Skip to main content

Full text of "USPTO Patents Application 09773351"

See other formats


United States Patent and Trademark Office 



UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
United States Patent and Trademark Office 

Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS 
P.O. Box 1450 

Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 
www.uspto.gov 



APPLICATION NO. 


FILING DATE 


FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 


ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. 


CONFIRMATION NO. 


09/773,351 


01/31/2001 


Daniel H. Maes 


O0.22US 


5974 



7590 

Karen A. Lowney, Esq. 
Estee Lauder Companies 
155 Pinelawn Road 
Melville, NY 11747 



12/28/2004 



EXAMINER 



JIANG, SHAOJIA ANNA 



ART UNIT 



PAPER NUMBER 



1617 

DATE MAILED: 12/28/2004 



Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. 



PTO-90C (Rev. 10/03) 





Application No. 


Applicant(s) 


Advisory Action 


09/773,351 


MAES ET AL. 


Examiner 


Art Unit 






Shaojia A. Jiang 


1617 





The MAILING DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address - 



THE REPLY FILED 10 December 2004 FAILS TO PLACE THIS APPLICATION IN CONDITION FOR ALLOWANCE. 
Therefore, further action by the applicant is required to avoid abandonment of this application. A proper reply to a 
final rejection under 37 CFR 1.113 may only be either: (1) a timely filed amendment which places the application in 
condition for allowance; (2) a timely filed Notice of Appeal (with appeal fee); or (3) a timely filed Request for Continued 
Examination (RCE) in compliance with 37 CFR 1 .1 14. 

PERIOD FOR REPLY [check either a) or b)] 

a) ^ The period for reply expires 3_months from the mailing date of the final rejection. 

b) D The period for reply expires on: (1 ) the mailing date of this Advisory Action, or (2) the date set forth in the final rejection, whichever is later. In no 

event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of the final rejection 

ONLY CHECK THIS BOX WHEN THE FIRST REPLY WAS FILED WITHIN TWO MONTHS OF THE FINAL REJECTION See MPEP 

706.07(f). 

Extensions of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1 .136(a). The date on which the petition under 37 CFR 1 .136(a) and the appropriate extension fee 
have been filed is the date for purposes of determining the period of extension and the corresponding amount of the fee. The appropriate extension fee under 
37 CFR 1 .17(a) is calculated from: (1) the expiration date of the shortened statutory period for reply originally set in the final Office action; or (2) as set forth in 
(b) above, if checked. Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of the final rejection, even if timely filed, may reduce any 
earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1 .704(b). 

1 .□ A Notice of Appeal was filed on . Appellant's Brief must be filed within the period set forth in 

37 CFR 1.192(a), or any extension thereof (37 CFR 1.191(d)), to avoid dismissal of the appeal. 
2.D The proposed amendment(s) will not be entered because: 

(a) □ they raise new issues that would require further consideration and/or search (see NOTE below); 

(b) □ they raise the issue of new matter (see Note below); 

(c) □ they are not deemed to place the application in better form for appeal by materially reducing or simplifying the 

issues for appeal; and/or 

(d) □ they present additional claims without canceling a corresponding number of finally rejected claims. 

NOTE: . 

3-D Applicant's reply has overcome the following rejection(s): . 

4. Q Newly proposed or amended claim(s) would be allowable if submitted in a separate, timely filed amendment 

canceling the non-allowable claim(s). 

5. [x] The a)D affidavit, b)D exhibit, or c)E3 request for reconsideration has been considered but does NOT place the 

application in condition for allowance because: see attachment . 

6. Q The affidavit or exhibit will NOT be considered because it is not directed SOLELY to issues which were newly 

raised by the Examiner in the final rejection. 

7. Ex] For purposes of Appeal, the proposed amendment(s) a)Q will not be entered or b)D will be entered and an 

explanation of how the new or amended claims would be rejected is provided below or appended. 

The status of the claim(s) is (or will be) as follows: 

Claim(s) allowed: none . 

Claim(s) objected to: none . 

Claim(s) rejected: 1 and 3-20 . 

Claim(s) withdrawn from consideration: none . 

8. Q The drawing correction filed on is a)D approved or b)D disapproved by the Examiner. 

9. Q Note the attached Information Disclosure Statement(s)( PTO-1449) Paper No(s). 

10. D Other: 




U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ™ ~ ' ' ' ~ 

PTOL-303 (Rev. 11-03) Advisory Action Part of Paper No. 2004 1 223 




Application/Control Number: 09/773,351 Page 2 

Art Unit: 1617 

Advisory Action 

This Office Action is a response to Applicant's proposed amendment and 
response after FINAL filed on December 1 0, 2004. 

5. All rejections of record in the Final Office Action September 10, 2004 are 
maintained. 

Applicant's remarks filed on December 10, 2004 after FINAL with respect to the 
rejection of Claims 1 , 3-4, 6-9, 1 1 and 1 8 made under 35 U.S.C. 1 03(a) as being 
unpatentable over Ribier et al. (5,925,364,) in view of Sebag et al.(5,41 1 ,742) have 
been fully considered but are unpersuasive as discussed in the Final Rejection. 

Applicant's remarks filed on December 10, 2004 after FINAL with respect to the 
rejection of Claims 1 and 3-9 made under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by 
Ribier et al. (5,650,166) have been fully considered but are unpersuasive as discussed 
in the Final Rejection. 

Applicant's remarks filed on December 10, 2004 after FINAL with respect to the 
rejection of Claims 13-20 made under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over 
Ribier et al. (5,650,166) have been fully considered but are unpersuasive as discussed 
in the Final Rejection. 

Applicant's remarks filed on December 10, 2004 after FINAL with respect to the 
rejection of Claims 10-12 and 20 made under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable 
over Ribier et al. (5,650,166) further in view of Subbiah (6,150,381) and Ichinose et al. 
(5,702,691) have been fully considered but are unpersuasive as discussed in the Final 
Rejection. 



Application/Control Number: 09/773,351 Page ; 

Art Unit: 1617 

Applicant's remarks filed on December 10, 2004 after FINAL with respect to the 
rejection of claims 1 and 3-20 made provisionally under the judicially created doctrine of 
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of 
copending Application No. 10/424,616 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive 
as discussed in the Final Rejection. 

Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the 
examiner should be directed to Examiner Jiang, whose telephone number is (571)272- 
0627. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00 to 5:00. 

If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's 
supervisor, Sreenivasan Padmanabhan, Ph.D., can be reached on (571)272-0629. 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 



S"TAnna Jiang, Ph.D. 
Primary Examiner, AU 1617 
December 23, 2004 



Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).