DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is written in response to the Applicants Remarks filed 1/20/26. Claims 1-18, and 20-21 are pending and have been examined on the merits. Claim 19 was previously cancelled. Claim 21 is new.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stolt et al. (WO 0158286) in view of Duvetter et al. "Effect of Pectinmethylesterase Infusion Methods and Processing Techniques on Strawberry Firmness", JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE, vol.70, no.6, August 2005, p. S383-S388 and Unlu et al. (WO 2017/062608).
Regarding Claims 1, 17, 18, and 20: Stolt discloses a process for preserving foodstuff, where fruits berries and vegetables as whole or in pieces are treated under high pressure and are contacted with calcium and PME [abstract; pg. 1, lines 1-10; pg. 3; pg. 4, lines 1 and 2]. Stolt discloses placing the fruit and ingredients in a container for packaging [pg. 6, lines 19-30]. Stolt discloses providing a fruit, PME, water, sugar, and calcium at 5 to 60°C (41-140°F) [pg. 6, lines 1-10; 20-34; pg. 7, lines 1-2; pg. 8, lines 1-3]. Stolt discloses the pretreatment at 5 to 60°C (41-140°F) for about 10 minutes or longer or 1 to 60 min [pg. 6, lines 1-10]. Stolt discloses a high pressure treatment lasting for 1 to 60 min at 0 to 60°C [pg. 7, lines 4-17]. Stolt provides that the firmness of the berries pretreated with calcium and PME are approximately 10 times higher than that of berries that are not pretreated and are approximately 5 times higher than berries that are only treated with water [pg. 2, lines 33-34; pg. 3, lines 1-5].
Stolt does not explicitly disclose that the premix in the container is a temperature at or below 70°F.
Stolt does not explicitly disclose that the fruit is present at about 10% to about 98% by weight, ii. 0.009% to about 0.05% pectin methylesterase (PME) by weight of the fruit, iii. 0.009% to about 0.1% calcium salt by weight of the fruit, iv. about 1% to about 45% sugar by weight, and v. up to about 88% water by weight.
Duvetter discloses a method of treating strawberries [title]. Duvetter discloses storing treated strawberries for 1h at room temperature (15 to 25°C/59 to 77°F) which is equivalent to step 1a. of the instant claim [pg.S387; col.1 par.3]. Duvetter discloses that the composition includes 125g strawberries per 150 ml aqueous infusion with a 10% sugar solution (about 45% fruit by weight, PME, calcium salt, about 55% water by weight {150/(150+125)=55%}. Duvetter discloses producing tempered strawberries by incubating the premix at a temperature of 40°C (104°F) for 20 minutes [pg.S384 col. 2 par.3]. Duvetter also discloses an embodiment where strawberries were treated with PME and CaCl2 at room temperature and followed by thermally treating at 60 to 80°C (140 to 176°F) for 20 minutes [abstract; pg. S387; col. 1, 1st and 2nd paragraphs]. Duvetter discloses adjusting the temperature of the treated strawberries with a pressure treatment step [abstract; pg.S387; col.1 par.3]. Duvetter discloses that the temperature of the pressure vessel was lowered to 10°C (50°F) (cooled) and that the cooled tempered strawberries are subjected to high pressure treatment (HPP) at 430-440 MPa or 570-580 MPa for 6 seconds and 5, 10, 15 & 20 minutes [pg. S387].
Unlu discloses a shelf stable treated co-fruit pulp and/or fruit made by preparing a fresh or frozen fruit [abstract; 0012; 0035; 0043; 00105; 00108]. Unlu discloses adding enzymes including pectin methyl esterase (PME) to the base material (fruit) and that the PME is present at 0.05% to about 1% [0081]. Unlu discloses adding calcium salt at 0.05% to about 3% [0090]. Unlu discloses that the water content is greater than 50% [abstract; 0012]. Unlu discloses that the solids content (co-fruit and fruit content) is greater than 10% [abstract; 0012]. Unlu discloses including honey (sugar) at 15% [Table 8; Sample 27].
Unlu discloses that the preparation of the mixture is performed below 20°C (68°F) or can be performed at refrigeration temperatures [00107]. Unlu discloses placing the composition in packaging/container [0096; 0097]. Unlu discloses that following packaging the mixture is exposed to heat and/or pressure [0015]. Unlu discloses heating that can result in sterilization [00116-00120]. Unlu discloses heating for 5 seconds to 20 minutes [00120]. Unlu discloses cooling the mixture after the heating step [00123]. Unlu discloses subjecting the packaged mixture to ultra-high pressure [00124-00126]. In addition to puree form, Unlu discloses that the fruit can be comminuted into 1 mm to about 5 mm pieces [00111].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Stolt to provide the fruit premix in the container of Stolt at a temperature of 15 to 25°C/59 to 77°F as in Duvetter in order to reduce spoilage of the fruit before processing.
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Stolt to include the premix ingredients at the amounts of Unlu in order to provide a shelf stable fruit product that has organoleptic properties similar to fresh fruit.
At the effective filing date it would have been obvious to modify the method of Stolt to provide the premix in a container as in Unlu in order to provide the premix in a contained and economical form so that all of the steps can be performed without having to use multiple containers and to help maintain the sterility of the fruit in the packaging.
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Stolt to include tempering at 140-176°F as in Duvetter in order to sterilize the fruit mixture.
Further it would have been obvious to cool the tempered fruit of Stolt to 50°F as in Duvetter in order to account for the increase in temperature that subsequently occurs during the high pressure treatment step.
Although Duvetter does not explicitly disclose tempering from 110 to 160°F one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Duvetter overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding the amount of fruit, PME, calcium salt, water, although Unlu does not explicitly disclose about 10% to about 98% fruit by weight, ii. 0.009% to about 0.05% pectin methylesterase (PME) by weight of the fruit, iii. 0.009% to about 0.1% calcium salt by weight of the fruit, and v. up to about 88% water by weight one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Unlu overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549,553.
Regarding the providing temperature, although Duvetter does not explicitly disclose at or below 70°F one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Duvetter overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549,553.
Regarding the adjusted temperature, although Stolt does not explicitly disclose 32-72°F one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Stolt overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549,553.
Stolt as modified does not disclose wherein the fruit is a whole fruit or a solid piece of fruit and wherein the treated fruit is more firm than the fruit subjected to the same high pressure pasteurization of step d but not steps a-c, however, “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The Office is not equipped to manufacture prior art products and compare them for patentability. Applicant is reminded that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
"When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claim 1 contains a wherein or whereby clause.
The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court held that when a “whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.” Id.
However, the court noted (quoting Minton v. Nat ’l Ass ’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)) that a “whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’” Id. MPEP 2111.04
Examiner submits that the wherein clause merely states a desired goal of the claimed method claim, that is, the claim discloses a method comprising treating fruit, thereby improving the texture retaining ability of the fruit.
Regarding Claim 2: Stolt as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Stolt discloses the process for fresh fruit but that the process is relevant to fresh as well as prepared fruit [pg. 3, lines 31-33]. Stolt does not explicitly disclose frozen fruit.
Unlu discloses frozen fruit and mixing ingredients and further placing the mixture in a container as discussed above [0043; 0072]. In addition to puree form, Unlu discloses that the fruit can be comminuted into 1 mm to about 5 mm pieces [00111]. Unlu discloses frozen blueberry pieces and frozen mango chunks [Table 8].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Stolt to include frozen fruit as a source form of fruit as in Unlu since the Stolt process allows for fresh as well as prepared fruit and to allow for additional types or forms of fruit sources.
Regarding Claim 3: Stolt as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 2. Stolt discloses that the composition contains PME and calcium salt as discussed above [pg. 4, lines 12-20; pg. 5, lines 1-13].
Regarding Claim 4: Stolt as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 2. Stolt discloses that the composition contains PME and calcium salt as discussed above [pg. 4, lines 12-20; pg. 5, lines 1-13].
Regarding Claim 5: Stolt as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 2. Stolt discloses that the composition contains PME and calcium salt as discussed above [pg. 4, lines 12-20; pg. 5, lines 1-13]. Stolt does not explicitly disclose that the dry ingredients contains PME and calcium salt.
However, no particular patentable difference between a composition which is in dry form and one which is the same composition with the addition of water. The mere matter of liquid form, if respective compositions are substantially the same, cannot lend patentability to applicant’s claims. And in this case the mere matter of dry form cannot lend patentability to applicant’s claims.
Regarding Claim 6: Stolt as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 2. Stolt as modified by Unlu discloses providing frozen fruit; applying a PME solution and a calcium salt solution to frozen fruit. Stolt discloses immersing berries/fruit into a solution of PME and calcium and therefore discloses applying a solution of PME and calcium to the surface fruit since when immersed in the solution the surface of the fruit would have been contacted with both.
Regarding Claim 7: Stolt as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 6. Stolt discloses that the composition contains a solution of PME and calcium salt as discussed above [pg. 4, lines 12-20; pg. 5, lines 1-13].
Regarding Claim 8: Stolt as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 6. Stolt does not disclose that the PME is present at 0.01% to about .03%.
Unlu discloses that the method further includes adding enzymes including pectin methyl esterase (PME) to the base material (fruit) and that the PME is present at 0.05% to about 1% [0081].
Although Unlu does not explicitly disclose one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the ranges taught by Unlu overlap the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding Claim 9: Stolt as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 6. Stolt does not disclose calcium present at 0.01% to about .06%.
Unlu discloses adding calcium salt at 0.05% to about 3% [0090].
Although Unlu does not explicitly disclose one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the ranges taught by Unlu overlap the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding Claim 10: Stolt as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Stolt discloses that the composition further includes starch or pectin [pg.6, lines 28-30].
Regarding Claim 11: Stolt as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Stolt does not disclose the pectin at about 0.05% to about 2%.
Unlu discloses that the composition includes 0.5% to 12% pectin [0075].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify the method of Stolt to include the pectin at the range disclosed in Unlu in order to provide the desired thickening in the composition.
Although Unlu does not explicitly disclose 0.05% to about 2% one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Unlu overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549,553.
Regarding Claim 12: Stolt as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Stolt does not disclose the starch at about 1% to about 5% pregelatinized starch.
Unlu discloses that the composition includes 0.5% to 12% starches and modified starch (pregelatinized starch is a type of) [0075].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify the method of Stolt to include the starch in a pregelatinized form at the range disclosed in Unlu in order to provide the desired thickening in the composition.
Although Unlu does not explicitly disclose about 1 to 5% pregelatinized starch one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Unlu overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549,553.
Regarding Claim 13: Stolt as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Stolt discloses the pretreatment at 5 to 60°C for about 10 minutes or longer or 1 to 60 min [pg. 6, lines 1-10]. Duvetter discloses treating at 60 to 80°C (140 to 176°F) for 20 minutes [abstract; pg. S387; col. 1, 1st and 2nd paragraphs].
Although Stolt and Duvetter do not explicitly disclose treating at 130 to 140°F one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the ranges taught by Stolt and Duvetter overlap the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Although Stolt does not explicitly disclose treating for 40 -60 minutes, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the time for tempering to achieve sterilization and desired texture, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claims 14 and 15: Stolt as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Stolt discloses performing the HPP at higher than 200 MPa, or at least 300 MPa (43511 psi) or about 400 MPa (58015 psi) to about 700 MPa (101526 psi) [pg. 7, lines 4-17]. Stolt discloses the duration being from 1 minute to 60 min [pg. 7, lines 9-12].
Although Stolt does not explicitly disclose treating at 80,000 psi (551.5 MPa) to about 90,000 (620.5 MPa) one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Stolt overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Although Stolt does not explicitly disclose treating for 86,000 psi (592.9 MPa), one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the ranges taught by Stolt overlap the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Although Stolt does not explicitly disclose treating for 60 seconds to 180 seconds one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the ranges taught by Stolt overlap the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Although Stolt does not explicitly disclose treating for 120 seconds one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the ranges taught by Stolt overlap the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding Claim 16: Stolt as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Stolt does not disclose wherein the tempered fruit is stored in refrigerated or frozen conditions prior to adjusting the temperature of the tempered fruit to 32-70° F.
However, Unlu discloses that it may be necessary to use refrigeration temperature to control gelation [00107]. Although Unlu does not disclose refrigerating or freezing before adjusting the temperature of tempered fruit, it does disclose refrigeration for controlling gelation in the composition. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the level of gelation by refrigerating the composition before the step of adjusting the temperature for the pressurization step.
Regarding Claim 21: Stolt as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Stolt discloses treating strawberries, raspberries, blueberries, cranberries, currants amongst other berries, fruits and vegetables [pg.3, lines 22-33].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 5-6, the Applicants assert that it would not have been obvious to replace specific treatment conditions of Stolt with those of Unlu. The Applicants assert that Stolt is directed to the treatment of whole fruit or pieces of fruit. The Applicants assert that the amount of calcium salt in Stolt is .5% to 2% which is at least 5 times higher than the upper threshold of the recited amount of calcium salt. The Applicants assert that Unlu is not directed to the treatment of whole fruit or pieces and instead was directed to a pulp or puree. The Applicants assert that the purpose of the PME and calcium salts were to prepare a gel composition. The Applicants assert that the Examiner previous argument that Unlu uses fruit pieces within the puree that this attribute does not render the combination obvious. The Applicants assert that due to the diverging purposes of the references that there was no reason to modify the references.
The Applicant is remind that in claim 1, Stolt was only modified by the secondary references for the temperature of the premix in the container and the amounts of the ingredients in the premix. Stolt disclosed all of the recited ingredients being fruit, sugar, PME, calcium salt, and water.
Regarding the amount of calcium salt in Stolt being higher than claimed, the Examiner notes that the amount is Stolt is based on the medium/liquid portion alone and does not include the amount of the fruit present in the mixture in its calculation. Further, the amount of calcium salt was modified by Unlu.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the Examer maintains that Unlu discloses that its edible composition exhibits minimal syneresis and has many positive attributes retained from the base material (fruit) from which it was derived [Unlu 0014; 0033]. Minimal syneresis and retaining fruit attributes is also important in whole or cut fruit in that leaching would need to be avoided. Further, Unlu discloses that the bite texture of the product resembles that of fresh fruit and that the gel formation is somewhere between fresh fruit and jelly [0070; 0079].
Further, the Examiner maintains that Unlu does include fruit pieces along with pureed pieces [00111]. The fruit pieces are subjected to the same PME and calcium salts to which the pureed or pulp portion is exposed. Therefore although not drawn to a treated whole fruit, Unlu is relevant to the treatment of fruit pieces with PME and calcium salts. The Examiner maintains Unlu because it speaks to the preservation of or achieving attributes that are found in whole fruit and further incorporates pieces of fruit along with pureed/comminuted fruit.
The Applicants assert that the only disclosure of honey in the Unlu reference is in reference to the formation of a smooth paste gel in Sample 27.
The Examiner does agree that Unlu discloses honey in Sample 27 and not the other samples in the set. However, Unlu does allow for the incorporation of sweetener in its composition [0024; 0062; 00110; Claim 3]; honey is an example of a sweetener. The Examiner also notes that Stolt does incorporate a 10% sugar solution [pg. 8, lines 29 and 30] although there is no information as to the amount relative to the other ingredients.
Regarding the combination of Stolt and Duvetter, the Applicants assert that the tempering step in Duvetter is actually a thermal pasteurization step and that Duvetter also discloses an alternative high pressure pasteurization step. The Applicants assert that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have thought that Duvetter taught a tempering step before HPP. The Applicants assert that Duvetter is silent on tempering and cooling. The Applicants assert that the rejection relies on Duvetter for the conditions of tempering and cooling.
The Examiner disagrees with the Applicants’ assertions. Regarding Claim 1, Duvetter was relied upon for its disclosure of the starting temperature of its fruit premix. Duvetter was not relied upon for its processing steps as asserted by Applicant. In claim 13, where Duvetter was relied upon for disclosing a temperature for a tempering step, this step was already disclosed in Stolt and here Duvetter was incorporated for disclosing a temperature range for tempering, for the modification of the temperature and time disclosed for the tempering step. Again, Duvetter was not explicitly relied upon for its disclosures of high pressure treatment, but these disclosures were discussed to help establish that Duvetter was from the same field, to show the knowledge in the art, and to show why one would perform a cooling step after HPP. The tempering step 1b.) was already disclosed in primary reference Stolt.
The Examiner does note the separate HPP step and the thermal treatment step in Duvetter. However, information in Duvetter regarding the effect of the HPP step on the fruit was used to justify the need a cooling step following HPP. The Examiner also notes that the abstract itself reads as if a thermal treatment step is followed by HPP.
On pages 10 and 11, the Applicants assert that claim 2 is patentable over Stolt, Unlu and Duvetter because the references do not disclose frozen fruit. The Applicants assert that the references refer to frozen fruit purees but not frozen whole fruit.
The Examiner disagrees and maintains that Unlu discloses frozen fruit pieces and frozen chunks. As discussed in the above action, in addition to puree form, Unlu discloses that the fruit can be comminuted into 1 mm to about 5 mm pieces [00111]. Unlu also discloses frozen blueberry pieces and frozen mango chunks [00143; Table 8]. As discussed above, the fruit pieces are subjected to the same PME and calcium salts to which the pureed or pulp portion is exposed. Therefore although not drawn to a treated whole fruit, Unlu is relevant to the treatment of fruit pieces with PME and calcium salts. The Examiner maintains that there are still pieces of fruit in the product of Unlu because Unlu discloses that there is a mixture of puree and larger pieces, and that some of these pieces provide a non-uniform or granular texture that some consumers may enjoy [00111]. Therefore the pieces of fruit in Unlu are provided in frozen form and are provided in pieces and not in a smooth form with the rest of the smooth homogenous puree in which it is contained. Further, the Examiner notes that Duvetter discloses using whole strawberries that have been stored for three days at 2°C [Duvetter, pg.S384 “Strawberries”], a temperature which is very close to freezing, and would have resulted in well chilled, nearly frozen strawberries.
For the reasons above, the rejections have been maintained.
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 FELICIA C TURNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3733. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:00-4:00 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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
/Felicia C Turner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793