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 .
Status of the Application
Receipt of the Response and Amendment after Non-Final Office Action filed 05/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant has overcome the following rejections by virtue of the amendment or cancellation of the claims: (1) the objections to the specification and claims have been withdrawn; (2) the 35 U.S.C. §112(a) rejections of claims 7, 9-13, and 16-38 have been withdrawn; (3) the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections of claims 28-32 and 36-38 have been withdrawn; and (4) the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claims 28-32 and 36-38 over Silver, Deya, Larsen, and Liu as evidenced by search results has been withdrawn.
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 7, 9-13, 16-27, 33-35
Withdrawn claims: None
Previously cancelled claims: 1-6, 8, 14-15
Newly cancelled claims: 28-32, 36-38
Amended claims: 7
New claims: None
Claims currently under consideration: 7, 9-13, 16-27, 33-35
Currently rejected claims: 7, 9-13, 16-27, 33-35
Allowed claims: None
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“at least 11 wt% of in situ produced DP3+ galactooligosaccharides constituting” should be read as “at least 11 wt% of in situ produced DP3+ galactooligosaccharides (GOS) constituting”.
“the enzyme is a Bifidobacterium bifidum β-galactosidase having the sequence of SEO ID NO: 1 formulated with 60 % w/w glucose and incubated for 69.5 hours at 55°C” should be read as “the enzyme is a Bifidobacterium bifidum β-galactosidase having the sequence of SEO ID NO: 1 incubated with 60 % w/w glucose for 69.5 hours at 55°C”.
“carbohydrates is in situ produced DP3+ galactooligosaccharides (GOS)” should be read as “carbohydrates is in situ produced DP3+ GOS”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 7, 9-13, 16-27, and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites “60% skim milk powder solution prepared from skim milk powder containing 50% lactose and 35 % protein”. However, the claim does not recite any unit of measurement associated with the percentages (e.g., wt.%, vol.%). Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
For the purpose of this examination, the percentages will be interpreted as being weight percentages.
Claim 9 recites that the milk substrate contains a total amount of at least 10 wt.% protein. However, claim 7, from which claim 9 depends, recites that the substrate comprises 60% skim milk powder wherein the skim milk powder contains 35% protein. Since the percentages of skim milk powder and protein in the skim milk powder are being interpreted as weight percentages, the milk substrate would contain at least 21 wt.% milk protein. Since the minimum amount of milk protein recited in present claim 9 is 10 wt.%, claim 9 recites amounts of milk protein which are not encompassed by claim 7 (i.e., 10-20 wt.% milk protein).
Claims 11 and 21-24 recite that the milk substrate contains at least 40 wt.%, at least 45 wt.%, at least 50 wt.%, at least 55 wt.%, and at least 60 wt.% dry matter, respectively. However, claim 7, from which claims 11, 21, 22, and 23 depend, recites that the substrate comprises 60% skim milk powder. Since the percentage of skim milk is being interpreted as a weight percentage, the milk substrate would contain at least 60 wt.% of dry matter. Since the minimum amounts of dry matter recited in present claims 11, 21, 22, 23, and 24 are 60 wt.% and below, claims 11and 21-24 recite amounts of dry matter which are not encompassed by claim 7.
Claim 13 recites that the enzyme having transgalactosylating activity is a β-galactosidase having a ratio of transgalactosylating to hydrolyzing activity of at least 1 when measured according the method recited in lines 3-4. However, it is unclear as to whether the claim requires the β-galactosidase to have the claimed ratio of transgalactosylating to hydrolyzing activity prior to incubation with glucose at 55°C for 69.5 hours or after such incubation. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
For the purpose of this examination, the claim will be interpreted as meaning that enzyme has the claimed ratio of transgalactosylating to hydrolyzing activity prior to incubation.
Claim 20 recites that the milk substrate is reconstituted milk powder or condensed milk. However, claim 7, from which claim 20 depends, already recites that the milk substrate is reconstituted skim milk powder. Since claim 20 provides a milk substrate option that is not reconstituted milk powder, claim 20 recites a milk substrate that is not encompassed by claim 7.
Claims 10, 12, 16-19, 25-27, and 33-35 are rejected by reason of dependency from claim 7.
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.
Claims 7, 9-13, 16-27, and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silver (US 2009/0297660; previously cited) in view of Pedersen (US 2016/0108440; IDS citation) and Liu (Liu et al., “Glycation a promising method for food protein modification: Physicochemical properties and structure, a review”, 2012, Food Research International, vol. 49, pages 170-183; previously cited) as evidenced by admitted prior art and search results filed 05/13/2021.
Regarding claim 7, Silver teaches a method for producing a milk product (corresponding to dairy substrate that has been treated with enzymes, but has not been processed to form a cheese product (Fig. 1, [0025])), wherein the method comprises: (a) providing a milk substrate comprising skim milk powder which was reconstituted to provide a moisture content similar to that found in the finished cream cheese product [0086]. Skim milk powder typically contains about 50 wt.% lactose and about 35 wt.% milk protein as evidenced by the specification in lines 1-2 on page 5, thereby rendering the claimed lactose and protein contents obvious. Silver discloses that the moisture content of the finished cream cheese product may be about 45 wt.% to about 75 wt.% [0080]. Given the typical deviation of ±10% implied by the term “about”, the moisture content of the finished cream cheese product may be 40.5-82.5 wt.%. Since Silver discloses that the skim milk powder may be reconstituted to provide a moisture content similar to that found in the finished cream cheese product [0086], the milk substrate of Silver may also have a moisture content of 40.5-82.5 wt.%, thus providing a skim milk powder content in the milk substrate of 17.5-59.5 wt.%, which approaches the claimed content range. Furthermore, since Silver states that the moisture content of the milk substrate may be “similar” to that found in the final cream cheese product, it is presumable that the skim milk powder content of the milk substrate may even overlap the claimed content of skim milk powder.
Silver teaches that the method further comprises: (b) contacting the milk substrate with an enzyme having transgalactosylating activity [0091] for 2-24 hours [0089] at a temperature of about 40°C to about 65°C [0092]. This time overlaps the claimed times of 3 hours and 24 hours. This temperature range overlaps the claimed temperatures of 65°C and 50-60°C. Silver teaches that the method then comprises: (c) inactivating the enzyme [0096]; and (d) thereby obtaining a milk product from a dairy substrate, wherein 50-75 wt.% of the in situ produced sugars in the milk product are DP3+ GOS [0025]; and wherein at least about 0.875 wt.% of the milk product is in situ produced DP3+ GOS (corresponding to a dairy substrate comprising a minimum of 7 wt.% lactose wherein a minimum of about 25% of the lactose is converted and wherein a minimum of 50 wt.% of those in situ produced sugars are DP3+ GOS [0024]). This relative concentration of DP3+ GOS falls within the claimed relative concentration range of at least 35 wt.% for DP3+ GOS; and this concentration of DP3+ GOS in the milk product at least overlaps the claimed concentration of at least 11 wt.% in situ produced DP3+ GOS in the milk product.
In regard to the approaching range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.I. In regard to the encompassing ranges and overlapping ranges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portions of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art references, particularly in view of the fact that; "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages" In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549,533 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.I. Therefore, the selection of values within the encompassing and overlapping ranges renders the claimed enzyme treatment temperature recited in step (f) of the present method, the claimed lactose concentration, and the claimed concentration of in situ produced DP3+ GOS in the milk product obvious.
Silver does not teach that the enzyme having transgalactosylating activity is a Bifidobacterium bifidum β-galactosidase having the sequence of SEQ ID NO:1 produced by incubating the enzyme with 60 wt.% glucose for 69.5 hours at 55°C.
However, Pedersen teaches treating a milk substrate with the enzyme β-galactosidase (corresponding to lactase) to hydrolyze lactose [0026]-[0027], wherein the enzyme may be an enzyme containing amino acids 28-1331 of SEQ ID NO: 2 derived from Bifidobacterium bifidum [0034], [0037]. Amino acids 28-1331 of SEQ ID NO:2 has 100% similarity to the sequence of SEQ ID NO:1 recited in present claim 7 as evidenced by the search results filed 10/07/2025 (Result No. 2 in the database labeled “Published_Applications_AA_Main”). Therefore, Pedersen discloses an enzyme that is a Bifidobacterium bifidum β-galactosidase having the sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1 as recited in present claim 7.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Silver to include using a Bifidobacterium bifidum β-galactosidase having the sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1 as taught by Pedersen. Since Silver discloses that the enzyme used to treat the milk has transgalactosylation activity and may be produced from a cell culture [0090]-[0091], but does not specify such an enzyme, a skilled practitioner would have been motivated to consult an additional reference such as Pedersen in order to determine a suitable enzyme, thereby rendering the claimed enzyme obvious.
The combination of Silver and Pedersen does not teach that the enzyme is incubated with 60 wt.% glucose for 69.5 hours at 55°C.
However, Liu teaches that glycation is known as being an effective method for improving the functional properties of food proteins such as heat stability; and that glycoprotein conjugates formed by glycation, also known as the Maillard reaction, has received much attention in recent years (page 171, 1st column, 2nd paragraph; page 172, 1st column, 2nd paragraph under section 2.2). Liu also teaches that the reaction factors such as temperature, time, and amino group to reducing sugar ratio influence the yields and type of glycation products (page 172, 1st column, 2nd paragraph). Liu discloses that a temperature such as 60°C, a ratio of amino group to reducing sugar of 1:1, and a time of 72 hours may be used in a glycation reaction of a protein and a reducing sugar (page 173, Table 1, 6th reference in Table). Liu also teaches that the reducing sugar may be glucose (page 171, 2nd column, 2nd paragraph under section 2.1; page 174, 1st column, 1st paragraph; page 174, 2nd column 2nd paragraph)
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the enzyme having transgalactosylating activity of modified Silver by incubating the enzyme protein with glucose as taught by Liu. Since modified Silver discloses that the transgalactosylating enzyme may be subjected to treatment temperatures as high as about 65°C for hours [0089], [0092]; and since Liu teaches that glycation is known as being an effective method for improving the functional properties of food proteins such as heat stability (page 172, 1st column, 2nd paragraph under section 2.2), a skilled practitioner would have recognized that the known method of glycation as disclosed in Liu may improve the functionality and stability of the enzyme during the enzymatic treatment of Silver. Therefore, combining the teachings of Silver with the teachings of Liu represents an act of applying a known technique (i.e., glycation of proteins with glucose) to improve similar products (i.e., protein enzymes) in the same way. MPEP §2143.I.C.
In regard to incubating the enzyme with 60 wt.% glucose for 69.5 hours at 55°C, as the yields and type of glycation products are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting reaction factors such as temperature, time, and amino group to reducing sugar ratio, the claimed temperature, time, and amount of reducing sugar would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed temperature, time, and amount of reducing sugar (i.e., glucose) cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the claimed temperature, time, and amount of glucose in the glycation process by using a temperature of 60°C, a ratio of amino group to reducing sugar of 1:1, and a time of 72 hours as a guide to obtain the desired glycation products as taught by Liu (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). “[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). MPEP § 2144.05.II.
Regarding claim 9, Silver teaches the invention as disclosed above in claim 7, including the milk substrate comprises powdered skim milk [0086]. Skim milk powder typically contains about 35 wt.% milk protein as evidenced by the specification in lines 1-2 on page 5. Silver discloses that the moisture content of the finished cream cheese product may be about 45 wt.% to about 75 wt.% [0080]. Given the typical deviation of ±10% implied by the term “about”, the moisture content of the finished cream cheese product may be 40.5-82.5 wt.%. Since Silver discloses that the skim milk powder for the milk substrate may be reconstituted to provide a moisture content similar to that found in the finished cream cheese product [0086], the milk substrate of Silver may also have a moisture content of 40.5-82.5 wt.%, thus providing a skim milk powder content in the milk substrate of 17.5-59.5 wt.%. Furthermore, since Silver states that the moisture content of the milk substrate may be “similar” to that found in the final cream cheese product, it is presumable that the skim milk powder content of the milk substrate may even overlap the claimed content of skim milk powder. As such, Silver discloses a milk substrate which may contain an amount of milk protein which at least overlaps the claimed concentration (e.g., a milk substrate containing 60 wt.% skim milk powder and 40 wt.% water contains about 21 wt.% milk protein). The selection of a value within the overlapping range renders the claimed milk protein concentration obvious. MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 10, Silver teaches the invention as described above in claim 7, including the milk substrate does not comprise added lactose (corresponding to the milk substrate being powdered dairy ingredients replacing all of the conventional starting materials) [0086].
Regarding claims 11, 21, 22, 23, and 24, modified Silver teaches the invention as described above in claim 7, including the milk substrate comprises powdered skim milk [0086]. Silver discloses that the moisture content of the finished cream cheese product may be about 45 wt.% to about 75 wt.% [0080]. Given the typical deviation of ±10% implied by the term “about”, the moisture content of the finished cream cheese product may be 40.5-82.5 wt.%. Since Silver discloses that the skim milk powder for the milk substrate may be reconstituted to provide a moisture content similar to that found in the finished cream cheese product [0086], the milk substrate of Silver may also have a moisture content of 40.5-82.5 wt.%, thus providing a skim milk powder content in the milk substrate of 17.5-59.5 wt.%. Furthermore, since Silver states that the moisture content of the milk substrate may be “similar” to that found in the final cream cheese product, it is presumable that the skim milk powder content of the milk substrate may even overlap the claimed content of skim milk powder. As such, Silver discloses a milk substrate which may have a dry matter content which at least overlaps the claimed dry matter contents recited in present claims 11, 21, 22, 23, and 24. The selection of a value within the overlapping ranges renders the claimed dry matter contents obvious. MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding claims 12, 25, 26, and 27, Silver teaches the invention as described above in claim 7, including 50-75 wt.% of the total free carbohydrates in the milk product is in situ produced DP3+ GOS [0025]; therefore, 50-75 wt.% of the total free carbohydrates in the milk product are in situ produced DP2+ GOS, which falls within the claimed relative concentration range recited in present claims 12 and 25 and overlaps the claimed relative concentration range recited in present claims 26 and 27. The selection of a value within the overlapping ranges renders the relative concentrations recited in present claims 26 and 27 obvious. MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 13, modified Silver teaches the invention as disclosed above in claim 7, including the enzyme having transgalactosylating activity is a β-galactosidase [0092] containing amino acids 28-1331 of SEQ ID NO: 2 [0034], [0037]. Amino acids 28-1331 of SEQ ID NO:2 has 100% similarity to the sequence of SEQ ID NO:1 recited in present claim 7 as evidenced by the search results filed 10/07/2025 (Result No. 2 in the database labeled “Published_Applications_AA_Main”). Since the prior art discloses a β-galactosidase having the claimed sequence identity, it is presumable the β-galactosidase of the prior art has the claimed ratio of transgalactosylating to hydrolyzing activity as measured in present claim 13. Regarding product claims, when the ingredient recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties are presumed to be inherent. “The discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art' s function, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F .3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943. 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Regarding claims 16, 17, 18, and 19, Silver teaches the invention as described above in claim 7, including 50-75 wt.% of the total free carbohydrates in the milk product is in situ produced DP3+ GOS [0025], which overlaps the claimed relative concentrations recited in present claims 16. 17. 18, and 19. The selection of a value within the overlapping ranges renders the claimed ranges obvious. MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 20, Silver teaches the invention as described above in claim 7, including the milk substrate is reconstituted skim milk powder [0086].
Regarding claim 33, Silver teaches the invention as described above in claim 7, including about 25-100% of the lactose present in the dairy substrate is converted and 50-75 wt.% of the in situ produced sugars in the milk product are DP3+ GOS [0025], which falls within the claimed relative concentration range for DP3+ GOS; and wherein at least about 0.875 wt.% of the milk product is in situ produced DP3+ GOS (corresponding to a dairy substrate comprising a minimum of 7 wt.% lactose wherein a minimum of about 25% of the lactose is converted and wherein a minimum of 50 wt.% of those in situ produced sugars are DP3+ GOS), which encompasses the claimed concentration of in situ produced DP3+ GOS in the milk product. The selection of a value within the encompassing range renders the claimed concentration obvious. MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding claims 34 and 35, Silver teaches the invention as described above in claim 7, including the milk substrate comprises least 7 wt.% lactose [0024] and that about 25-100% of the lactose present in the dairy substrate is converted to GOS to form the milk product [0025]. Therefore, the milk product comprises amounts of lactose as low as 0 wt.% (corresponding to 100% of the lactose in the milk substrate being converted), thereby providing a range of lactose concentrations that overlaps the concentrations recited in present claims 34 and 35. The selection of a value within the overlapping ranges renders the claims obvious. MPEP 2144.05.I.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections: Applicant amended claim 7 to address the objections set forth in the last Office Action. However, claim 7 remains objected to for the reasons provided above.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §112(a) of claims 7, 9-13, and 16-38: Applicant canceled claims 28-32 and 36-38, thereby mooting those rejections. Applicant amended claim 7 to fully address the rejection.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §112(b) of claims 7, 9-13, and 16-38: Applicant canceled claims 28-32 and 36-38, thereby mooting those rejections. Claims 7, 9-13, 16-27, and 33-35 remain rejected for the reasons provided above.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 7, 10-13, 16-22, and 25-37 over Silver, Deya, Larsen, and Liu as evidenced by search results filed 05/13/2021; claims 9 and 23-24 over Silver, Deya, Larsen, and Liu as evidenced by search results filed 05/13/2021 and ADPI.
Applicant canceled claims 28-32 and 36-38, thereby mooting those rejections. Applicant amended claim 4 to be commensurate in scope with the results present in Table 4 of the present specification. Applicant stated that the results of Table 4 show that GOS production is significantly increased at 50°C, 55°C, 60°C, and 65°C compared to GOS production at 5°C. Applicant argued that this increased GOS production represent unexpected results that are neither disclosed nor suggested by any of the cited prior art references and could not have been predicted by one of ordinary skill in the art (Applicant’s Remarks, page 7, 1st paragraph under “Claim Rejections” – page 8, 3rd paragraph).
However, “it is common knowledge that chemical reactions occur more rapidly at higher temperatures” and “chemical reactions are typically expected to proceed faster at higher temperatures and slower at lower temperatures” as evidenced by the 1st-2nd paragraphs on page 1 of LibreTexts (“6.2.3.1:Arrhenius Equation”, 2026, LibreTexts, https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Kinetics/06%3A_Modeling_Reaction_Kinetics/6.02%3A_Temperature_Dependence_of_Reaction_Rates/6.2.03%3A_The_Arrhenius_Law/6.2.3.01%3A_Arrhenius_Equation). Therefore, it is expected that a reaction occurring at 50°C, 55°C, 60°C, and 65°C would occur more quickly, thus producing more reaction products (e.g., GOS) during a given amount of time, than the same reaction occurring at 5°C during the same given amount of time. As such, Applicant’s arguments regarding increased GOS production at 50°C, 55°C, 60°C, and 65°C than at 5°C being unexpected are not supported.
Since the prior art has been shown to render the present claims obvious and Applicant’s arguments have been shown to be unpersuasive, the rejections of the claims stand as written herein.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Kelly Kershaw whose telephone number is (571)272-2847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nikki Dees can be reached at (571) 270-3435. 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.
/K.P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights