DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/08/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-19 are pending in this application.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed 02/08/2026 is acknowledged. This listing of the claims replaces all prior versions and listings of the claims.
Applicant’s remarks filed on 02/08/2026 in response to the final rejection mailed on 10/08/2025 is acknowledged and has been fully considered.
Applicant’s Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 02/08/2026 is acknowledged and has been fully considered.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Election
The elected subjected matter is:
Invention III, claims 15-19, drawn to a method for treating an animal comprising feeding the composition of claim 10, and a method for treating a condition associated with poor feed intake, poor feed conversion rate, poor daily weight gain, insufficient ileum surface area, and variation in results between sexes by feeding said animal with an animal feed ingredient, classified in CPC A23K 10/12,
provisionally elected by telephone on 03/19/2024, and affirmed in the Applicant’s remarks filed on 06/26/2025 in response to the Office action mailed 03/28/2024.
Claims 1-14 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to non-elected inventions.
Claims 15-19 are being examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al. (Biotechnol Biofuels, 2018, 11:1; cited on the IDS submitted 08/03/2022; herein referred to as Xiao) in view of Xu et al. (J Agri Food Chem, 2018, 66:6281; cited on the Form PTO-892 mailed 03/28/2024; herein referred to as Xu) and Bartram et al. (Cancer Res, 1993, 53:3283; cited on the Form PTO-892 mailed 08/23/2024; herein referred to as Bartram).
The instant rejection is maintained from the previous Office Action and any modifications relative to the previous rejection are necessitated by claim amendment.
Claim 15 is drawn to a method for treating an animal comprising feeding said animal with a butyrate-comprising animal feed, the animal feed comprising a feed ingredient comprising:
a) butyrate and an ammonium counter ion;
b) a by-product of fermentation of a carbon source-containing feedstock with a Clostridia class bacterium selected from the group consisting of Butyribacterium methylotrophicum, Clostridium tyrobutyricum and combinations thereof which natively produces butyric acid,
wherein said by-product comprises nucleotides and optionally further comprises at least on by-product selected from the group consisting of nitrogen compounds, vitamins, salts, complexes of transition metals, biomass and combinations thereof.
Xiao discusses the production of butyric acid from acid hydrolysate of corn husk in fermentation by Clostridium tyrobutyricum [title], wherein the applications of butyric acid in animal feed is discussed due to its role as a primary energy source in intestinal metabolism as well as its therapeutic effects on tumor growth, the immune system, and gastrointestinal diseases [p 2, col 1, para 1].
Regarding claim 15, Xiao teaches butyric acid is used in animal feed, and that the production of butyric acid from C. tyrobutyricum that natively produces butyric acid [p 2, col 1, para 1] from glucose and xylose [abstract], wherein biomass is produced throughout fermentation as evidenced by the increase in OD600 shown in [Figure 2], and wherein the production of biomass is understood to encompasses the production of nucleotides and nitrogen compounds.
Xiao does not teach treating an animal and an ammonium counter ion to butyrate.
Xu discusses sodium butyrate supplementation and its effects on fatty acid metabolism in bovine hepatocytes [title].
Regarding claim 15 and the limitation of treating an animal, Xu teaches the treatment pigs with sodium butyrate is proposed to decrease fatty acid oxidation and increase fatty acid transportation in the liver of said pigs [p 6282, col 1, para 2].
Bartram discusses the effects of butyrate on human colonic mucosa [title], and discloses the comparison of different butyrate salts including calcium, sodium, and ammonium butyrate [abstract].
Regarding claim 15 and the limitation of an ammonium counterion to butyrate, Bartram teaches the addition of ammonium butyrate to biopsies showed no difference in cell proliferation compared with sodium butyrate [Table 4]. Therefore Bartram indicates the use of either sodium or ammonium as counterions to butyrate has minimal influence on the cellular effects of butyrate.
In view of the teachings of Xiao, Xu and Bartram, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the components of butyrate fermentation, as taught by Xiao, with the method of treating pigs with butyrate, as taught by Xu, and the ammonium butyrate salt, as taught by Bartram, to arrive at the claimed invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce an animal feed comprising a composition with components of butyrate fermentation because Xiao teaches the production of butyrate through fermentation of glucose and xylose as well as the health benefits of applying butyrate as an animal feed.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the animal feed comprising a composition with butyrate fermentation components to treat an animal because Xu teaches that butyrate can be used to affect fatty acid metabolism in treated pigs, and Bartram teaches the use of either sodium or ammonium as counterions to butyrate has minimal influence on the cellular effects of butyrate.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both Xiao and Xu discuss the health benefits of butyrate applications in animals, and Xiao, Xu and Bartram all discuss forms of butyrate and their effects on animals.
Regarding claim 16, Xiao teaches a fermentation mixture with 10 to 20,000 ppm butyrate at approximately 5 hours into fermentation in [Figure 2A], as 20 g/L as disclosed by the figure is understood to equate to 20,000 ppm as recited by the claim.
Regarding claim 17, Xiao teaches a fermentation mixture in [Figure 2A] wherein 100% by weight of the butyrate results from the feed ingredient, as the feed ingredient is interpreted to be the composition comprising butyrate and a by-product of fermentation of a carbon source-containing feedstock with a Clostridia class bacterium which natively produces butyric acid as stated above.
Regarding claim 18, Xu discloses the treatment of pigs with butyrate [p 6282, col 1, para 2], wherein pigs are understood to be a member of the porcine group of animals.
Therefore, the method of claims 15-18 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao in view of Xu and Bartram as applied to claims 15-18 above, and further in view of Zheijiang University et al. (CN107746862; cited on IDS submitted 08/03/2022; reference is made to the machine translation, cited on the Form PTO-892 mailed 03/28/2024; herein referred to as ZJU).
The instant rejection is maintained from the previous Office Action and any modifications relative to the previous rejection are necessitated by claim amendment.
Claim 19 is drawn to a method for treating a condition associated with at least one selected from the group consisting of poor feed intake, poor feed conversion rate, poor daily weight gain, and insufficient ileum surface area, comprising feeding said animal with an animal feed comprising
a) butyrate and an ammonium counter ion;
b) a by-product of fermentation of a carbon source-containing feedstock with a Clostridia class bacterium selected from the group consisting of Butyribacterium methylotrophicum, Clostridium tyrobutyricum and combinations thereof which natively produces butyric acid,
wherein said by-product is selected from the group consisting of nitrogen compounds, nucleotides, vitamins, salts, complexes of transition metals, biomass and combinations thereof.
The teachings of Xiao, Xu and Bartram as applied to claims 15-18 are discussed above and relate to limitations recited in claim 19 of animal feed and use for treatment of an animal.
Briefly, Xiao teaches the inclusion of butyrate in animal feed and the production of butyric acid from C. tyrobutyricum that natively produces butyric acid [p 2, col 1, para 1] from glucose and xylose [abstract], wherein biomass is produced throughout fermentation as evidenced by the increase in OD600 shown in [Figure 2], and wherein the production of biomass additionally encompasses the production of nucleotides and nitrogen compounds, Xu discusses sodium butyrate supplementation and its effects on fatty acid metabolism in bovine hepatocytes and teaches the treatment pigs with sodium butyrate is proposed to decrease fatty acid oxidation and increase fatty acid transportation in the liver of said pigs [p 6282, col 1, para 2], and Bartram teaches the addition of ammonium butyrate to biopsies showed no difference in cell proliferation compared with sodium butyrate [Table 4] indicating the use of either sodium or ammonium as counterions to butyrate has minimal influence on the cellular effects of butyrate.
The combination of Xiao, Xu and Bartram does not teach a condition associated with at least one selected from the group consisting of poor feed intake, poor feed conversion rate, poor daily weight gain, and insufficient ileum surface area.
ZJU discusses methods and uses of butyric acid fermented from maize skin [title].
Regarding claim 19, ZJU teaches that butyrate in the feed industry can be used as a feed additive to improve feed conversion rate, suppress enteric pathogenic bacteria breeding, and improve immunity of organisms [p 2, para 1 of “Background Technology” of the machine translation].
In view of the teachings of Xiao, Xu, Bartram and ZJU, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the components of butyrate fermentation, as taught by Xiao, with the method of treating pigs with butyrate to address feed conversion rate, as taught by Xu and ZJU, respectively, and to use the ammonium butyrate salt, as taught by Bartram, to arrive at the claimed invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce an animal feed comprising a composition with components of butyrate fermentation because Xiao teaches the production of butyrate through fermentation of glucose and xylose as well as the health benefits of applying butyrate as an animal feed.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the animal feed comprising a composition with butyrate fermentation components to treat an animal because Xu teaches that butyrate can be used to affect fatty acid metabolism in treated pigs, ZJU teaches that butyrate can be added to animal feed to improve feed conversion rate, and Bartram teaches that sodium and ammonium salts of butyrate can be used interchangeably.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because ZJU, Xiao, Xu and Bartram discuss the health benefits of butyrate applications in animals.
Therefore, the method of claim 19 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Response to Remarks: Beginning on page 5 of Applicant’s response to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections and page 1 of Applicant’s Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132; Applicant contends the cited prior art does not teach the requirement of an animal feed comprising ammonium butyrate with a nucleotide; Applicant further contends the use of ammonium butyrate provides a surprise advantage of butyrate being devoid of foam-stabilizing properties to provide improved process efficiency and yield, and that the cited prior art focuses on nutritional effects of butyrate and not fermentation operability; Applicant further contends claim 19 recites the same butyrate salt and nucleotide by-product as claim 15, and therefore the same arguments against its obviousness rejection apply.
Applicant’s remarks are considered and found not convincing.
Regarding the assertion that the prior art do not teach a feed comprising ammonium butyrate with a nucleotide, the teachings of the prior art are described in the rejection above and include the inclusion of butyrate in animal feed, the production of butyrate with fermentation of specific bacteria to produce biomass, the treatment of treatment pigs with sodium butyrate to decrease fatty acid oxidation and increase fatty acid transportation in the livers of pigs, and the feasibility of using either ammonium or sodium butyrate as a result of the sodium or ammonium having minimal influence on the cellular effects of butyrate. As stated in the rejection above, the production of biomass is considered to encompass the production of nucleotides, as nucleotides are understood to be produced in organisms within the biomass.
Regarding the assertion that claim 19 recites the same butyrate salt and nucleotide by-product as claim 15, it is noted that claim 19 requires that the fermentation by-product be selected from at least one of the group consisting of nitrogen compounds, nucleotides, vitamins, salts, complexes of transition metals, biomass and combinations thereof. Therefore claim 19 does not require the nucleotide by-product as stated by Applicant, but instead requires at least one selected from a group that includes nucleotides.
Regarding the assertion of the ammonium butyrate providing a surprise advantage of butyrate being devoid of foam-stabilizing properties to provide improved process efficiency and yield: as stated above, it is noted that the prior art teaches the use of butyrate in animal feeds, the use of butyrate in treatment of animals, and that either sodium or ammonium butyrate can be used due to the minimal influence of each counterion the cellular effects of butyrate. Therefore, one of skill in the art in making the combination of elements outlined in the rejection above would arrive at the claimed method, which comprises using the animal feed with the purported surprise advantage cited by Applicant. Applicant contends that this unexpected advantage relates to improved efficiency and yield in the production of the fermentation by-product used in the animal feed, which is not taught by the prior art that instead focus on nutritional benefits of butyrate rather than fermentation operability. As the claims recite a method of treating an animal comprising feeding said animal an animal feed, the cited prior art is in the relevant field of the invention corresponding to the treatment of an animal with animal feed comprising the components recited in the claim, which includes the nutritional benefits of butyrate.
Applicant’s assertion of the ammonium butyrate providing a surprise advantage of butyrate is being interpreted as an allegation of unexpected results. Applicant provides data in the Declaration produced from the combination of 4% cell dry weight (%CDW) of washed cell pellets from cell line CLL251216 with 25 g/L butyrate, comparing samples with sodium butyrate to samples with ammonium butyrate, followed by vigorous shaking and subsequent measuring of foam height over 15 minutes, wherein ammonium butyrate samples resulted in a reduction of foam height from 4.0 to 3.2 cm after 10 minutes while the foam height of samples with sodium butyrate remained at 4.0 cm through the 15 minute time point.
According to MPEP 716.02(b).I, the burden is on the applicant to establish that results are unexpected and significant, and that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance. While Applicants have shown a reduction in foam height produced by the ammonium counterion compared to foam height produced by the sodium counterion, Applicant has provided neither statistical significance between these results nor practical significance for how such results would affect the claimed method of treating an animal that is unexpected and unobvious over the combination of prior art elements set forth in the rejection. Therefore Applicant’s allegations of unexpected results do not satisfy the requirements of MPEP 712.02(b).I.
According to MPEP 716.02(e), unexpected results must be compared with the closest prior art. As Applicant has not compared proffered results with the closest prior art, Applicant’s allegations of unexpected results do not satisfy the requirements of MPEP 712.02(e).
According to MPEP 716.02(d), unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. While Applicant has provided results in the Declaration from experiments combining a specific amount of each butyrate with a specific %CDW of a cell pellet from a specific cell line, set at a specific pH [page 1 of Appendix I] and under “identical fermentation-relevant conditions” [paragraph 5 of the Declaration], wherein the results consist of the foam height resulting after vigorous shaking. It is noted that there is no evidence to suggest the cell line of Applicant’s proffered data is any of the Clostridia class bacteria required by the claim, or that the cell pellet of said cell line is a fermentation by-product. The scope of the claims encompasses treating any animal comprising feeding said animal with a butyrate-comprising animal feed, the animal feed comprising a feed ingredient comprising any amount of butyrate and any amount of ammonium counterion, any amount of a by-product of fermentation of any carbon source-containing feedstock with a Clostridia class bacterium selected from the group consisting of Butyribacterium methylotrophicum, Clostridium tyrobutyricum and combinations thereof, and further comprises any nucleotides, any nitrogen compound, any vitamin, any salt, any complex of transition metals, any biomass, and combinations thereof. Applicant’s alleged unexpected results are considered not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention, and therefore Applicant’s allegations of unexpected results do not satisfy the requirements of MPEP 712.02(d).
Applicant’s Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 has been fully considered and found not sufficient to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness for the reasons set forth above.
Double Patenting
Claims 15-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, 23 and 27-28 of copending Application No. 18/010,056 (herein “reference application”) in view of Xiao, Xu and Bartram.
The instant rejection is maintained from the previous Office Action and any modifications relative to the previous rejection are necessitated by claim amendment.
Regarding instant claim 15, claim 1 of the reference application recites a method for manufacturing a butyrate product, claim 11 of the reference application recites the butyrate product is a feed ingredient, claim 23 of the reference application recites an animal feed comprising selected nutrients, the feed ingredient of claim 11, and biomass, and claim 27 of the reference application recites a method for treating an animal comprising feeding the animal with the feed of claim 23.
The claims of the reference application do not recite the limitations regarding an ammonium counter ion, a by-product of fermentation of a carbon source-containing feedstock with a Clostridia class bacterium selected from the group consisting of Butyribacterium methylotrophicum, Clostridium tyrobutyricum and combinations thereof which natively produces butyric acid, wherein said by-product comprises nucleotides and optionally further comprises at least one by-product selected from the group consisting of nitrogen compounds, vitamins, salts, complexes of transition metals, biomass and combinations thereof.
Xiao discusses the production of butyric acid from acid hydrolysate of corn husk in fermentation by Clostridium tyrobutyricum [title], wherein the applications of butyric acid in animal feed is discussed due to its role as a primary energy source in intestinal metabolism as well as its therapeutic effects on tumor growth, the immune system, and gastrointestinal diseases [p 2, col 1, para 1].
Regarding instant claim 15, Xiao discloses the production of butyric acid from C. tyrobutyricum that natively produces butyric acid [p 2, col 1, para 1] from glucose and xylose [abstract], wherein biomass is produced throughout fermentation as evidenced by the increase in OD600 shown in [Figure 2], and wherein the production of biomass additionally encompasses the production of nucleotides and nitrogen compounds.
Xu discusses sodium butyrate supplementation and its effects on fatty acid metabolism in bovine hepatocytes [title]. Regarding the limitation of treating an animal, Xu discloses the treatment pigs with sodium butyrate is proposed to decrease fatty acid oxidation and increase fatty acid transportation in the liver of said pigs [p 6282, col 1, para 2].
Bartram discusses the effects of butyrate on human colonic mucosa [title], and discloses the comparison of different butyrate salts including calcium, sodium, and ammonium butyrate [abstract].
Regarding instant claim 15, Bartram discloses the addition of ammonium butyrate to biopsies showed no difference in cell proliferation compared with sodium butyrate [Table 4]. Therefore Bartram indicates the use of either sodium or ammonium as counterions to butyrate has minimal influence on the cellular effects of butyrate.
In view of Xiao, Xu and Bartram, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the claims of the reference application by adding the components of butyrate fermentation, as disclosed by Xiao, with the method of treating pigs with butyrate, as disclosed by Xu, and the ammonium butyrate salt, as disclosed by Bartram, to arrive at the claimed invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce an animal feed comprising a composition with components of butyrate fermentation because Xiao discloses the production of butyrate through fermentation of glucose and xylose as well as the health benefits of applying butyrate as an animal feed.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the animal feed comprising a composition with butyrate fermentation components to treat an animal because Xu discloses that butyrate can be used to affect fatty acid metabolism in treated pigs, and Bartram indicates the use of either sodium or ammonium as counterions to butyrate has minimal influence on the cellular effects of butyrate.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both Xiao and Xu discuss the health benefits of butyrate applications in animals, Xiao, Xu and Bartram discuss forms of butyrate and their effects on animals, and the reference application and Xu discuss methods of treating animals with butyrate products.
Regarding instant claim 16, claim 28 of the reference application recites the animal feed comprises butyrate at a concentration between 10 and 20,000 ppm.
Regarding instant claim 17, Xiao discloses a fermentation mixture in [Figure 2A] wherein 100% by weight of the butyrate results from the feed ingredient, as the feed ingredient is interpreted to be the composition comprising butyrate and a by-product of fermentation of a carbon source-containing feedstock with a Clostridia class bacterium which natively produces butyric acid as stated above.
Regarding instant claim 18, Xu discloses the treatment of pigs with butyrate [p 6282, col 1, para 2], wherein pigs are understood to be a member of the porcine group of animals.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 19 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, 23 and 27-28 of copending Application No.18/010,056 in view of Xiao, Xu and Bartram as applied to claims 15-18 above, and further in view of ZJU.
The instant rejection is maintained from the previous Office Action and any modifications relative to the previous rejection are necessitated by claim amendment.
The claims of the reference application and the disclosures of Xiao, Xu and Bartram as applied to instant claims 15-18 are discussed above and relate to limitations recited in instant claim 19 of animal feed and use for treatment of an animal.
Briefly, Xiao discloses the production of butyric acid from C. tyrobutyricum that natively produces butyric acid [p 2, col 1, para 1] from glucose and xylose [abstract], wherein biomass is produced throughout fermentation as evidenced by the increase in OD600 shown in [Figure 2], and wherein the production of biomass additionally encompasses the production of nucleotides and nitrogen compounds, Xu discloses sodium butyrate supplementation and its effects on fatty acid metabolism in bovine hepatocytes and teaches the treatment pigs with sodium butyrate is proposed to decrease fatty acid oxidation and increase fatty acid transportation in the liver of said pigs [p 6282, col 1, para 2], and Bartram discloses the addition of ammonium butyrate to biopsies showed no difference in cell proliferation compared with sodium butyrate [Table 4] indicating the use of either sodium or ammonium as counterions to butyrate has minimal influence on the cellular effects of butyrate.
The claims of the reference and the disclosures of Xiao, Xu and Bartram as applied to instant claims 15-18 do not recite treating a condition associated with at least one selected from the group consisting of poor feed intake, poor feed conversion rate, poor daily weight gain, and insufficient ileum surface area.
ZJU discusses methods and uses of butyric acid fermented from maize skin [title].
Regarding instant claim 19, ZJU discloses that butyrate in the feed industry can be used as a feed additive to improve feed conversion rate, suppress enteric pathogenic bacteria breeding, and improve immunity of organisms [p 2, para 1 of “Background Technology” of the machine translation].
In view of Xiao, Xu, Bartram and ZJU, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the claims of the reference application by combining the components of butyrate fermentation, as disclosed by Xiao, with the method of treating pigs with butyrate to address feed conversion rate, as disclosed by Xu and ZJU, respectively, and to use the ammonium butyrate salt, as disclosed by Bartram, to arrive at the claimed invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce an animal feed comprising a composition with components of butyrate fermentation because Xiao discloses the production of butyrate through fermentation of glucose and xylose as well as the health benefits of applying butyrate as an animal feed.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the animal feed comprising a composition with butyrate fermentation components to treat an animal because Xu discloses that butyrate can be used to affect fatty acid metabolism in treated pigs, ZJU discloses that butyrate can be added to animal feed to improve feed conversion rate, and Bartram discloses that sodium and ammonium salts of butyrate can be used interchangeably.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because ZJU, Xiao, Xu and Bartram discuss the health benefits of butyrate applications in animals, and the reference application and Xu relate to methods of feeding animals butyrate products.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Remarks: Beginning on page 8 of Applicant’s response to double patenting rejections; Applicant requests the rejections be held in abeyance until the claims are found otherwise allowable.
Applicant’s request is acknowledged and the provisional rejections of record are maintained.
Conclusion
Status of the Application:
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claims 1-14 are withdrawn.
Claims 15-19 are rejected.
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 JOSEPH SPANGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0314. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am - 4:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Manjunath Rao can be reached at (571) 272-0939. 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.
/JOSEPH R SPANGLER/
Examiner
Art Unit 1656
/David Steadman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1656