Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
2. Applicants’ arguments and amendments filed on 12/05/2025, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the following action is final.
Any objections and/or rejections made in the previous action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
Status of the application
3. Claims 2-19 are pending in this application.
Claims 10, 11 have been withdrawn.
Claims 12-19 are new.
Claims 2-9, 12-19 have been rejected.
Double Patenting
4. The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321 (d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An e-Terminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
Claims 2-9, 12-19 of instant claim are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9,13-20 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/516942. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Instant claims 2-9, 12-19 are directed to “A flour substitute product” which is essentially carbohydrate-free, fiber-free and does not include a binding agent and comprising similar ingredients and identical amount of oil/oil spray which is similar to the claims 1-9 and 13-20 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/516942.
Claim 2 of instant claim is directed to recite “wherein the organoleptic properties of the flour substitute product resemble the organoleptic properties of traditional baked goods” which is not claimed in claim 1 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/516942. As because the independent claims are similar with respect to other claim limitations, therefore, the organoleptic properties of the flour substitute product would have obvious be considered to resemble the organoleptic properties of traditional baked goods of claim 1 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/516942.
Also, claim 13 of 18/516942 recites “A food product comprising the flour substitute product of claim 1” which has long lists of food product and, flour substitute product can be, by itself, “a food product” also. Therefore, even if independent claim 2 and claim 12 of instant claim do not recite the phrase “A food product”, however, claims 2-9, 12-19 of instant claims are similar over claims 1-9,13-20 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/516942.
Therefore, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claim 3 is 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 to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 depends on claim 2. Claim 3 recites “boneless chicken breast”. More appropriately, claim 3 should recite “ground boneless chicken breast” which is supported by the specification (in specification, in PGPUB [0012]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
8. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
9. Claims 2-8, 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park T et al. KR 935107 B1 in view of Bonkowski et al. USPN 5164213 in view of Huang et al. USPN 5611263 in view of Morimatsu et al. USPN 6749884 and (additionally), NPL Meat Recipe (in The BBQ Brethern : From the Backyard to The American Royal, 2009).
10. Regarding claims 2-8, 12-18, Park T et al. discloses the chicken breast meat powder composition comprising salt (Ca-salt), ginger powder which is useful to prevent browning and can be stored long period of time (At least in Abstract).
Park et al. is silent about (i) flavor-masking spice as claimed in claim 2 and it is nutmeg as claimed in claims 4, 5, 14, 15 and (ii) plant-based oil as claimed in claim 2 and it is olive oil in the composition as claimed in claims 6, 7, 8, 16-18.
With respect to (i), Bonkowski et al. discloses that nutmeg, salt can be added (Col 8 lines 55-67, col 10 lines 20-35, col 10 lines 60-67 e.g., seasoning boneless fatless, skinless chicken breast) which is flavor-masking spice to meet claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 14, 15 .
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Park T et al.to include the teachings of Bonkowski et al. to incorporate nutmeg, salt can be added (Col 8 lines 55-67) in order to serve as flavor-masking spice to mask the flavor of the chicken breast powder.
With respect to (ii), regarding the amended claim limitation of “oil or oil-based spray is less than or equal to about 2% of the weight of the meat” as claimed in claim 2 and also “oil or oil-based spray is less than or equal to about 1.1% of the weight of the meat” as claimed in claim 12, it is to be noted that examiner used two secondary prior arts -one secondary prior art by Huang et al., and/or Morimatsu et al. and/or (Additionally) another new secondary prior art by NPL Olive in Meat and discussed below. The examiner has used these three prior arts to strengthen the motivation to use small amount of “vegetable oil or ‘oil-based spray” which is olive oil in “the flour substitute composition as claimed in claims 6-8, 16-18.
Huang et al. discloses that vegetable oil can be used to spray coat meatballs in order to serve as lubricant (col 4 lines 37, 56). Although Huang et al. discloses as spray, it is to be noted that the presence of less amount of oil provides benefits of its use of this composition having lubricant already present in this “flour substitute composition” as disclosed by Huang et al. (vegetable oil can be used to spray coat meatballs in order to serve as lubricant col 4 lines 37, 56).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Park T et al.to include the teachings of Huang et al. the presence of less amount of oil which provides benefits of its use of this composition having lubricant already present in this “flour substitute composition” as disclosed by Huang et al. (vegetable oil can be used to spray coat meatballs in order to serve as lubricant as disclosed by Huang et al. (vegetable oil can be used to spray coat meatballs in order to serve as lubricant col 4 lines 37, 56).
(Additionally), Morimatsu et al. discloses that meat products can include vegetable oil (s) e.g. olive oil which provides benefit of having the source of essential fatty acids e.g., linoleic acid, linolenic acid and various unsaturated fatty acids, e.g., Polyunsaturated fatty acid which reduces total plasma cholesterol possessing physiological functions (at least in col 2 lines 50-60, col 3 lines 1-4, lines 12-18).
Therefore, it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the sufficient amount of olive oil to be used that can be claimed range amount of 0.25-2.5 lbs. of olive oil as spray form also. Morimatsu et al. discloses that vegetable oil is added in an amount to at least replacing animal fat by at least half (at least in Table 6, e.g., animal fat 6 and veg fat 6 or veg fat 12, animal fat 0, and claim 1 of Morimatsu et al.) in order to incorporate include vegetable oil (s) e.g. olive oil which provides benefit of having the source of essential fatty acids e.g., linoleic acid, linolenic acid and various unsaturated fatty acids, e.g., Polyunsaturated fatty acid which reduces total plasma cholesterol possessing physiological functions (at least in col 2 lines 50-60, col 3 lines 1-4, lines 12-18). Morimatsu et al. also discloses that vegetable oil and animal fat content can have 1:1 ratio (at least in col 2 lines 50-52). However, it is optimizable from within the disclosed range value in order to achieve desired fatty acid amounts to have cholesterol-suppressing effect (at least in claim 1 of Morimatsu et al.). It is evidenced from NPL chicken breast fat that 140 gm chicken breast will contain about 5 gm fat (7% fat) (Page 1, right side Under Chicken Breast). If we interpret claim 9, 75 lbs. chicken breast having about 5.25 lbs. fat, if replaced 1:1 by olive oil as disclosed by Morimatsu et al. col 2 lines 50-52), will have about 2.25 lb. olive oil (one lower value 75 lbs. chicken breast considered for the calculation). Therefore, the disclosed amount of partial replacement of animal fat with vegetable oil e.g., olive oil at least 1:1 (emphasis at least; can be more) (at least in col 2 lines 53, 60-62, Table 6, claim 1 of Morimatsu et al.) overlap the claimed range amount of olive oil as claimed in claim 2.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Park T et al.to include the teachings of Morimatsu et al. to replace animal fat by at least half (at least in Table 6, e.g., animal fat 6 and veg fat 6 or veg fat 12, animal fat 0, and claim 1 of Morimatsu et al.) in order to incorporate include vegetable oil (s) e.g. olive oil which provides nutritional benefits (at least in col 2 lines 50-60, col 3 lines 1-4, lines 12-18) and it also provides benefits of its use of this composition having lubricant already present in this “flour substitute composition” as disclosed by Huang et al. (vegetable oil can be used to spray coat meatballs i.e. small amount oil which serves as lubricant (col 4 lines 37, 56). This is optimizable.
(Additionally), NPL “Meat Recipe” discloses that olive oil is added to chicken meat (page 3, Recipe #8: #8 is mentioned at top right side), and it can be splash of olive oil in the sauce (at least in page 5, fourth paragraph, Recipe #19: #19 is mentioned at top right side) which sauce is used to marinade chicken breast (at least page 5, Recipe # 17: #17 is mentioned at top right side).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Park T et al.to include the teachings of NPL “Meat Recipe” in order to incorporate vegetable oil (s) e.g. olive oil , sesame oil etc. which provides nutritional benefits of vegetable oils as disclosed by Morimatsu et al., (in Morimatsu et al., at least in col 2 lines 50-60, col 3 lines 1-4, lines 12-18) as well as benefits of its use of this composition having lubricant already present in this “flour substitute composition” as disclosed by Huang et al. (vegetable oil can be used to spray coat meatballs in order to serve as lubricant as disclosed by Huang et al. (vegetable oil can be used to spray coat meatballs in order to serve as lubricant col 4 lines 37, 56).
As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of Vegetable/olive oil in Park T et al., to amounts, including that presently claimed, in order to obtain the desired effect e.g. desired polyunsaturated fatty acids which has cholesterol suppressing effect (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).
11. Regarding claims 3, 13, Park T et al. discloses the chicken breast meat powder composition. Therefore, it includes boneless chicken also.
However, more specifically, Park et al. is silent about Boneless Chicken.
Bonkowski et al. discloses that white chicken meat derived from boneless breast part (Under Example 5, col 10, lines 58-60).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Park T et al.to include the teachings of Bonkowski et al. in order to have desired choice of having white breast chicken meat derived from boneless breast part in order to have processed white boneless chicken breast meat (Under Example 5, col 10, lines 58-60).
12. Claims 9, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park T et al. KR 935107 B1 in view of Bonkowski et al. USPN 5164213 in view of Huang et al. USPN 5611263 (additionally) Morimatsu et al. USPN 6749884 and (Additionally) NPL Meat Recipe as applied to claim 8 and further in view of Meusel et al. USPN 3186853 and as evidenced by NPL chicken breast fat.
13. Regarding claim 9, Park T et al. discloses the chicken breast meat powder composition comprising salt (Ca-salt), ginger powder which is useful to prevent browning and can be stored long period of time (At least in Abstract).
Bonkowski et al. discloses that white chicken meat derived from boneless breast part (Under Example 5, col 10, lines 58-60).
Bonkowski et al. also discloses the salt/spice mix can be brine blend containing nutmeg, salt also (Bonkowski et al. col 8 lines 55-67).
Morimatsu et al. discloses that meat products can include vegetable oil (s) e.g. olive oil which provides benefit of having the source of essential fatty acids e.g., linoleic acid, linolenic acid and various unsaturated fatty acids, e.g., Polyunsaturated fatty acid which reduces total plasma cholesterol possessing physiological functions (at least in col 2 lines 50-60, col 3 lines 1-4, lines 12-18).
However, Park T et al. in view of Bonkowski et al. in view of Morimatsu et al. are silent about the specific amounts and ingredients with the amounts as ratio of the ingredients from steps (i) to (iv) of claims 9, 19.
Claims 9 , 19 step (iv), Nutmeg: It is to be noted that claim 9 (i) claims 75 Ibs. (Lower limit) of boneless chicken. The proportion (ratio) of salt and nutmeg used considering at least 75 Ibs. (Lower limit) of boneless chicken which is addressed using Meusel et al. and discussed below:
Meusel et al. ‘853 discloses that nutmeg is added 15 Ibs. /100 Ibs. in seasoning mix which (i.e., seasoning mix) which is used 8 oz. (i.e., 1/2 lbs.) for 100 lbs. chicken seasoning (calculated based on col 2 lines 1 -10 of Meusel et al.).
So, stepwise, 100 Ibs seasoning has 15 lbs. nutmeg (col 2 lines 2-3)
1 lbs. seasoning has 0.15 lb. nutmeg.
8 oz seasoning (i.e., 1/2 lbs.) is used for 100 Ibs chicken (col 1 lines 70-72).
Therefore, 8 oz seasoning has 0.15/2= 0.075 lbs. nutmeg which is used for 100 lbs. chicken which is within the claimed range of 75-125 lbs boneless chicken of claim 9 (i) . Therefore, this overlaps at least claimed range of nutmeg of claim 9 (iv).
Salt [Claims 9 (ii) and claim 19 (ii)]:
Regarding claim 9 (ii), 19 (ii) Meusel et al. discloses that salt is added 45 lbs. /100 lbs. in seasoning mix which is used 8 oz. (i.e., 1/2 lbs.) used for 100 Ibs. chicken seasoning (calculated based on col 1 lines 65-70). Therefore, in a simple way, the disclosed amount of 45 Ibs. salt in 100 lbs. seasoning is three times of 15 Ibs. nutmeg in 100 lbs. seasoning.
(Additionally), it is to be noted that the disclosed amounts of salt, nutmeg do not meet exactly the claimed range amount as claimed at least in claims 9 (ii), (iv) and claim 19 (ii) and (iv), although it is close proximity to the claimed range, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would optimize to determine the taste (e.g., degree of saltiness, flavor masking effect etc.) etc. in order to evaluate the final amount to reach the presently claimed invention. Therefore, it is optimizable.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made would have been motivated to further modify Park T et al. in view of Bonkowski et al. in view of Morimatsu et al. by including the teaching of Meusel et al. to use the desired amount of salts, nutmeg in order to have proportionate seasoning composition in the final product.
Olive oil: Claim 9 (iii) depend on claim 8 and claim 8 depends on claim 2. The rejection made for olive oil for claims 2,8 using secondary prior arts by Morimatsu et al., Huang and NPL Meat Recipe is applicable here also. Therefore, it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the sufficient amount of olive oil to be used that can be claimed range amount of 0.25-2.5 lbs. of olive oil. However, in order to address the claimed amount of olive oil (wt.%) with respect to the amount of other ingredients as claimed in claim 9, examiner considered Morimatsu et al. which was used in the last office action.
Morimatsu et al. discloses that vegetable oil is added in an amount to at least replacing animal fat by at least half (at least in Table 6, e.g., animal fat 6 and veg fat 6 or veg fat 12, animal fat 0, and claim 1 of Morimatsu et al.) in order to incorporate include vegetable oil (s) e.g. olive oil which provides benefit of having the source of essential fatty acids e.g., linoleic acid, linolenic acid and various unsaturated fatty acids, e.g., Polyunsaturated fatty acid which reduces total plasma cholesterol possessing physiological functions (at least in col 2 lines 50-60, col 3 lines 1-4, lines 12-18).
Morimatsu et al. also discloses that vegetable oil and animal fat content can have 1:1 ratio (at least in col 2 lines 50-52). However, it is optimizable from within the disclosed range value in order to achieve desired fatty acid amounts to have cholesterol-suppressing effect (at least in claim 1 of Morimatsu et al.). It is evidenced from NPL chicken breast fat that 140 gm chicken breast will contain 5 gm fat (7% fat) (Page 1, right side Under Chicken Breast). If we interpret claim 9, 50 lbs. chicken breast having 3.5lbs fat, if replaced 1:1 by olive oil as disclosed by Morimatsu et al. col 2 lines 50-52), will have about 1.75 lb. olive oil (one lower value 50 lbs. chicken breast considered for the calculation). Therefore, the disclosed amount of partial replacement of animal fat with vegetable oil e.g., olive oil at least 1:1 (at least in col 2 lines 53, 60-62, Table 6, claim 1 of Morimatsu et al.) meet the claimed range amount of olive oil as claimed in claim 9 (iii).
The amount of olive oil to be included is also optimizable.
As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of olive oil in Park T et al., to amounts, including that presently claimed, in order to obtain the desired effect e.g. desired polyunsaturated fatty acids which has cholesterol suppressing effect (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).
Response to arguments
17. Applicants’ arguments have been considered. Applicants’ arguments with respect
to “traditional baked goods” overcome 112 second paragraph rejections of record . However, the 112 second paragraph rejection made for claim 3 is maintained. The reason is it is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art would ever
associate a boneless chicken breast as a substitute flour product as flour is a
ground/granular product and a boneless chicken breast is a slab of meat.
One of ordinary skill in the art would ever associate a boneless chicken breast as a
substitute flour product as flour is a ground/granular product and a boneless chicken
breast is a slab of meat.
18. Applicant’s arguments do not overcome obviousness rejections of record. The arguments are not persuasive. The arguments are addressed below.
Arguments:
19. Applicants argued on third page, third paragraph and third page first paragraph that “Primary prior art by Park discloses pulverized and dehydrated powdered chicken, where the final product has 2-8% water and it would require addition of water and a binding agent”.
In response,
Firstly, there is no definition in the specification that the flour substitute has to be a powder, merely that it has to produce products that preferably resemble in both appearance and taste the traditional food product it replaces (para 0006 of the spec as filed). If we consider further applicant’s specification also recites ‘the organoleptic properties of the disclosed flour substitute preferably resemble the organoleptic properties of traditional baked goods’ (in PGPUB [0007]). Therefore, all definitions point to that of the final baked products and not the flour itself.
Secondly the product of the instant invention has all the same ingredients in the same quantities as instantly claimed so it is unclear how it could have different properties as instantly claimed, specifically with regards to its consistency.
It is also to be noted that the disclosed powdered dehydrated product of Park et al. (in Abstract) meets “a flour substitute product “ of independent claim 1. Park et al. discloses that desired food product can be made with the “dehydrated powdered chicken” which reads on “flour substitute product” and in combination with further addition of water and binding agent. Therefore, the “flour substitute product” , itself’ is free of binding agent.
In response to the further argument on third page, third paragraph that “Applicant’s response submitted on Dec 30, 2024, is considered.
Applicants mentioned in the arguments on Dec 30, 2024 that “to form a flour substitute product” the dehydrated chicken product disclosed by Park would require addition of water and a binding agent” . This means “flour substitute product” which is “chicken powder”, needs binding agent and/or water when considered to make further food product.
it is to be noted that in that argument , on third page, paragraph 5, in remarks, applicants stated that “dough-like consistency” containing food product needs binding agent. Applicants mentioned that “to form a flour substitute product” the dehydrated chicken product disclosed by Park would require addition of water and a binding agent” . This means “flour substitute product” which is “chicken powder”, needs binding agent and/or water when considered to make further food product. The amount of water 2-8% by weight in the dried pulverized chicken powder is without binder because it would have been obvious that this range amount of water is considered as residual water in the powdered product and is not considered to contribute as binding water (agent).
20. Applicants argued on third page, last paragraph that “Examiner has responded in the last office action that Huang discloses the use of olive oil as lubricant and not as a binding agent (OA page 17) which is similar scenario for the BBQ Brethern who discloses small amount of oil”. However, examiner does not provide any prior art teaching or suggesting to use olive oil in a larger quantity such that it would function as a binding agent”.
In response, it is to be noted that
(i) applicants agreed that Huang et al. discloses that olive oil serves as lubricant in low amount as claimed in claims 1, 6.
(ii) Therefore, it is not the burden of examiner to establish the fact that “olive oil in large quantity” serves as binder.
(iii) It is also to be noted that if we consider the last affidavit (8/11/2025), it was stated , with reference(s) that olive “ small amount of edible oils serve as lubricants, not as a binder (at least in item # 11, in item # 12 and item # 13).
Applicant’s do not have any further arguments. The rejection is made as final.
Conclusion
21. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning the communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bhaskar Mukhopadhyay whose telephone number is (571)-270-1139.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, examiner’s supervisor Erik Kashnikow, can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571 -272-1000.
/BHASKAR MUKHOPADHYAY/
Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792