DETAILED ACTION
Background
The amendment dated November 04, 2025 (amendment) amending claims 1 and 7 and canceling claim 10 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 11, 15-16, 18-20, 23-24, 26 and 36 stand pending in the instant application. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 11, 23 and 36 filed with the amendment have been examined. Claims 3, 5, 9-10, 12-14, 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 Claims 15-16, 18-20, 24 and 26 remain withdrawn from consideration as drawn to a non-elected invention. All outstanding objections to the claims have been withdrawn.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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, at line 15 after “by adjusting” replace [[a mixing]] with --the--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected 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 upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 11 recites the same step of obtaining a soybean meal extract solution and residual soybean meal, the same step of preparing a fermentation raw material having the same crude protein content and indigestible oligosaccharide content and the same solid culture step as claim 1 and does not further limit claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 10-11, 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), of record, US 2016/0205967 A1 to Segall et al. (Segall), of record, CN 1021106491 B to Jiang (Jiang ‘491), of record, and CN 104872374 A to Zhang (Zhang ‘374), of record, as evidenced by CA2471442 A1 to Junge (Junge), of record.
Each reference to Lee ‘088, Zhang ‘197, Jiang ‘491 and Zhang ‘374 is cited as a Clarivate machine translation, copies of which were provided in a prior Office action. All references to Liu refer to the Clarivate machine language translation, a copy of which is provided with this 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 to 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 in 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 full paragraph Lee ‘088 discloses that the aqueous extracting of raw soybean meal removes non-protein components from the raw 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.
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, or wherein extraction removes anti-nutritional factors and concentrates a crude protein; Lee ‘088 does not disclose a method of performing solid phase 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 that raw soybean meal comprises raffinose, an oligosaccharide (claim 8) anti-nutritional factor (ANF) which is water soluble; and, further, Lee ‘088 discloses at page 3, 7th full paragraph that its aqueous extracting of raw soybean meal removes non-protein components which include raffinose oligosaccharide into solution. 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, 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 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.
Segall at [0019] discloses solution extracting a soybean meal in (at [0020]) acidic water having a pH of from 2.6 to 3.6 and (at [0021] at a temperature of about 15 to about 35 °C to provide and extracted residual soybean meal and a soybean meal extract solution that is made into a product that has excellent water solubility in later use and which comprises proteins as well as (at [0030]) trypsin inhibitors, carbohydrates and low molecular weight proteins. The Office considers the extraction solution of Segall to comprise a concentrated protein. In addition, Segall at [0023] discloses that the solids concentration of the soybean meal in its extraction may vary as desired to form a desirable soybean meal extract solution. Meanwhile, Junge at the top of page 3, last 2 lines to page 4, line 11 discloses aqueous extraction of soy meal (“soybean meal”) at substantially a pH below 3.0 to extract water soluble carbohydrates from the fibers therein, which pH the claimed pH of 2 to 4 overlaps. See MPEP 2144.05.I. Accordingly, the resulting soybean meal extract solution of Segall is a desirable solution for use in culturing an Enterococcus sp. strain.
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 Segall for Lee ‘088 to perform its solid phase fermentation at an extraction solvent temperature of from 15 to 35° C and a pH of 2 to 4 as in Segall. Both references disclose aqueous solution extraction of soybean meal to form an extract solution that contains as anti-nutritional factors and desirable proteins as well. The ordinary skilled artisan in Lee ‘088 would have desired to extract its soybean meal under the conditions set forth in Segall 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.
The fermented soybean meal of Lee ‘088 in Examples 1 and 4 as modified by Segall at [0019]-[0021] and [0023] 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 Segall 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 Segall at [0019]-[0021] and [0023] 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 and Junge 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, Junge 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 Junge 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 11, this claim appears to have the same scope and recite the same limitations as claim 1.
Regarding instant claim 23, the fermented soybean meal of Lee ‘088 in Examples 1 and 4 as modified by Liu in Embodiment 1 and Segall at [0019]-[0021] and [0023] 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 Segall 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 Segall at [0019]-[0021] and [0023] 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
Regarding the position taken in the remarks filed with the amendment dated November 04, 2025 (Reply) at pages 7-8 and Segall, alleging that the Segall extraction of a soybean meal removes proteins from the residual soybean meal, and that Segall is not aimed at the purpose of keeping proteins solid, respectfully the positions taken have been fully considered but are not found persuasive. Segall at [0020]-[0021] and claim 1 recite the same extraction pH and temperature; so, the Reply appears to attempt to compare the claimed extraction to itself and come up with a different result. The claims do not recite “keeping protein as a solid” or any other limit on the form of a crude protein concentrate which can be in any form, including an extracted solution or in a residual solid; so, it is not clear how the claims distinguish over Segall. And the recited crude protein content in the recited fermentation raw material is 20 to 48 wt%, whereas Lee ‘088 at Example 4, page 6, 2nd to last full paragraph and last full paragraph discloses its residual soybean meal fermentation raw material having a crude protein content of 48% that is on the high end of protein raw material in a fermentation raw material. This does not suggest that the claimed residual soybean meal resulting from the claimed extraction has an unexpectedly high crude protein content; to the contrary, it suggests that the recited residual soybean meal (at a broad weight ratio of 1:10 to 10:1 to raw soybean meal) in a fermentation raw material having a crude protein content of 20 to 48 wt% as claimed may have a lower crude protein content than the residual soybean meal of Lee ‘088. Additionally, motivation for adding Segall is found separately at [0034] where it discloses that its extraction makes a solution of saccharides useful in seed culturing an Enterococcus sp. strain as in Lee ‘088.
Applicants may set up a proper comparison to address the weight ratio of raw soybean meal to extraction solvent in Example 1 of Segall in comparison to the claimed ratio of 1:3.5 to 1:4.5 but have not done so. Likewise, Applicants may set up a proper comparison to the extraction conditions in Example 1 of Lee ‘088 but have no done so.
Regarding the position taken in the Reply at pages 8-9 and Jiang alleging hindsight reconstruction of the recited microorganism having an optimum growth temperature of from 40 to 45 °C where the rejection cites the instant specification, respectfully 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). In the instant case, the Office has found multiple sources to support the purported combination aside from page 14, lines 7-10 of the instant specification admitting that the recited growth temperature is desired for use as a probiotic at the digestive temperature found in chickens and cows. At page 5, [0049] Jiang ‘491 discloses fermenting at a temperature of 40°C to remove anti-nutritional factors and to create a feed. And Liu at Abstract on page 1 discloses use as a probiotic in animals where the bacteria are (at Embodiment 1) Enterococcus faecium. It is routine for the ordinary skilled artisan to develop probiotics that are active in the digestive tracts of their users.
Regarding the position taken in the Reply at pages 9-10 that the invention and Examples 1 and 2 provides an unexpected saccharide removal without protein loss, the position taken continues to make a bare allegation of the improvement without comparing Example 1 of Lee ‘088, the closest prior art. Also, the position alleges that crude protein is concentrated in a residual soybean meal; however, as discussed in paragraph 11 concentrated protein as claimed can be in any phase.
Regarding the position taken in the Reply at page 10 that the combination of six references provides evidence of improper hindsight reconstruction, respectfully a reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and MPEP 21245.V. Otherwise, the position merely repeats positions already addressed and is taken as a general allegation of patentability. See 37 CFR 1.111(b).
Conclusion
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.
/ANDREW E MERRIAM/ Examiner, Art Unit 1791