DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendments
The amendment, filed on 8/31/2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 5-6, 8, 10, 12, 16-18, and 20-21 are amended.
Claims 11 and 19 are canceled.
Claims 4 and 21-26 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-18, and 20 are pending and under consideration in the instant Office Action, to the extent of the elected species:
The dendrimer of hyperbranched compound is poly-L-lysine
The surfactant is lauryl glucoside
The aldehyde-bearing compound (ABC) is vanillin
The organic acid is acetic acid/glacial acetic acid
Objections Withdrawn
The objection of claims 8 and 16 for improper Markush language, specifically the use of “or” instead of “and” is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Rejections Withdrawn
The rejection of claims 5-7, 10-11, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112 as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savaides et al. (US20170360679A1) in view of Mueller-Cristadoro et al. (US20210000734A1) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 11 and 19 under 25. U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savaides et al. (US20170360679A1) in view of Mueller-Cristadoro et al. US20210000734A1) and Kroger Lyons (US20160143834A1) is withdrawn in view of the cancellation of the claims.
Maintained Rejections
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 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 interpretation note: The recitation of “application and rinsing of the primer followed by application of the chitosan complex composition” is an intended use of the claimed color retention system and given no patentable weight. MPEP 2111.02.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savaides et al. (US20170360679A1, published 12/21/2017, cited in IDS filed 7/26/2024) in view of Mueller-Cristadoro et al. (US20210000734A1, published 1/7/2021) and Kroger Lyons et al. (US20160143834A1, published 5/26/2016, cited in IDS filed 7/26/2024).
Savaides teaches methods of forming a semi-permanent film on a fiber comprising topically applying an effective amount of a composition to hair, wherein the composition comprises chitosan, and aldehyde-bearing compound, and an organic acid. Savaides teaches that this composition can be used in hair care products to smooth, condition, or “fix” the hair by forming said film (par. [0003]). Benefits of the method of using the composition includes “smoothness, increased volume, shine, and luster, protection from the sun or pollution, preservation/protection of color applied to hair, alteration of the structure of the hair, etc.” (par. [0021]). This composition also provides a semi-permanent UV protective film to a fiber or hair, as well as increasing the tensile strength of these fibers (par. [0008]). Also noted is the ability of this composition to reduce color leaching from color treated hair (par. [0008]). The composition may be used on any fiber, plant- or animal-derived or synthetic, and provides various examples including human hair, cotton, wool, polymer fibers, etc. (par. [0023]). Savaides uses fiber and hair interchangeably. This composition comprises, in part, chitosan. Chitosan is present in about 0.05 to about 5 wt. % (par. [0031], table A) (cf. claim 10, claim 18). The composition further comprises an aldehyde-bearing compound (ABC). The ABC is present in 0.013 to about 5 wt. % (par. [0031], table A), and is ideally selected from the group including vanillin (par. [0027]) (cf. claim 8, claim 16). The composition further comprises an organic acid. The acid is present in about 0.5 to about 3 wt. % (par. [0031], table A), and is preferred to be acetic acid (par. [0028]) (cf. claim 9, claim 17). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP 2144.05), The composition may be enhanced by coupling it with an anionic formulation that is applied at the same time, and one such anionic material named that may be applied in conjunction with the chitosan, ABC, and acid composition is dehydroxanthan gum (par. [0044]-[0047]). Savaides teaches in Example 4 that color treated hair is to be shampooed with a cleansing shampoo prior to treatment of the chitosan composition (par. [0067]). The act of shampooing and cleansing hair prior to treatment may be considered as a priming treatment in order to remove any dirt and debris to maximize the effect of the chitosan composition on hair.
However, Savaides does not teach the specific composition of this primer shampoo, wherein the primer composition comprises a dendrimer or hyperbranched compound in a carrier, wherein the dendrimer is poly-L-lysine.
This deficiency is made up for by the teachings of Mueller-Cristadoro.
Mueller-Cristadoro teaches a composition for treating hair comprising a polymer selected from the group including branched polylysine (abstract). Mueller-Cristadoro teaches that this composition that comprises the branched polylysine is capable of having a hair repair effect, especially after damage has been done to hair by processes to denature hair (par. [0017]-[0018]). Mueller-Cristadoro names processes such as bleaching (i.e. color manipulation) as one such process (par. [0002]). The composition can be any composition suitable for cleansing hair, especially a shampoo (par. [0032]). Mueller-Cristadoro teaches that the polylysine is preferably derived from L-lysine (par. [0034]), and discloses that the composition examples are all polymerized from L-lysine (examples 1-4). Therefore, the composition is specifically the poly-L-lysine form of polylysine (cf. claims 2-3, claims 14-15). The polymer (i.e. poly-L-lysine dendrimer) is present in the composition in 0.1 to 10 wt. % (claim 4) (cf. claim 5, claim 13). This branched poly-L-lysine dendrimer is formed in water, which is a cosmetically acceptable aqueous carrier. The composition further comprises a surfactant in an amount of 0.1 to 30 wt. % (claim 4) and this surfactant may be anionic, cationic, nonionic, zwitterionic, or mixtures thereof (par. [0051]). Examples of this composition name Plantapon SF as a commercially available surfactant, which, according to the disclosure, comprises in part lauryl glucoside (par. [0121], formulation 1). The lauryl glucoside is named as an active surfactant in the overall composition in an amount of 2-6% (par. [0121], formulation 1) (cf. claims 6-7). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP 2144.05).
However, neither Savaides nor Mueller-Cristadoro teach a specific weight percentage of dehydroxanthan gum to be included in the shampoo primer composition. Further, neither reference teaches that the composition as a whole is free of precipitates.
This deficiency is made up for by the teachings of Kroger Lyons.
Kroger Lyons teaches a hair care composition for improved root lift comprising at least 0.1% dehydroxanthan gum, about 0.2% to about 1% of a panthenol compound, about 0.1% to about 10% of a rheology modifier, and a carrier. Kroger Lyons teaches that compositions for hair are desirable to consumers when they result in a full, thick, voluminous hair appearance, and compositions that lift the roots of hair have this result (par. [0002]-[0003]). The composition as taught by Kroger Lyons has the ability to lift the roots, resulting in a fuller and thicker appearance of hair, due in part to the inclusion of dehydroxanthan gum from about 0.3 to about 1 wt. % (par. [0004]). This composition may be in the form of a shampoo as well (par. [0014]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Mueller-Cristadoro with the teachings of Savaides, wherein the composition of Mueller-Cristadoro is a shampoo to cleanse hair that comprises a 0.1 to 10 wt. % poly-L-lysine dendrimer in water and lauryl glucoside in 2 to 6 wt. %, wherein this shampoo is used prior to treatment with the composition as taught by Savaides comprising chitosan 0.5 to 5 wt. %, vanillin, dehydroxanthan gum, and acetic acid, wherein treatment with the shampoo primer cleanses the fiber or hair and the chitosan treatment forms a film on the fiber/hair substrate to provide color retention to the color-treated fiber (cf. claim 1, claim 12). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings with a reasonable expectation of success as Savaides teaches using a shampoo prior to chitosan treatment, and Mueller-Cristadoro teaches a composition in the form of a shampoo that has a hair repair effect after damage. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the shampoo as taught by Mueller-Cristadoro to combine with the composition of Savaides for its repairing benefits. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings as both relate to hair repair after damage and Savaides teaches using a shampoo prior to applying the chitosan composition on hair. The use of a shampoo as taught by Mueller-Cristadoro would provide repair benefits via the dendrimer, and the treatment as taught by Savaides would form a protective film to prevent color loss in color-treated fibers such as hair, wherein this treatment also provides a semi-permanent UV protective film and increases tensile strength.
Further, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the color-retention system as taught by Savaides and Mueller-Cristadoro with the teachings of Kroger Lyons, wherein the resulting color-retention system comprises a primer shampoo composition as taught by Mueller-Cristadoro to cleanse hair that comprises a 0.1 to 10 wt. % poly-L-lysine dendrimer in water and lauryl glucoside in 2 to 6 wt. %, wherein this shampoo is used prior to treatment with the composition as taught by Savaides comprising chitosan 0.5 to 5 wt. %, vanillin, 0.3 to 1 wt. % dehydroxanthan gum, and acetic acid, wherein treatment with the shampoo primer cleanses the fiber or hair and the chitosan treatment forms a film on the fiber/hair substrate to provide color retention to the color-treated fiber. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP 2144.05). One would be motivated to include the specific amount of dehydroxanthan gum as taught by Kroger Lyons in the composition and system as taught by Savaides and Mueller-Cristadoro as the composition as taught by Savaides already teaches the inclusion of dehydroxanthan gum. Further, a composition as taught by Kroger Lyons has the benefit of thicker and fuller hair, which is desirable in hair care compositions. One would have a reasonable expectation of success when applying the range as taught by Kroger Lyons to the composition as taught by Savaides as both relate to hair care compositions, and share the common ingredient of dehydroxanthan gum as described supra. The resulting system as taught by Savaides, Mueller-Cristadoro, and Kroger Lyons would be a primer comprising the poly-L-lysine dendrimer in 0.1 to 10 wt. % in water and lauryl glucoside in 2 to 6 wt. %, along with a chitosan complex composition comprising chitosan 0.5 to 5 wt. %, vanillin, 0.3 to 1 wt. % dehydroxanthan gum, and acetic acid, wherein the combination of treatments results in a system for color retention in color-treated hair and fibers (cf. claim 11, claims 19-20). Further, as the composition as taught by Savaides, Mueller-Cristadoro, and Kroger Lyons would be identical to that of the instant claim set, the composition would necessarily be free of precipitates, evidenced by the instant specification par. [0030]. The composition as described in the specification is disclosed to be free of precipitates (par. [0030]). This characteristic stems directly from the ingredients that composition comprises, wherein the composition comprises a homogenous dispersion of chitosan in about 0.5 to about 1.0 wt. %, dehydroxanthan gum in about 0.25 to about 2.0 wt.%, vanillin, and glacial acetic acid. As disclosed by the instant specification, the composition of ingredients in the amounts as claimed is free of precipitates. An identical composition of the same ingredients and amounts will necessarily have the characteristic of being free of precipitates. Therefore, the composition as taught by Savaides, Mueller-Cristadoro, and Kroger Lyons, which comprises chitosan in 0.5 to 5 wt. %, 0.3 to 1 wt. % dehydroxanthan gum, vanillin, and acetic acid would also be free of brittle precipitates. See MPEP 2112.01, “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, filed 8/31/2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of references cited in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 “fails to teach or suggest each and every limitation” of the instant claims, and further that the references “fail to provide the missing teaching or suggestion” for combination of the components of a reference as applied to another. Further, Applicant argues that one would not include the polyanionic dehydroxanthan gum in the composition as suggested by Savaides, as Savaides teaches two separate components. Finally, Applicant argues that the claimed invention results in greater color retention and provides a synergistic volumizing effect. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; not is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teaching of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, see below.
Combining the teachings of Savaides with the teachings of Mueller-Cristadoro and informed by the teachings of Kroger Lyons would, in fact, result in the invention as claimed in the instant application. The teachings of Savaides reads on the composition that comprises chitosan, while the teachings of Mueller-Cristadoro reads on the primer composition that comprises a hyperbranched compound of poly-L-lysine. As discussed above, one would be motivated and have a reasonable expectation of success in applying the composition as taught by Mueller-Cristadoro prior to applying the composition as taught by Savaides. This is evidenced by the use of a shampoo treatment prior to applying the composition of Savaides. One would use a composition as taught by Mueller-Cristadoro prior to that of Savaides, as the the composition as taught by Mueller-Cristadoro would prepare the hair as suggested by Savaides, and the composition as taught by Mueller-Cristadoro presents hair benefits as described supra. However, the composition as taught by Savaides does not teach dehydroxanthan gum in the amount of about 0.1 to about 3% by weight.
The teachings of Kroger Lyons makes up for this deficiency, as discussed above. One would be motivated, and have a reasonable expectation of success, in applying the amount of dehydroxanthan gum as suggested by Kroger Lyons, as Savaides already suggests the inclusion of dehydroxanthan gum as described supra. The amount of dehydroxanthan gum as suggested by Kroger Lyons would be reasonably expected to result in success as Kroger Lyons already teaches the inclusion of the ingredient in the composition as described, which is drawn to a hair treatment composition, and is therefore obvious to combine with the teachings of Savaides and Mueller-Cristadoro.
Regarding the inclusion of dehydroxanthan gum into a chitosan formulation such as that taught by Savaides, while the Examiner recognizes that Savaides teaches separate compositions (i.e. a film-forming chitosan formulation and an anionic formulation), Savaides teaches “co-application of the anionic material and the film forming composition.” Further, Savaides indicates that both compositions may be present and used together “for example, using dispenser with two nozzles.” One would reasonably expect that combining the anionic material (which would comprise dehydroxanthan gum as suggested by Savaides and taught by Kroger Lyons) with the film forming chitosan formulation would result in a successful composition that achieves the benefit of each formulation individually. While it is possible, as Applicant argues, that certain polyanionic components may result in precipitation and separation of the composition, one of ordinary skill in the art would not need to carry out undue experimentation in light of Kroger Lyons, which teaches dehydroxanthan gum specifically and will inform one or ordinary skill to select dehydroxanthan gum over alternatives named by Savaides.
Regarding the greater color retention of the instant invention, one would reasonably expect the composition claimed to have greater color retention, and the results are therefore expected. Savaides teaches that the effect of a chitosan treatment for hair provides benefits to human hair and/or other fibers, including “preservation/protection of color applied to hair…” and so one would reasonably expect the instantly claimed invention, which comprises a chitosan treatment for hair and fiber, would have the same effect. The increased color retention is therefore not unexpected, and obvious in light of the prior art.
Regarding the synergy resulting in increased volume of hair and fiber when combining the shampoo primer treatment with the chitosan treatment, the data provided in the instant application has not been shown to be statistically significant. When comparing the volumizing effects of the composition individually versus together as in Table 4, there is no statistical analysis or information provided regarding sample size or standard deviation, for example. Further, both Savaides and Kroger Lyons teach that their compositions can have a volumizing effect on hair and fiber. Therefore, in combining the references and arriving at a chitosan composition comprising dehydroxanthan gum would have the volumizing benefit as suggested by Savaides and Kroger Lyons. One would reasonably expect a composition such as that instantly claimed to have a volumizing effect.
For the reasons that the references are combinable and the resulting composition aligns with the instant claims, the rejection is upheld.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the 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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 1-3 and 5-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 5-20 of copending Application No. 18/741,947 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Instant claims 1-3 and 5-20 recite a color retention system for color-treated hair/fiber comprising a primer composition, wherein the primer is a shampoo that comprises poly-L-lysine dendrimer in about 0.005 to about 5 wt. % and lauryl glucoside surfactant in about 5 to about 30 wt. %, and a chitosan complex composition, wherein the chitosan composition comprises chitosan in about 0.3 to about 3 wt. %, dehydroxanthan gum in about 0.1 to about 3 wt. %, vanillin, and acetic acid, wherein the composition of the system is free of brittle precipitates.
App. No. ‘947 claims 1-3 and 5-20 recite a hair/fiber volumizing system comprising a primer composition, wherein the primer is a shampoo that comprises poly-L-lysine dendrimer in about 0.005 to about 5 wt. % and lauryl glucoside surfactant in about 5 to about 30 wt. %, and a chitosan complex composition, wherein the chitosan composition comprises chitosan in about 0.3 to about 3 wt. %, dehydroxanthan gum in about 0.1 to about 3 wt. %, vanillin, and acetic acid, wherein the composition of the system is free of brittle precipitates.
The claims of copending App. No. ‘947 recite a hair/fiber volumizing system that provides increased volume to hair/fiber upon application; the instant claims recite a color retention system that provides color retention to hair/fiber upon application. However, as the claim sets recite structurally identical systems, the systems will necessarily have the same effects upon application to hair/fiber, and the system of copending application ‘947 would necessarily provide color rentention. See MPEP 2112.01, “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The instant claims 1-3 and 5-20 are prima facie obvious over claims 1-3 and 5-20 of the copending ‘947 application, as the copending application claims recite identical ingredients.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the double patenting rejection be held in abeyance, as the instant application and the copending application are still pending.
The above assertion is not found persuasive because a request to hold a rejection in abeyance is not a proper response to a rejection. Rather, a request to hold a matter in abeyance may only be made in response to an OBJECTION or REQUIREMENTS AS TO FORM (see MPEP 37 CFR 1.111(b) and 714.02). Thus, the double patenting rejections of record have been maintained as no action regarding these rejections has been taken by applicants at this time.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW RYAN BURKE whose telephone number is (571)272-8949. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8am-5pm.
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, David Blanchard can be reached at 5712720827. 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.
/MATTHEW RYAN BURKE/Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/DAVID J BLANCHARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1619
Prosecution Insights