March 11, 2014, https://sickathanaverage.com/why-the-loccitane-immortelle-divine-skincare-range-is-a-miracle-worker/).
L'Occitane teaches the claims as discussed above.
L’Occitane does not teach treating hyperpigmentation like dark spots from aging or different forms of the composition.
WO ‘273 teaches a composition with saponified evening primrose seed oil as the active ingredient to inhibit melanin production and help whiten the skin (abstract). WO ‘273 teaches the skin pigmentation disease occurs locally on the skin due to the increased synthesis of melanin pigment, hyperpigmentation in spots (English translation of WO ‘273 and claims of WO ‘273). WO ‘273 provides forms of the composition including lotions, creams, emulsions and gels (claims of WO ‘273).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have used the formulation of L’Occitane that contains evening primrose oil to include saponified evening primrose oil for skin compositions of WO ‘273, which will also make the formulation additionally useful to treat dark spots on the skin. There would be a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of the references and obtaining a skin care formulation that has evening primrose oil that makes it additionally capable of treating dark (hyperpigmented) spots when applied thereto. In regards to the spots being the result of aging, WO ‘273’s teaching of a skin whitening product will be useful for dark spots of all types.
Claims 8, 10-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over L’Occitane (Immortelle Divine Cream, (first review 15 years ago (around 2011), https://au.loccitane.com/immortelle-divine-cream-27DC050I23.html?srsltid=AfmBOoo91EYgpe1WCVVxyeaj0bXeM_FRtQ-ZfMlt9CHjdvgGEVYNRRsj) and Fructus FR2940124A1 (2010, with Google English translation) as evidenced by Sicka than average (Why the L’Occitane Immortelle Divine Skincare Range is a Miracle Worker, March 11, 2014, https://sickathanaverage.com/why-the-loccitane-immortelle-divine-skincare-range-is-a-miracle-worker/).
L'Occitane teaches the claims as discussed above.
L’Occitane does not teach amounts of OENOTHERA BIENNIS (EVENING PRIMROSE) OIL or the other composition forms of the claims.
Fructus provides for an anti-wrinkle facial care cream that contains (in g): fatty phase comprising cetostearyl alcohol (4), auto emulsionable cetostearyl alcohol (2), caprylic/capric triglyceride (5) and isononyl isononanoate (3); aqueous phase comprising Evening primrose oil (2), omega -6 ceramide of primrose (0.1), extract of Commiphora mukul (1) and tocopherol acetate (0.4); glycerin (2); disodium EDTA (0.1); preservative (0.5); carbomer (0.3); and deionized water (sufficient quantity to make 100 g) (example 1 of Fructus). Fructus teaches forms of emulsions, lotions, gels, creams, solutions, and oil-in-water emulsions (see claims of Fructus in English translation).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have produced other forms of L’Occitanes ingredients as well as using the amount of 2% evening primrose oil in a composition that treats wrinkles by the teachings of Fructus while also using other appropriate cosmetic forms for such compositions that can be applied to skin. Therefore, there was a reasonable expectation of success in producing the methods and compositions of applicant’s claims when combining the teachings of L’Occitanes which teaches a wrinkle treating composition of all the ingredients of claims 1 and 2 with the teachings of Fructus which also provides for an anti-wrinkle cream with evening primrose oil and shared ingredients including caprylic/capric triglyceride, tocopherol acetate, glycerin and disodium EDTA. There would be a reasonable expectation of using the known concentrations and known topical/cosmetic forms of the prior art to make other compositions that will reasonably treat wrinkles.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over L’Occitane (Immortelle Divine Cream, (first review 15 years ago (around 2011), https://au.loccitane.com/immortelle-divine-cream-27DC050I23.html?srsltid=AfmBOoo91EYgpe1WCVVxyeaj0bXeM_FRtQ-ZfMlt9CHjdvgGEVYNRRsj) and Corstjens US20110033397A1 as evidenced by Sicka than average (Why the L’Occitane Immortelle Divine Skincare Range is a Miracle Worker, March 11, 2014, https://sickathanaverage.com/why-the-loccitane-immortelle-divine-skincare-range-is-a-miracle-worker/).
L'Occitane teach the claims as discussed above.
L’Occitane do not teach Menyanthes Trifoliata Leaf Extract or the amount thereof.
Corstjens teaches an anti-aging composition comprising a skin-beneficial amount of actives identified in Menyanthes trifoliata leaf, wherein the actives are inhibitors of one or more of MMP-1, 2 and 9 and/or scavengers of peroxynitrite (abstract). Corstjens teaches “0.001% to 20% by weight of one or more Menyanthes trifoliata leaf extracts” (claim 8 of Corstjens and paragraph 31). Corstjens teaches skin care lotions and creams with the product and provides for other ingredients including moisturizers, emollients, humectants, oils, fats, waxes, esters, fatty acid alcohols, fatty acid ethoxylates, glycols, sugars, hyaluronic acid and hyaluronates, dimethicone, cyclomethicone and the like (paragraph 38). Corstjens teaches “The formulation may also comprise components that are chosen depending on the carrier and/or the intended use of the formulation. Additional components include, but are not limited to antioxidants, chelating agents, emulsion stabilizers, preservatives, fragrances, flavoring agents, humectants, waterproofing agents, water soluble film-formers, oil-soluble film formers, moisturizing agents, such as cholesterol, cationic polymers, anionic polymers, vitamins, propellants and the like” (paragraph 36). Corstjens teaches improving or eradicating age spots, keratoses and wrinkles (paragraph 37). Corstjens teaches various forms of the formulation like gels, creams, lotions, tonics and sprays (paragraph 35). Corstjens teaches emulsions (paragraph 34). Corstjens teaches topically applying composition to the skin (paragraphs 39-40).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have including Menyanthes trifoliata leaf extract in amounts from 0.001 to 20% by weight into skin benefit compositions of the prior art as it is seen to have activities that are beneficial to skin. Thus, there was a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of the prior art to produce another suitable method of treating skin with additional beneficial skin anti-aging treatment actives of the prior art.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over L’Occitane (Immortelle Divine Cream, (first review 15 years ago from download date of 5/30/2026 (approximately 2011), https://au.loccitane.com/immortelle-divine-cream-27DC050I23.html?srsltid=AfmBOoo91EYgpe1WCVVxyeaj0bXeM_FRtQ-ZfMlt9CHjdvgGEVYNRRsj) and Galey US20040146474A1 as evidenced by Sicka than average (Why the L’Occitane Immortelle Divine Skincare Range is a Miracle Worker, March 11, 2014, https://sickathanaverage.com/why-the-loccitane-immortelle-divine-skincare-range-is-a-miracle-worker/).
L'Occitane teaches the claims as discussed above.
L’Occitane does not teach the amount of adenosine in its formulation.
Galey teaches a method for softening lines and/or relaxing the skin and/or relaxing facial features, comprising topically applying to the skin a composition comprising at least one compound selected from the group consisting of adenosine and adenosine analogues, in a physiologically acceptable medium (abstract and claim 1 of Galey and paragraphs 5-6). Galey teaches 0.01 to 1% by weight adenosine (claim 4 of Galey).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have seen amounts of the adenosine in Galey as useful for anti-wrinkle formulations and incorporated them into the adenosine containing formulation of L’Occitane which is also for skin care and wrinkle treatment. There was a reasonable expectation of success in using such amounts of adenosine in Galey in anti-wrinkle formulations and obtaining a successful anti-wrinkle formulation.
Claims 1-11, 14, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ramirez US20150366784A1 (effective filing date of June 4, 2014 based on US provisional application, different inventors) and Hood US20160206540A1 (effective filing date of August 20, 2014).
Ramirez teaches “the compositions can be used to treat or prevent a fine line or wrinkle” (paragraphs 19 and 90-91 and 96-97). Ramirez teaches dark spots and lightening of dark spots (paragraphs 87 and 107). Ramirez teaches effects on skin tone (paragraphs 85-87). Ramirez teaches topically applying an effective amount to cause actions like increasing collagen synthesis, increasing antioxidant defense, inhibiting melanin production and preventing oxidative damage to skin in treating skin conditions (paragraph 19). Ramirez teaches applying the multipurpose composition to the skin (claim 11 of Ramirez). Ramirez teaches “cosmetic compositions described herein are a combination of conditioning agents, thickening agents, fragrances, UV absorption agents, pH adjusters, moisturizing agents, preservatives, and salts” and also they are for treating skin (abstract). Ramirez teaches a formulation with dimethicone, tocopherol acetate, sunflower seed oil and excipients (table 2). Ramirez teaches “In some embodiments, the topical composition further comprises one or more additional ingredients selected from one or more conditioning agents, preservatives, pH adjusters, chelating agents, structuring agents, and thickening agents” (paragraph 11 and abstract). Ramirez teaches Oenothera biennis (evening primrose) oil as an essential oil, which is a type of extract (paragraphs 46 and 58). Ramirez teaches “caprylic/capric triglyceride” as a conditioning agent (paragraphs 69-70). Ramirez teaches glycerin as a solvent and cosmetic ingredient (paragraphs 9, 10 and 41). Ramirez teaches glyceryl stearate and PEG-100 glyceryl stearate as emulsifiers (paragraph 52). Ramirez allows for polymer structuring agents like “ammonium acryloyldimethyltaurate/carboxyethyl acrylate crosspolymer”, cetyl alcohol, stearic acid, and palmitic acid (paragraphs 50 and 11). Cetyl alcohol and ammonium acryloydimethyltaurate/VP copolymer are provided as thickening agents (paragraph 66). Hyaluronic acid is taught as a cosmetic ingredient and conditioning agent (paragraphs 41 and 70). Cetyl palmitate is provided as a moisturizing agent (paragraphs 44-46). Ethylhexyl glycerin is provided as a preservative (paragraph 68). Disodium EDTA is provided as a chelating agent and cosmetic ingredient (paragraph 41). Polysorbate 60 is provided as an emulsifier and moisturizing agent (paragraphs 46 and 52). Citric acid is provided as a pH adjuster (paragraph 41). Sodium benzoate is a preservative (paragraph 68). Tocopherol is provided as a conditioning agent (paragraph 70) and antioxidant (paragraph 41). Benzyl salicylate is a UV absorber (paragraph 43). MMP3 assays and laminin and collagen as an MMP3 substrates are provided (paragraph 105, also paragraph 109 for collagen stimulation). It is provided that the compositions will increase collagen synthesis (paragraph 19). Ramirez teaches forms of emulsions and lotions (paragraphs 8-9). Ramirez teaches oil-in-water emulsions, creams, lotions, solutions and gels as vehicles for the compositions (paragraphs 36 and 38). Ramirez teaches concentrations of ingredients including endpoints of 0.0010% and 5.0% as well as values in between such as 1.0% and others (paragraph 34).
Ramirez does not teach adenosine, cetearyl alcohol, hydroxyethyl acrylate/sodium acryloyldimethyl taurate copolymer, cetearyl glucoside and menyanthes trifoliata extract. Ramirez teaches hyaluronic acid but does not provide its salt sodium hyaluronate.
Hood teaches “methods for using the compounds or compositions for treating, protecting, and/or improving the condition and/or aesthetic appearance of skin, for example, treating, preventing, ameliorating, reducing and/or eliminating fine lines and/or wrinkles of skin, or improving the appearance of fine lines and/or or wrinkles of skin comprising application of the compounds or compositions” (abstract). Hood teaches adenosine as an anti-irritant (paragraph 1815). Hood teaches cetearyl alcohol as an emollient and thickener (paragraphs 1824 and 1847). Hood teaches hydroxyethyl acrylate/sodium acryloyldimethyl taurate copolymer as a thickener (paragraph 1847). Cetearyl glucoside is a thickener is Hood (paragraph 1847). Glucosides are also provided as surfactants in Hood (paragraph 1845). Hood teaches evening primrose oil as an emollient (paragraphs 1815 and 1823-1824). Hood teaches sodium hyaluronate and hyaluronic acid as skin repairing agents (paragraph 1838). Hood teaches penetration enhancers including fatty alcohols, complexing agents, surfactants such as tweens, sodium hyaluronate, and solvents such as glycols, glycerols, tween 20 and others (paragraphs 1848-1858). Hood teaches citric acid as an exfoliant (paragraph 1830). Hood teaches tocopherol as an antioxidant (paragraph 1820). Paragraph 1809 of Hood provides for various ingredients of a cosmetic or dermopharmaceutical composition.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have combined known methods, topical skin application, and ingredients with uses in skin cosmetic formulations of Ramirez and Hood with the reasonable expectation of success in combining the ingredients by known means to obtain cosmetic compositions for treating wrinkles, fine lines and dark spots on skin. There was a reasonable expectation of success in combining the ingredients and application steps for their known cosmetic purposes in the prior art to produce methods with compositions as in applicant’s claims. The prior art provides for amounts and overlapping amounts of its ingredients that would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to work within such ranges to provide claimed methods.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ramirez US20150366784A1 (effective filing date of June 4, 2014 based on US provisional application), Hood US20160206540A1 (effective filing date of August 20, 2014) and Corstjens US20110033397A1.
Ramirez and Hood teach the claims as discussed above.
Ramirez and Hood do not teach Menyanthes Trifoliata Leaf Extract or the amount thereof.
Corstjens teaches an anti-aging composition comprising a skin-beneficial amount of actives identified in Menyanthes trifoliata leaf, wherein the actives are inhibitors of one or more of MMP-1, 2 and 9 and/or scavengers of peroxynitrite (abstract). Corstjens teaches “0.001% to 20% by weight of one or more Menyanthes trifoliata leaf extracts” (claim 8 of Corstjens). Corstjens teaches skin care lotions and creams with the product and provides for other ingredients including moisturizers, emollients, humectants, oils, fats, waxes, esters, fatty acid alcohols, fatty acid ethoxylates, glycols, sugars, hyaluronic acid and hyaluronates, dimethicone, cyclomethicone and the like (paragraph 38). Corstjens teaches “The formulation may also comprise components that are chosen depending on the carrier and/or the intended use of the formulation. Additional components include, but are not limited to antioxidants, chelating agents, emulsion stabilizers, preservatives, fragrances, flavoring agents, humectants, waterproofing agents, water soluble film-formers, oil-soluble film formers, moisturizing agents, such as cholesterol, cationic polymers, anionic polymers, vitamins, propellants and the like” (paragraph 36). Corstjens teaches improving or eradicating age spots, keratoses and wrinkles (paragraph 37). Corstjens teaches various forms of the formulation like gels, creams, lotions, tonics and sprays (paragraph 35). Corstjens teaches emulsions (paragraph 34). Corstjens teaches topically applying composition to the skin (paragraphs 39-40).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have including Menyanthes trifoliata leaf extract in amounts from 0.001 to 20% by weight of Corstjens into skin benefit compositions of the prior art as it is seen to have activities that are beneficial to skin. Thus, there was a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of the prior art to produce another suitable method of treating skin with additional beneficial skin anti-aging treatment actives of the prior art.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK V STEVENS whose telephone number is (571)270-7080. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 am to 6:00 pm EST.
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, Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached on (571)272-0581. 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.
/MARK V STEVENS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613
Prosecution Insights