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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/05/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1,3, and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 has been amended to recite “wherein the fine powder has a particle diameter of 75 micrometers or smaller and is in the form of tea collagen complex particles”. However, this is not specifically recited in the specification. The specification does not disclose that the “wherein the fine powder has a particle diameter of 75 micrometers or smaller” is specifically in the form of tea collagen complex particles. The specification only generically discloses the presence of “fine powder” and does not actually specify what the “fine powder” is made of. Therefore, the amendment raises an issue of new matter and as such must be deleted.
Claims 3, 5-8 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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, 3, 5-8 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
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 has been amended to recite “the complex particles” in lines 4 and 13, it is unclear what “the complex particles” is referring to since the claim does not recite “the tea-collagen complex particles”.
Regarding claim 1, “an average diameter based on the sizes of the total particles.” Since claim 1 has been amended to refer to the fine powder also as in the form of complex tea-collagen complex particles, it is unclear what “the total particles” is referring to.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites “wherein the amount of fine powder….is 5-10wt%”. It is unclear if the fine powder is the same as or different from the fine powder already recited in the claim 1, since the claim does not recite “the powder”.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites “the average diameter based on the sizes of the total particles.” Since claim 1 has been amended to refer to the fine powder also as in the form of complex tea-collagen complex particles, it is unclear what “the total particles” is referring to.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites “wherein the processed product of tea is a fine granule, a powder or a granule”. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation, it is unclear if the claim is requiring the processed product of tea to be a singular fine granule, or a singular granule. It is unclear what is encompassed by a fine granule and how this differs from a granule. It is unclear if a granule is not considered a powder. It is noted that claim 1 already requires forming tea collagen complex particles, and while not explicitly claimed the complex particles are formed by a granulation process (see paragraph [0049] of pgpub specification) therefore it is unclear how the product can be a powder if claim 1 requires it to be in granulated form and the claim is implying that a powder is different from a granule.
Claims 3, and 7 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matcha Collagen in view of Cao CN 104431187 (Espacenet Translation) in view of Roselius GB 1301770 in view of Matsunaga JP 6621125 (Espacenet Translation) in view of Takanori JP 2009171903A (Espacenet Translation) in view of Tatsuya JP 2010068741 (Espacenet Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Matcha Collagen discloses a processed product of tea in the form of particles of tea powder and collagen powder (Matcha Collagen premix is a super food blend containing 65% pure hydrolyzed marine collagen and 35% matcha tea powder). Matcha Collagen discloses that the tea powder is powder of tea leaf (matcha powder is ground up leaves of green tea). Matcha Collagen discloses that a weight ratio of the tea powder and the collagen powder is 1:1.85 (35%:65%= 1:1.85) (Pg.1-2).
Claim 1 differs from Matcha Collagen in the recitation that the weight ratio of the tea powder to the collagen powder is 1-3:1.
Regarding claim 1, Cao discloses a processed product in the form of particles consisting of tea powder and collagen powder wherein the tea powder is a powder of tea leaf (Espacenet Translation, [0010], [0011], Examples). Cao discloses that the weight ratio of the tea powder to the collagen powder is 9:1 to 1:1, encompassing the claimed ratio 1-3:1 (Espacenet Translation [0010]-[0011], Examples, claim 4). (MPEP 2144.05.I). Thus, Cao recognizes that suitable ratios of tea powder to collagen powder includes 1-3:1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Matcha Collagen such that the weight ratio of the tea powder to the collagen powder is 1-3:1, as suggested by Cao, in order to provide the tea and collagen powder in a suitable ratio.
Claim 1 differs from Modified Matcha Collagen in the recitation that the particles are tea-collagen complex particles, and that the processed product of tea is a product processed from a material consisting of the tea powder, the collagen powder and water.
It is noted that Cao already additionally teaches granulating of the collagen powder to 40mesh-18mesh = 400mircons -1000microns (‘187, Espacenet Translation, [0015]).
Roselius discloses that granular aggregates can be preferable to products in powder form on account of their better handling properties, fluidity and wetting properties (Pg. 1, right col. lines 48-53). Roselius discloses aggregating a mixture of multiple ingredients such as powdered tea and additives (Pg. 2, left col. lines 4-14) to form granular aggregates (Pg. 1, left col. lines 9-13). Roselius discloses that the powdery material is moistened with water in the process of forming the granular aggregates (Pg. 2, left col. Lines 5-25). The aggregates formed are necessarily tea and additive complex particles adhering to each other. Roselius discloses that the products of the invention have better wetting properties than powdery substances and can therefore be dissolved faster and more thoroughly (Pg. 2, right col. lines 74-79). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify matcha collagen such that the tea powder and collagen powder have the form of tea collagen complex particles by adhering to each other, and that the processed product of tea is processed from a material consisting of the tea powder, the collagen powder and water as suggested by Roselius since Roselius teaches that granular aggregates are preferable to products in their powder form on account of their better handling properties, fluidity and wetting properties and that the granular aggregates are commonly formed using water.
Claim 1 differs from Modified Matcha Collagen in the recitation that the average diameter of the particles is 200-600 micrometers. It is noted however that Cao teaches granulating of the collagen powder to 40mesh-18mesh = 400microns -1000microns (‘187, Espacenet Translation, [0015]).
Claim 1 differs from Modified Cao in the recitation that the tea powder specifically has a particle diameter of 1-50 micrometers.
Matsunaga discloses a granulated tea product having an average particle size of 200 micrometers or more (Espacenet Translation [0008]) for excellent dispersibility (Espacenet Translation [0006]-[0008]). Matsunaga discloses that the tea can be granulated with additives and water ([0017]). Matsunga discloses that the tea powder that is subjected to the granulation has a particle size is not particularly limited, but it can be, for example, 45 micrometers or less ([0013]). It is noted that Matcha Collagen, Cao and Roselius do not limit that particular particle size of the tea powder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the processed product of tea of Modified Matcha Collagen to have an average diameter of the particles of 200 micrometers or more as suggested by Matsunaga in order to provide the product with excellent dispersibility. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the tea powder to have a particle size of 45 micrometers or less as taught by Matsunaga since Matsunaga recognizes that such a particle size of tea powder was known and suitable to be provided as a starting material for granulation. It has been held that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness. (MPEP 2143.I.A).
Claim 1 differs from Modified Matcha Collagen in the recitation in the recitation that the collagen powder has a particle diameter of 1-500 micrometers.
Takanori discloses providing collagen powder with a particle diameter of 355 micrometers or less (80% or more of collagen peptide powder passes through a 42 mesh (opening 355 micrometers)) (Espacenet Translation [0012], [0023]). Takanori discloses that the collagen powder having the particle size within the claimed range is further formed into granules (Espacenet Translation Example 1: [0022]-[0029]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the collagen powder of Modified Kao to have a particle diameter less than 355 micrometers as suggested by Takanori in order to provide the collagen powder with a known and suitable size for forming into granules. It has been held “Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results” and “Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2143.I.A,D).
Claim 1 differs from Modified Cao in the recitation that the processed product of tea includes an amount of fine powder among the particles, where the amount of fine powder is less than 10% based on the total particle weight of the processed product of tea and wherein the fine powder has a particle diameter of 75 micrometers or smaller, wherein the fine powder is in the form of tea-collagen complex particles.
Matsunaga discloses that the tea can be granulated with additives and water ([0017]). Matsunaga discloses a granulated tea product particle size influences dispersibility (Espacenet Translation [0006]-[0008]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to routinely adjust the size and quantity of the particles based on desired dispersibility of the product (MPEP 2144.05.II.A). It is noted that Matsunaga recognizes that average particle sizes which are also suitable include 100 micrometers ([0007]), and since average particle sizes includes particle sizes lower and greater than 100 micrometers to provide the average, Matsunaga implies that particle sizes smaller than 100 micrometers are suitable for use.
Claim 1 differs from Modified Cao in the recitation that the processed product of tea specifically has an angle of repose of 35° or smaller.
Tatsuya discloses providing tea leaf granules with an angle of repose less than 45°, and generally 25° or more (Espacenet Translation [0032]), overlapping the claimed range. Tatsuya discloses that the tea leaf granules have high fluidity and are smooth so when poured into water or hot water the granules rapidly spread and come into contact with water making them easy to wet and easily disperse without forming lumps (Espacenet Translation [0032]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the processed product of tea of Modified Matcha Colagen such that the processed product of tea specifically has an angle of repose of 35° or smaller as suggested by Tatsuya in order to provide tea granules having high fluidity so when poured into water or hot water the granules rapidly spread and come into contact with water making them easy to wet and easily disperse without forming lumps.
Regarding the remaining limitation, that the processed product of tea is configured to be dispersed in the water such that the particles are consumed together with water, this is an intended use of the processed product of tea, and the particles of the processed product of tea of Modified Matcha Collagen is configured to be dispersed in water such that the particles are consumed together with water.
Regarding claim 3, Modified Matcha Collagen discloses that the tea is green tea (matcha).
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 is rejected for the same reasons given above as for claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Modified Matcha Collagen discloses that the average diameter based on the sizes of the total particles is 200 micrometers or more, overlapping the claimed range (‘125, Espacenet Translation [0008]).
Regarding claim 8, Modified Matcha Collagen discloses that the processed tea product is a granule (granular aggregate) (‘770, Pg. 1, left col. lines 9-13).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matcha Collagen in view of Cao CN 104431187 (Espacenet Translation) in view of Roselius GB 1301770 in view of Matsunaga JP 6621125 (Espacenet Translation) in view of Takanori JP 2009171903A (Espacenet Translation) in view of Tatsuya JP 2010068741 (Espacenet Translation) in view of Beeson et al. US 6,287,616.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 differs from Modified Cao in the recitation that the processed product of tea specifically exhibits a wetting time of 60 seconds or shorter when contacted with water, wherein the wetting time is the time required for 2 g of the processed product of tea place on the water surface to sink entirely below the water surface.
Beeson discloses that wetting time of particles depends on the particle size (col. 6, Example 2, Table). Absent compelling evidence of criticality, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the size of the particles of the processed tea product through routine experimentation to obtain a desired wetting time, including to a wetting time as instantly claimed (MPEP 2144.05.II).
Additionally, it is noted that the product made obvious by the prior art teaches the claimed invention and when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed inherent (MPEP 2112.01).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/05/2026 have been fully considered and based on Applicants remarks on pages, 6-10, and in light of the claim amendments, Matcha Collagen has been relied upon as the primary reference.
On pg. 7 of the remarks Applicant argues even if all six of the citations were combined, such a combination would lack critical elements of amended claim 1. Even if combined, the six references do not collectively teach or suggest: (a) Tea-collagen complex particles with an integrated structure where tea and collagen are bound together through granulation; (b) fine powder in the form of tea-collagen complex particles (as opposed to fine powder of tea alone, collagen alone, or simple mixtures); (c) Products configured to be dispersed in water such that particles are consumed together with the water (as distinguished from tea bag extraction or capsule brewing); (d) the binding force relationship between tea:collagen ratio and fine powder formation during granulation of complex particles; (e) the criticality of particle structure (not just numerical parameters) in determining dispersibility and fluidity.
The above arguments have not been found convincing:
Regarding a): Roselius specifically discloses that granular aggregates can be preferable to products in powder form on account of their better handling properties, fluidity and wetting properties (Pg. 1, right col. lines 48-53). Roselius discloses aggregating a mixture of multiple ingredients such as powdered tea and additives (Pg. 2, left col. lines 4-14) to form granular aggregates (Pg. 1, left col. lines 9-13). Roselius discloses that the powdery material is moistened with water in the process of forming the granular aggregates (Pg. 2, left col. Lines 5-25). The aggregates formed are necessarily tea and additive complex particles adhering to each other. Roselius discloses that the products of the invention have better wetting properties than powdery substances and can therefore be dissolved faster and more thoroughly (Pg. 2, right col. lines 74-79). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify matcha collagen such that the tea powder and collagen powder have the form of tea collagen complex particles by adhering to each other, and that the processed product of tea is processed from a material consisting of the tea powder, the collagen powder and water as suggested by Roselius since Roselius teaches that granular aggregates are preferable to products in their powder form on account of their better handling properties, fluidity and wetting properties and that the granular aggregates are commonly formed using water.
Regarding (b): the specification does not provide sufficient support that the fine powder is in the form of tea-collagen complex particles (as opposed to fine powder of tea alone, collagen alone, or simple mixtures) and since this is also not clearly supported or shown by data in the specification that this is critical, routine optimization applies (MPEP 2144.05.II, MPEP 716).
Regarding c) It is noted that Matcha Collagen has now been relied upon as the primary reference teaching this feature.
Regarding (d): Applicant is arguing limitations which are not found in the claims, the claims to not claim a binding force relationship between tea:collagen ratio and fine powder formation during granulation of complex particles; Additionally, it is noted that “Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention.” "The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious.” (MPEP 2145.Il).
Regarding (e): It is noted that prior art already provides motivation to granulate tea and additives for improved dispersibility and control the sizes the obtained granules also for improved dispersibility. It is Applicant’s burden to establish criticality of the claimed invention (MPEP 716.02(b))
On pg. 9 of the remarks Applicant argues that there is no motivation to combine Cao-Roselius with Matsunaga, Takanori, Kruger, and/or Tatsuya. The Office relies on Matsunaga, Takanori, Kruger, and Tatsuya to fill in additional limitations of claim 1. Each of these references is directed to different materials and processes: Matsunaga is directed to tea powder alone with no collagen; Takanori is directed to collagen alone with no tea; Kruger is directed to tea capsule products with no collagen; and Tatsuya is directed to tea leaf granules with no collagen. None of these references contemplate the specific combination of tea and collagen, let alone in 1) the claimed weight ratios, 2) formed into complex particles, 3) and having the claimed combination of particle size ranges, fine powder content, and angle of repose. For this additional reason, a person of skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the cited references and arrive at the claimed product. Such a combination would rely on impermissible hindsight. Applicant argues that the final rejection cherry picks elements from 6 references and different products to construct the claimed invention.
In response to applicant’s argument that the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). First it is noted that 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. Additionally, the rejection has been updated based on the claim amendments and the references that remain will be discussed. Further, in this case the cited references are all related to granulated products of tea and additives and granulated collagen, and are all in the same field of endeavor and provide reasonably pertinent teachings for improving upon the product of Matcha Collagen. Motivation has been provided to combine each of the references based on teachings from the references. Specially Cao has been relied upon for teaching the claimed ratios and specifically teaches providing tea and collagen in the claimed ratios. The prior art (Roselius) also already recognizes the advantages of granulating a mixture of multiple ingredients such as powdered tea and additives (Pg. 2, left col. lines 4-14) to form granular aggregates (Pg. 1, left col. lines 9-13). Thus, the prior art makes obvious providing tea and collagen in the claimed amounts and granulating the claimed amount of tea and collagen. Matsunaga discloses that the tea can be granulated with additives and water ([0017]). Matsunaga discloses a granulated tea product particle size influences dispersibility (Espacenet Translation [0006]-[0008]) and teaches particle sizes within the claimed range are preferable for improved dispersibility. Tatsuya discloses granulating green tea and additives and discloses that it is known in the art that by adding excipients and other additives as necessary to ground leave and granulating them it is possible to improve the dispersibility of the ground tea leaves in water to hot water (Espacenet Translation, [0006]). Tatsuya discloses providing tea leaf granules with an angle of repose less than 45°, and generally 25° or more (Espacenet Translation [0032]), overlapping the claimed range. Tatsuya discloses that the tea leaf granules have high fluidity and are smooth so when poured into water or hot water the granules rapidly spread and come into contact with water making them easy to wet and easily disperse without forming lumps (Espacenet Translation [0032]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the processed product of tea of Modified Matcha Collagen such that the processed product of tea specifically has an angle of repose of 35° or smaller as suggested by Tatsuya in order to provide tea granules having high fluidity so when poured into water or hot water the granules rapidly spread and come into contact with water making them easy to wet and easily disperse without forming lumps. Thus, motivation to modify matcha collagen to arrive at the claimed invention has been derived from the teachings of the prior art.
On Pg. 10-14 of the remarks Applicant argues that the claimed product produces unexpected results.
First it is noted that the claims have been amended to include new matter that is not supported by the specification, and therefore the claims are not commensurate in scope with the data in the specification (MPEP 716). Additionally, while Applicant’s remarks have been considered and the data in Table 1 comparing Examples 1-3 with comparative Examples 1-6 has been considered, the data provided in Table 1 is not sufficient to establish criticality of the claimed range of fine powder content for improved dispersibility. MPEP 716.02(d).II recites “To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range”. Applicant has only provided data for a fine powder content of 6.81%, 9.84%, 7.57% compared to comparative examples 1-6 which contain a fine powder content significantly outside of the claimed range of less than 10%. Therefore, the data provided is not sufficient to establish evidence of unexpected results at this time (See MPEP 716). It is noted that the Table also does not specifically show the sizes of the tea- collagen complex particles in combination with the fine powder, and further does not show the sizes of the tea- collagen complex particles in combination with the fine powder where the fine powder is in the form of tea-collagen complex particles.
Regarding improved wettability and dispersibility of the invention, as discussed above, the data provided regarding the claimed fine powder content is not sufficient to establish evidence of unexpected results at this time (See MPEP 716). The prior art (Roselius) also already recognizes the advantages of granulating a mixture of multiple ingredients such as powdered tea and additives (Pg. 2, left col. lines 4-14) to form granular aggregates (Pg. 1, left col. lines 9-13) include providing the product better handling properties, fluidity and wetting properties than the ingredients not in granular form.
It is also noted that Applicant only compares the taste and odor of Examples 1-3 and Comparative Examples 7-9, and thus does not specifically show that forming tea-collagen complex particles (granulating) provides a taste different from a mixture of tea and collagen particles that are not granulated to form tea-collagen complex particles. It is noted that Comparative example 7 is a granulated product with 50g of green tea powder and 450g of collagen powder which had lower preference than examples 1-3 (see Table 2, and paragraph [0104], [0126], [0127] of PGPUB specification).
The examiner notes that paragraphs [0026], [0028] of the PGPUB specification recites that the present disclosure provides a use of tea powder for masking the bad taste and bad odor of collagen, and that masking the bad taste and odor of collagen includes a step of mixing tea powder and collagen powder. As discussed above, it is noted that Cao has already been relied upon for teaching the claimed ratios and specifically teaches providing tea and collagen in the claimed ratios. The fact that Applicant has recognized a benefit of ratios of tea and collagen already taught by the prior art is not sufficient to overcome the obviousness rejection, it is noted that “Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention.” "The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious.” (MPEP 2145.Il).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Ansari US 2019/0343142 discloses a granulated tea product having an average particle diameter of more than 350 micrometers (porous tea granules have a D[4,3] of more than 350 micrometer) ([0049]), Ansari discloses that the sizing of the porous granules is associated with improved consumer acceptance in terms of infusion liquor properties and/or product appearance ([0049]).
Mori US 2016/0095834 discloses that green tea is a taste masking agent ([0036]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY AXTELL whose telephone number is (571)270-0316. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00- 5:30.
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, ERIK KASHNIKOW can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/A.A/
Ashley AxtellExaminer, Art Unit 1792
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights