DETAILED ACTION
Background
The amendment dated March 24, 2026 (amendment) amending claim 1 and canceling claim 11 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 15-16, 18-20, 23-24, 26 and 36 stand pending in the instant application. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 23 and 36 as filed with the amendment have been examined. Claims 3, 5, 9-14, 17, 21-22, 25 and 27-35 have been canceled. Claims 15-16, 18-20, 24 and 26 remain withdrawn from consideration as drawn to a non-elected invention. In view of the amendment, all outstanding objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The following references cited in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on February 24, 2026 have been crossed out because they are already made of record in this case:
US2016/0205967 A1 to Segall et al. which is cited as Segall; CN106923197 A to Zhang et al. which is cited as Zhang ‘197; and CN104872374 A to Zhang, which is cited as Zhang ‘374.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, at line 10 after “mixture in which” replace [[the]] with --a--; at line 11 after “soybean meal and” insert -- the--; at line 12 after “material includes” insert -- a--, after “48%” insert a space ( ), and after “(w/w)” delete [[of the]]; and, at line 13 after “content and” insert -- a--, and after “(w/w%)” delete [[of the]].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 1-2, 4, 6-8, 10, 23 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20150004088 A to Lee et al. (Lee ‘088) in view of CN105746923 A to Liu et al. (Liu), CN 106923197A to Zhang et al. (Zhang ‘197), CN 1021106491 B to Jiang (Jiang ‘491), and CN 104872374 A to Zhang (Zhang ‘374), all of record.
Each reference to Lee ‘088, Liu, Zhang ‘197, Jiang ‘491 and Zhang ‘374 is cited as a Clarivate machine translation, copies of which were provided in a prior Office action.
Regarding instant claim 1, Lee '088 at Abstract on page 2 discloses a method for making a feed for livestock made by extracting raw soybean meal (“obtaining a soybean meal extract solution and residual soybean meal”) with water (at page 3, 7th full para.) as an extraction solvent at a pH of 4.5 or below, within which range the claimed pH of 2 to 4 lies, and at a temperature of the extraction solvent of from 40 to 60 °C, such as in Example 1 (at page 5, 4th full paragraph of Lee ‘088), then performing solid phase fermentation of the resulting soybean meal that was extracted (“fermentation raw material” as “residual soybean meal”) at 30°C using a lactic acid bacteria which has been screened (as in Example 2 on page 5) to grow rapidly in the extract solution in fermentation, such as in Example 4 (at page 6, the 2nd to last full paragraph of Lee ‘088) SLB 120 which is an Enterococcus sp. strain. Lee ‘088 in the last full paragraph on page 4 discloses that its soybean meal extract solution is rich in fructose and other saccharides and that it provides a rapid growth culture medium for its Enterococcus sp. strains. Further, Lee ‘088 at Example 4, page 6, 2nd to last full paragraph and last full paragraph discloses a residual soybean meal or fermentation raw material having a protein content (“crude protein content”) of 48% and a fermented soybean meal having a protein content (“crude protein content”) of 56%. And at page 3, 7th and 8th full paragraph Lee ‘088 discloses that the aqueous extracting of raw soybean meal with a small amount of extraction solvent removes non-protein components from the raw soybean meal (“wherein extraction removes anti-nutritional factors and concentrates a crude protein in the residual soybean meal”).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", the Office considers that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.I. Accordingly, the ordinary skilled artisan in Lee ‘088 would have found it obvious to obtain the claim 1 soybean meal extract solution and the claimed residual soybean meal by extracting the raw soybean meal at a pH of from 2 to 4 because Lee ‘088 discloses that extraction of raw soybean meal at the claimed pH is desirable to remove anti-nutritional factors from the soybean meal.
In addition, as admitted at page 14, lines 7-10 of the instant specification a higher microorganism optimum growth temperature is considered advantageous for fermentation because, in case of a chicken or cow wherein the body temperature is about 41 °C it survives and proliferates in the intestine of the livestock and thereby acts as an active probiotic.
Further, Lee ‘088 does not disclose a method wherein in obtaining a soybean meal extract solution the weight ratio of the raw soybean meal to the extraction solvent is 1:3.5 to 1:4.5, or wherein the extraction solvent has a temperature of 15 to 35°C and has a pH of 2 to 4; Lee ‘088 does not disclose a method of performing solid fermentation wherein the microorganism is an Enterococcus sp. strain which has an optimum growth temperature of 40 to 45° C; and, further, Lee ‘088 does not disclose a fermentation raw material including 20 to 48 wt% (w/w) of crude protein and an indigestible oligosaccharide content of from 0.6 to 1.7 w/w%; and, further, Lee ‘088 does not disclose such solid fermentation wherein the temperature in the step for performing solid fermentation is increased to 40°C during fermentation; and does not disclose such solid phase fermentation wherein the fermentation raw material comprises a mixture in which the raw soybean meal and residual soybean meal are mixed at a weight ratio of 1:10 to 10:1, or wherein the crude protein content or anti-nutritional factor content of the fermented soybean meal is controlled by adjusting the weight ratio of the residual soybean meal and the raw soybean meal. In addition, Lee ‘088 does not disclose a fermented soybean meal having a crude protein content of higher than 46%(w/w) to lower than 80%(w/w), based on the weight of the fermented product.
The Office considers concentrating a crude protein to include either making a residual concentrate as a protein or making a solution extract as the protein.
Additionally, Lee ‘088 does not disclose the following from claims 7 and 8:
controlling the crude protein content or anti-nutritional factor content of the fermented soybean meal by adjusting a mixing weight ratio of the residual soybean meal and the raw soybean meal as in claim 7; and,
controlling anti-nutritional factors as one or more kinds selected from the group consisting of trypsin inhibitor, beta-conglycinin-n, indigestible oligosaccharide, hemagglutinin (lectin), saponin and tannin as in claim 8.
However, at page 3, 6th full paragraph of Lee ‘088 teaches that raw soybean meal comprises raffinose, an oligosaccharide (claim 8) anti-nutritional factor (ANF) which is water soluble and (at page 3, 7th full paragraph) that its aqueous extracting of raw soybean meal removes non-protein components. And, further, Lee ‘088 at the last full paragraph of page 6 discloses that fermentation significantly reduces the amount of both the ANFs trypsin inhibitor as in claim 8 and the raffinose.
Zhang ‘197 at Abstract discloses aqueous acidic extraction of soybean (pH 4.8-6.5) followed by centrifugation to remove anti-nutritional factors, wherein at page 3 items (1)-(2) the dry soybean extract comprises more than 90% protein and carbohydrate and comprises a ratio of carbohydrates to protein of less than 1. At page 4, 3rd full paragraph, Zhang ‘197 discloses a mass or weight ratio of soybeans: water of 1:3 to 1:7 and an extraction temperature of 0 to 20°C, such that the claimed 1:3.5 to 1:4.5 ratio of extraction solvent and raw soybean meal lies within the Zhang ‘197 disclosed range and the extraction solvent temperature of 15 to 35° C overlaps the Zhang ‘197 disclosed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", the Office considers that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Liu at Abstract on page 1 discloses a fermented feed comprising bean dregs and bean slag (“residual soybean meal”) and providing enhanced animal growth and immunity from the feed without the use of antibiotics. In Embodiment 1 at the bottom of page 3 and page 4, Liu discloses fermenting 6 kg bean dregs and 4 kg bean curd slag (each of which are considered “residual soybean meal”) and 17.17 kg of soybean meal (“raw soybean meal”) with probiotic bacteria comprising Enterococcus faecium.
Jiang ‘491 at Abstract on page 1 discloses a fermented feed having a biological high-activity and a preparation method therefor, wherein the feed is prepared from soy bean pulp (soy bean meal) by fermentation of bacteria comprising Enterococcus faecalis to remove anti-nutritional factors in the soybean and, further wherein, the method propagates viable bacteria for use in feed. The Office considers viable bacteria to comprise those that survive in the intestine of the consuming livestock. At page 3, [0021] the lactic as acid bacteria can be Enterococcus faecium. Further, at page 5, [0049] Jiang ‘491 discloses fermenting at a temperature of 40°C to create a feed which (at claim 3 on page ) comprises from 1 x 107 to 1 x 109 CFU/g of an Enterococcus strain.
Zhang ‘374 at page 2, last 2 full paragraphs discloses a method of making a soybean meal having increased soluble protein content comprising heat treating raw soybean meal for 5 to 10 minutes before fermenting it with (at Abstract) a lactic acid bacteria and then (at page 3, lines 1-10) aqueous alkali extracting the fermented soybean meal.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Zhang ‘197 for Lee ‘088 to perform its solid phase fermentation at an extraction solvent temperature of from 15 to 35°C and a using a weight ratio of raw soybean meal to extraction solvent of 1:3.5 to 1:4.5 as in Zhang ‘197. Both references disclose aqueous solution extraction of soybean meal to form an extract solution that contains as anti-nutritional factors. The ordinary skilled artisan in Lee ‘088 would have desired to extract its soybean meal under the conditions set forth in Lee ‘088 and Zhang ‘197 to produce a soybean meal extract solution having a controlled content of anti-nutritional factors and carbohydrates to provide a suitable culture medium for rapid growth of Enterococcus sp. strains and to remove the anti-nutritional factors from the resultant residual soybean meal.
The fermented soybean meal of Lee ‘088 as modified by Zhang ‘197 and that of the claims are the product of the same aqueous acidic extraction, followed by the same fermenting of the extracted residual soybean meal using an Enterococcus strain. Thus, absent a clear showing as to how the protein content of proteins having a specified molecular weight of the Example 4 fermented soybean meal of Lee ‘088 as modified by Zhang ‘197 differs from that of the fermented soybean meal as claimed, the Office considers the fermented soybean meal of Lee ‘088 in Examples 1 and 4 as modified by Zhang ‘197 at the Abstract and page 4, 3rd full paragraph to comprise the claimed content, based on 100% by weight of the total protein in the fermented soybean meal, of from 40 to 80% by weight of protein having a molecular weight of lower than 25kD. See MPEP 2112.01.I.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Zhang ‘197 for Lee ‘088 to perform its aqueous soybean meal extraction at a ratio extraction solvent to raw soybean meal of 1:3.5 to 1:4.5. Both references disclose aqueous soybean protein extraction from soybean meal. The ordinary skilled artisan reading Lee ‘088 would have desired to increase the relative amount of raw soybean meal to extraction solvent in an aqueous extraction as in Zhang ‘197 to maximize protein yield in the soybean extract of Lee ‘088 while limiting the amount of extraction solvent used in the process as in Example 1, on page 5, 7th full paragraph of Lee ‘088.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Jiang ‘491 for Lee ‘088 to culture its Enterococcus sp. strain and to select it so that it has an optimum growth temperature of 40-45 °C and to increase its solid-state fermentation temperature in making its feed to as high as 40° C during fermentation. Both references disclose fermentation of soybean meal using an Enterococcus strain of bacteria to create a feed in which the bacteria are active. The ordinary skilled artisan working Lee ‘088 would have desired to increase the temperature in performing solid fermentation to 40°C as in Jiang ‘491 to increase bacterial activity in fermentation and in the feed product in use, and thereby improve the feed by making it easier for livestock to digest and improve soluble protein quantity in the resulting fermented soybean extract feed for the livestock. Further, it would have been obvious to repeatedly propagate the Enterococcus in Lee ‘088 as modified by Jiang ‘491 in the same way that Lee ‘088 screens its Enterococcus sp. strains by culturing repeatedly at a temperature of from 40 to 45° C and select strains of the Enterococcus exhibiting optimal growth at those temperatures to create an Enterococcus strain bacteria in Lee ‘088 that ferments at 40 to 45 °C and thereby remains viable thereafter for use in making a probiotic fermented feed comprising soy containing active probiotic microbes.
Before of the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Liu for Lee ‘088 as modified by Zhang ‘197 and Jiang ‘491 to obtain a fermentation raw material comprising raw soybean meal and residual soybean meal from extraction in solution mixed in a weight ratio of from 1:10 to 10:1 and thereby to control the indigestible oligosaccharide content of the fermentation raw material and provide a fermentation raw material having a crude protein content of from 20 to 48% (w/w) and an indigestible oligosaccharide content of from 0.6 to 1.7 w/w%. Each of Lee ‘088, Liu, Jiang ‘491 and Zhang ‘374 disclose fermenting soybean meal in lactic acid bacteria to improve its digestibility and/or nutritive value. The ordinary skilled artisan would have desired to increase the efficiency and flexibility of the process of fermentation by including a wider range of raw materials in the fermentation raw material of Lee ‘088, including a weight ratio of 1:10 to 10:1 of raw soybean meal to residual soybean meal as suitable fermentable materials as in Liu. Further, the ordinary skilled artisan in Lee ‘088 as modified by Zhang ‘197, Jiang ‘491, and Zhang ‘374 would have desired to include the raw soybean meal as in Liu to increase the amount of protein in the fermentation raw material, which would also increase the raffinose oligosaccharide and other anti-nutrition factors (ANFs) as in claims 7 and 8 and control the ratio of raw soybean meal and residual soybean meal in Example 4 of Lee ‘088 which uses an Enterococcus strain to remove ANF’s in fermentation or during digestion of the feed when the bacteria act as a probiotic as in Liu and Jiang ‘491.
Because Lee ‘088 at page 3, 7th full paragraph discloses that the aqueous extracting of raw soybean meal removes non-protein components from the raw soybean meal, adding any amount of raw soybean meal as in Liu to the residual soybean meal in Lee ‘088 as modified by Zhang ‘197, Jiang ‘491 and Liu would result in a fermentation raw material having a crude protein content of from 20 to 48% (w/w). In any case, the Office considers the fermented soybean meal of Lee '088 as modified by Liu to comprise the same composition as the claimed fermented soybean meal product as it is made by the substantially the same method of aqueous acidic extraction, followed by the same fermenting of the extracted residual soybean meal using an Enterococcus strain. Accordingly, absent a clear showing as to how the indigestible oligosaccharide content of the fermentation raw material of Lee ‘088 differs from that as claimed, the Office considers the fermentation raw material of Example 4 of Lee ‘088 as modified by Liu at Embodiment 1 to have an indigestible oligosaccharide content of from 0.6 to 1.7 w/w%, and, further, considers the product fermented soybean meal to have a crude protein content of from 46 to 80% (w/w) of the product as in claim 1. See MPEP 2112.01.I.
Regarding instant claim 2, the Office considers the claimed facultative anaerobic lactic acid bacterium to include the Enterococcus sp. strain of Lee ‘088; and, further, the Office considers the claimed performing solid fermentation that does not comprise an oxygen aeration process to include the solution fermentation in Example 4 of Lee ‘088.
Regarding instant claim 4, Lee '088 at Example 1 on page 5, 4th full paragraph discloses extracting raw soybean meal with water as an extraction solvent.
Regarding instant claim 6, Lee ‘088 does not disclose separating an extraction solvent by centrifugation.
Zhang ‘197 at Abstract on page 1 discloses centrifuging an aqueous soybean meal extract solution to obtain a solid extraction product and separating out the solvent.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Zhang ‘197 for Lee ‘088 to centrifuge its aqueous soybean meal extract solution in the manner of Zhang ‘197 to improve the rate or efficiency of separating an aqueous extraction solvent from a residual soybean meal.
Regarding instant claim 23, the fermented soybean meal of Lee ‘088 in Examples 1 and 4 as modified by Liu in Embodiment 1 and Zhang ‘197 at the Abstract and page 4, 3rd full paragraph and that of the claims are the product of the same aqueous acidic extraction, followed by the same fermenting of the extracted residual soybean meal using an Enterococcus strain. Thus, absent a clear showing as to how the protein content of proteins having a specified molecular weight of the Example 4 fermented soybean meal of Lee ‘088 as modified by Liu and Zhang ‘197 differs from that of the fermented soybean meal as claimed, the Office considers the fermented soybean meal of Lee ‘088 in Examples 1 and 4 as modified by Liu at Embodiment 1 and Zhang ‘197 at the Abstract and page 4, 3rd full paragraph to comprise the claimed content, based on 100% by weight of the total protein in the fermented soybean meal, of from 40 to 80% by weight of protein having a molecular weight of lower than 25kD; a content, based on 100% by weight of the total protein in the fermented soybean meal, of from 0.01 to 60% by weight of protein having a molecular weight of 25 to lower than 50 kD weight as in claim 23; and a content of 0.01 to 30% by weight of protein having a molecular weight of 50kD or more. See MPEP 2112.01.I.
Regarding instant claim 36, Lee '088 at Example 2 on page 5, 4th to last full paragraph discloses seed culturing to culture the microorganism strain in the soybean meal extract solution obtained by extracting the raw soybean meal with an extraction solvent before performing the step of fermenting.
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendment dated March 24, 2026, the following rejections are withdrawn as moot:
The rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim from which it depends; and,
The rejections of claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 10, 23 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20150004088 A to Lee et al. in view of CN105746923 A to Liu et al., CN 106923197 A to Zhang et al., US 2016/0205967 A1 to Segall et al., CN 1021106491 B to Jiang and CN 104872374 A to Zhang, as evidenced by CA2471442 A1 to Junge to the extent that those rejections rely on Segall or Junge.
Regarding the positions taken in the remarks accompanying the amendment dated March 24, 2026 (Reply), the Office has fully considered the positions taken and does not find the positions persuasive for the following reasons:
Regarding the position taken in the remarks filed with the Reply at pages 7-8 and Segall, the Office finds that the extraction method disclosed in Segall does not concentrate crude protein in a residual soybean meal or avoid removing protein from the soybean meal because Segall at Examples 1, 2 and 5 discloses extraction of a raw soybean meal using a weight ratio of raw soybean meal to extraction solvent of about 1:10. Nevertheless, Lee ‘088 at page 3, 7th and 8th paragraphs discloses extraction at a pH of less than 4.5 and using minimal solvent.
Regarding the position taken in the Reply at pages 8-9 and Lee ‘088 alleging a superior protein content in the product of the claimed method do not amount to evidence overcoming the art. Even if a statement alleging a patentable distinction comes from the instant specification and not from counsel, it remains merely an argument asserting unexpected results and cannot take the place of evidence on the record. See MPEP 716.01(c).II.
Regarding the position taken in the Reply at page 9 alleging that the art does not disclose the claimed extraction conditions or a “ratio-based control of weight raw soybean meal to residual soybean meal” is not well taken. Respectfully, the art at page 4, 3rd full paragraph, Zhang ‘197 discloses a mass or weight ratio of soybeans: water of 1:3 to 1:7 and an extraction temperature of 0 to 20°C, which both the claimed 1:3.5 to 1:4.5 ratio of extraction solvent and raw soybean meal and the claimed temperature of 15 to 35 °C overlap to remove anti-nutritional factors from raw soybean meal. See MPEP 2144.05.I. Further, in Embodiment 1 at the bottom of page 3 and page 4, Liu discloses fermenting 6 kg been dregs and 4 kg bean curd slag (each of which are considered “residual soybean meal”) and 17.17 kg of soybean meal (“raw soybean meal”) with probiotic bacteria comprising Enterococcus faecium to improve overall productivity in making feeds.
Regarding the position taken in the Reply at page 10 that the art does not provide a teaching, suggestion or explanation of using an Enterococcus sp. strain having an optimal growth temperature of 40 to 45 °C, respectfully this position is not found persuasive. At page 5, [0049] Jiang ‘491 discloses fermenting an Enterococcus strain at a temperature of 40°C to create a feed which (at claim 3 on page ) comprises from 1 x 107 to 1 x 109 CFU/g of the microbe. It is routine in the art to match an optimum growth temperature of an enteric microbe strain that is active in the digestive tract of an animal to which it is fed to mimic the enteric temperature of the animal.
Regarding the positions taken in the Reply at pages 10-12 alleging unexpectedly improved digestibility, digestion rate, animal growth rates and reduction in methane gas generation, the position is respectfully not found sufficient to demonstrate unexpected results. All of the alleged results may be expected from a method of reducing the amount of anti-nutritional factors in a soybean meal, then enzymolytic fermentation of the soybean meal using an optimized microbe and inclusion of the optimized microbe as a probiotic in a feed containing the fermented soybean meal.
A showing of unexpected results requires more than technically meaningful results without a proper comparison; the results must be shown to be unexpected over the closest prior art of Lee ‘088. Applicants are invited to set up a proper comparison to the extraction conditions in Example 1 of Lee ‘088 but have not done so. Meanwhile, the data found, for example, in Example 5 of the instant specification addressing impacts on digestion in cattle present a reasonable case for possible unexpected results but would need to compare the extraction conditions disclosed in Lee ‘088 at Example 1 (raw soybean meal to solvent of 1:5; extraction solvent pH 4.4; and solvent at 40 to 60 °C so that the final soybean meal temperature is 25 to 30 °C, emphasis added). Existing comparisons in Table 3 of the instant specification picking a solvent at 60 °C, a solvent pH of 7.8 and with no mention of the final raw soybean meal temperature are not found sufficient to address the closest art of Lee ‘088.
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 ANDREW E MERRIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-H 8:00A-5:30P and alternate Fridays 8:30A-5P.
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 H Dees can be reached on (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.
/A.E.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 1791 /Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights