DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Receipt of the Request for Continued Examination (RCE under 37 CFR 1.114) filed 09/17/2026 and the Response, and Amendment filed 08/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant has overcome the following rejections by cancellation of the claims: (1) the claim warning has been withdrawn; and (2) the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claim 35 over Nachbagauer has been withdrawn.
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 29, 37-38, 43-56
Withdrawn claims: None
Previously cancelled claims: 1-28, 30-34, 36, 39-42
Newly cancelled claims: 35
Amended claims: 29, 37, 45
New claims: None
Claims currently under consideration: 29, 37-38, 43-56
Currently rejected claims: 29, 37-38, 43-56
Allowed claims: None
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/17/2026 has been entered.
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 29, 37-38, and 43-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaspard (WO 2019/071220) in view of Prakash (US 2018/0263269; previously cited), hereinafter referred to as “Prakash II”.
Regarding claims 29 and 37, Gaspard teaches a beverage product which may comprise: (a) the rare sugar rhamnose; (b) hesperetin; (c) the non-saccharide natural sweet tasting compound rebaudioside A; (d) sugar; and (e) water (corresponding to the water found in a ready-to-drink beverage, a beverage concentration, and a beverage syrup) [0020], [0097], [0121], [172] as recited in present claims 29 and 37. Gaspard teaches that the beverage may comprise rebaudioside A in an amount of from about 25 ppm to about 800 ppm [0176], which overlaps the claimed concentration of rebaudioside A recited in present claim 37. Gaspard teaches that the beverage may comprise a combination of rhamnose and sucrose (corresponding to carbohydrate sweeteners) in an amount of from about 100 ppm to about 140,000 ppm [0098]. Therefore, the beverage comprising both rhamnose and sucrose may comprise rhamnose from an amount greater than 0 ppm to an amount less than about 140,000 ppm; and comprise sucrose from an amount greater than 0 ppm to an amount less than about 140,000 ppm (i.e., from greater than 0 wt.% to an amount less than about 14 wt.%. These concentrations for rhamnose and sucrose encompass the concentrations of rhamnose and sucrose recited in present claim 37.
Gaspard does not mention tannins or tannoids. Therefore, the beverage of Gaspard is considered to be free of tannins and tannoids as recited in present claim 29.
Gaspard does not teach that the beverage comprises components (a)-(d) in the weight ratios or combined amount recited in present claim 29. Gaspard does not explicitly disclose that the beverage has the stronger sweetness impact, overall sweetness intensity, and less lingering than a comparative product lacking the rare sugar as recited in present claim 29. Gaspard also does not teach that the beverage comprises 4-80 ppm of component (b) as recited in present claim 37.
However, Prakash II teaches a beverage that may comprise rhamnose, hesperetin, rebaudioside A, and sucrose, wherein the concentration of hesperetin in the beverage may be from about 5 ppm to about 50 ppm [0063], [0068], [0071], [0373]. Prakash II teaches that the addition of hesperetin to the beverage may improve the sweetness temporal profile of the beverage and enhance the sweetness of the steviol glucoside in the beverage [0067]. A concentration of hesperetin of from about 5 ppm to about 50 ppm overlaps the concentration recited in present claim 37.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill to have modified the beverage of Gaspard to include hesperetin in the amount taught by Prakash II. Since Gaspard teaches that the beverage has a reduced sweetness linger and/or increased sweetness intensity (abstract) and teaches that the beverage may comprise hesperetin [0120]-[0121], but does not disclose a suitable amount of hesperetin to include in a beverage, a skilled practitioner would have been motivated to consult an additional reference such as Prakash II in order to determine a suitable amount of hesperetin in which to include in such a beverage, thereby rendering the claimed concentration of hesperetin recited in present claim 37 obvious.
The combination of Gaspard and Prakash II discloses concentration ranges of components (a)-(d) which at least overlap the weight ratios recited in present claim 29. For example, in a beverage comprising (a) 1 wt.% rhamnose, (b) 5 ppm hesperetin, (c) 25 ppm rebaudioside A, and (d) 1.5 wt.% sucrose, the weight ratio of (a) to (b) is 2,000:1; the weight ratio of (a) to (c) is 400:1; the weight ratio of (a) to (d) is 1.5:1; and the weight ratio of (b) to (c) is 1:5, which fall within the claimed ranges recited in present claim 29. Furthermore, the same beverage would comprise components (a)-(d) in a total combined amount of 2.503 wt.%, which falls within the range recited in present claim 29.
In regards to the overlapping and encompassing ranges disclosed in Gaspard and Prakash II, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any portions of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art references, particularly in view of the fact that; "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages" In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549,533 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.I.
While both Gaspard and Praksh disclose that the beverage has reduced lingering, increased sweetness intensity, and a temporal profile more similar to that of sucrose than comparative beverages without the sweetener composition in the beverage (Gaspard, abstract, [0012]; Prakash II, [0008]), the cited references do not explicitly disclose that the beverage has the stronger sweetness impact, overall sweetness intensity, and less lingering than a comparative product lacking the rare sugar as recited in present claim 29. However, since the combination of prior art teaches the same components (a)-(d) in a beverage wherein the concentrations and weight ratios of the components overlap the claimed concentrations and weight ratios, it would be obvious for the beverage of the prior art to have the claimed features of a stronger sweetness impact, a stronger overall sweetness intensity, and less lingering artificial sweetness than a comparative product that lacks the rare sugar but is otherwise identical to the food or beverage product. Regarding product claims, when the ingredient recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties are presumed to be present. “The discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art' s function, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” MPEP §2112.01.I.
Regarding claim 38, Gaspard teaches the invention as described above in claim 37, including that rebaudioside D is an optional ingredient [0020]. Therefore, Gaspard teaches that the beverage product may be free from rebaudioside D.
Regarding claims 43 and 44, Gaspard teaches the invention as described above in claims 29 and 37. Gaspard does not mention phyllodulcin. Therefore, Gaspard is considered to teach that the beverage is free from phyllodulcin.
Regarding claims 45, 46, 47, 49, 51, and 53, Gaspard teaches a beverage product which may comprise: (a) the rare sugar rhamnose; (b) hesperetin; (c) the non-saccharide natural sweet tasting compound rebaudioside M; (d) sugar; and (e) water (corresponding to the water found in a ready-to-drink beverage, a beverage concentration, and a beverage syrup) [0020], [0097], [0121], [172] as recited in present claims 45, 47, 49, 51, and 53. Gaspard teaches that the beverage may comprise rebaudioside M in an amount of from about 25 ppm to about 800 ppm [0176], which overlaps the claimed concentration of rebaudioside M recited in present claims 45, 47, 49, and 51. Gaspard teaches that the beverage may comprise a combination of rhamnose and sucrose (corresponding to carbohydrate sweeteners) in an amount of from about 100 ppm to about 140,000 ppm [0098]. Therefore, the beverage comprising both rhamnose and sucrose may comprise rhamnose from an amount greater than 0 ppm to an amount less than about 140,000 ppm; and comprise sucrose from an amount greater than 0 ppm to an amount less than about 140,000 ppm (i.e., from greater than 0 wt.% to an amount less than about 14 wt.%. These concentrations for rhamnose and sucrose encompass the concentrations of rhamnose and sucrose recited in present claims 45, 47, 49, and 51.
Gaspard does not mention tannins or tannoids. Therefore, the beverage of Gaspard is considered to be free of tannins and tannoids as recited in present claim 45.
Gaspard does not teach that the beverage comprises 4-80 ppm of component (b) as recited in present claims 45, 47, 49, and 51. Gaspard also does not explicitly disclose that the beverage has the stronger sweetness impact, overall sweetness intensity, and less lingering than a comparative product lacking the rare sugar as recited in present claim 46.
However, Prakash II teaches a beverage that may comprise rhamnose, hesperetin, rebaudioside M, and sucrose, wherein the concentration of hesperetin in the beverage may be from about 5 ppm to about 50 ppm [0063], [0068], [0071], [0373]. Prakash II teaches that the addition of hesperetin to the beverage may improve the sweetness temporal profile of the beverage and enhance the sweetness of the steviol glucoside in the beverage [0067]. A concentration of hesperetin of from about 5 ppm to about 50 ppm overlaps the concentration recited in present claims 45, 47, 49, and 51.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill to have modified the beverage of Gaspard to include hesperetin in the amount taught by Prakash II. Since Gaspard teaches that the beverage has a reduced sweetness linger and/or increased sweetness intensity (abstract) and teaches that the beverage may comprise hesperetin as an antioxidant [0120]-[0121], but does not disclose a suitable amount of hesperetin to include in a beverage, a skilled practitioner would have been motivated to consult an additional reference such as Prakash II in order to determine a suitable amount of hesperetin in which to include in such a beverage, thereby rendering the claimed concentration of hesperetin recited in present claims 45, 47, 49, and 51 obvious.
In regards to the overlapping and encompassing ranges disclosed in Gaspard and Prakash II, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any portions of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art references, particularly in view of the fact that; "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages" In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549,533 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.I.
While both Gaspard and Praksh disclose that the beverage has reduced lingering, increased sweetness intensity, and a temporal profile more similar to that of sucrose than comparative beverages without the sweetener composition in the beverage (Gaspard, abstract, [0012]; Prakash II, [0008]), the cited references do not explicitly disclose that the beverage has the stronger sweetness impact, overall sweetness intensity, and less lingering than a comparative product lacking the rare sugar as recited in present claim 46. However, since the combination of prior art teaches the same components (a)-(d) in a beverage wherein the concentrations of the components overlap the claimed concentrations, it would be obvious for the beverage of the prior art to have the claimed features of a stronger sweetness impact, a stronger overall sweetness intensity, and less lingering artificial sweetness than a comparative product that lacks the rare sugar but is otherwise identical to the food or beverage product. Regarding product claims, when the ingredient recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties are presumed to be present. “The discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art' s function, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” MPEP §2112.01.I.
Regarding claims 45, 46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 55, and 56, Gaspard teaches a beverage product which may comprise: (a) the rare sugar tagatose; (b) hesperetin; (c) the non-saccharide natural sweet tasting compound rebaudioside M; (d) sugar; and (e) water (corresponding to the water found in a ready-to-drink beverage, a beverage concentration, and a beverage syrup) [0020], [0097], [0121], [172] as recited in present claims 45, 48, 50, 52, 54, 55, and 56. Gaspard teaches that the beverage may comprise rebaudioside M in an amount of from about 25 ppm to about 800 ppm [0176], which overlaps the claimed concentration of rebaudioside M recited in present claims 45, 48, 50, 52, and 55. Gaspard teaches that the beverage may comprise a combination of tagatose and sucrose (corresponding to carbohydrate sweeteners) in an amount of from about 100 ppm to about 140,000 ppm [0098]. Therefore, the beverage comprising both tagatose and sucrose may comprise tagatose from an amount greater than 0 ppm to an amount less than about 140,000 ppm; and comprise sucrose from an amount greater than 0 ppm to an amount less than about 140,000 ppm (i.e., from greater than 0 wt.% to an amount less than about 14 wt.%. These concentrations for tagatose and sucrose encompass the concentrations of tagatose and sucrose recited in present claims 45, 48, 50, 52, and 55.
Gaspard does not mention tannins or tannoids. Therefore, the beverage of Gaspard is considered to be free of tannins and tannoids as recited in present claim 45.
Gaspard does not teach that the beverage comprises 4-80 ppm of component (b) as recited in present claims 45, 48, 50, 52, and 55. Gaspard also does not explicitly disclose that the beverage has the stronger sweetness impact, overall sweetness intensity, and less lingering than a comparative product lacking the rare sugar as recited in present claim 46.
However, Prakash II teaches a beverage that may comprise tagatose, hesperetin, rebaudioside M, and sucrose, wherein the concentration of hesperetin in the beverage may be from about 5 ppm to about 50 ppm [0063], [0068], [0071], [0373]. Prakash II teaches that the addition of hesperetin to the beverage may improve the sweetness temporal profile of the beverage and enhance the sweetness of the steviol glucoside in the beverage [0067]. The concentration of hesperetin of from about 5 ppm to about 50 ppm overlaps the concentration recited in present claims 45, 48, 50, 52, and 55.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill to have modified the beverage of Gaspard to include hesperetin in the amount taught by Prakash II. Since Gaspard teaches that the beverage has a reduced sweetness linger and/or increased sweetness intensity (abstract) and teaches that the beverage may comprise hesperetin as an antioxidant [0120]-[0121], but does not disclose a suitable amount of hesperetin to include in a beverage, a skilled practitioner would have been motivated to consult an additional reference such as Prakash II in order to determine a suitable amount of hesperetin in which to include in such a beverage, thereby rendering the claimed concentration of hesperetin recited in present claims 45, 48, 50, 52, and 55 obvious.
In regards to the overlapping and encompassing ranges disclosed in Gaspard and Prakash II, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any portions of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art references, particularly in view of the fact that; "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages" In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549,533 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.I.
While both Gaspard and Praksh disclose that the beverage has reduced lingering, increased sweetness intensity, and a temporal profile more similar to that of sucrose than comparative beverages without the sweetener composition in the beverage (Gaspard, abstract, [0012]; Prakash II, [0008]), the cited references do not explicitly disclose that the beverage has the stronger sweetness impact, overall sweetness intensity, and less lingering than a comparative product lacking the rare sugar as recited in present claim 46. However, since the combination of prior art teaches the same components (a)-(d) in a beverage wherein the concentrations of the components overlap the claimed concentrations, it would be obvious for the beverage of the prior art to have the claimed features of a stronger sweetness impact, a stronger overall sweetness intensity, and less lingering artificial sweetness than a comparative product that lacks the rare sugar but is otherwise identical to the food or beverage product. Regarding product claims, when the ingredient recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties are presumed to be present. “The discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art' s function, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” MPEP §2112.01.I.
Double Patenting
Claim 29 and 43 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-8, and 11-15 of co-pending Application No. 19/091,967 (reference application) in view of Prakash (US 2018/0263269; previously cited). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 29 and 43 require the same features of co-pending claims 1, 5-8, and 11-15, except the instant claims further require the food or beverage product to comprise component (e) water. However, beverages comprise water. Therefore, it would be obvious for the beverage product of the instant claims to further comprise water in light of the co-pending claims.
The instant claims also further require components (a) and (c) (i.e., component (c) of the instant claims corresponds to component (c1) of the co-pending claims) to be in a weight ratio of 2,000:1 to 50:1; components (a) and (d) (i.e., component (d) of the instant claims corresponds to component (c2) of the co-pending claims) to be in a weight ratio of 5:1 to 1:10; and components (b) and (c) to be in a weight ratio of 2:1 to 1:15.
However, Prakash teaches a food or beverage that may comprise (a) about 0.5 wt.% to about 3.0 wt.% allulose [0378], (b) about 0.0005 wt.% to about 0.005 wt.% (corresponding to about 5 ppm to about 50 ppm) hesperetin [0068], [0071], (c) about 0.005 wt.% to about 0.09 wt.% (corresponding to about 50 ppm to about 900 ppm) steviol glycoside composition; and (d) about 0.5 wt.% to about 3.0 wt.% glucose [0068]. Therefore, Prakash discloses weight ratios of (a) and (c), (a) and (d), and (b) and (c) which at least overlap the weight ratios of the instant claims.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portions of the concentrations of (a), (b), (c), and (d), and thus weight ratios, disclosed in Prakash including the instantly claimed ranges as the concentrations and weight ratios of the co-pending claims, particularly in view of the fact that; "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages" In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549,533 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, the instantly claimed weight ratios are rendered obvious.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Claim Warning: Applicant cancelled claim 35. Therefore, the claim warning is moot.
Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 29, 35, 37-38, 43-50, and 53-54 over Nachbagauer: Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 29, 35, 37-38, 43-50, and 53-54 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments regarding the Declaration filed 03/30/2026 are unpersuasive for at least the reasons discussed below.
Applicant argued that Example 1 of the Declaration remains relevant even though Example 1 does not contain every component of the present claims. Applicant argued that Example 1 demonstrates that adding the rare sugars rhamnose and tagatose to compositions increases onset sweetness intensity, overall sweetness intensity, and full-body character of the composition. Applicant argued that these results in combination with the results in Table 7 from Example 5 demonstrate the surprising contribution of the rare sugar in the claimed compositions. (Applicant’s Remarks, page 12, 3rd paragraph – page 13, 4th paragraph).
However, while Example 1 of the Declaration may demonstrate that the rare sugar increases onset sweetness intensity, overall sweetness intensity, and full-body character of the composition, Example 1 does not demonstrate that the rare sugar has these effects in the presently claimed compositions. Therefore, appropriate patentable weight was given to Example 1 in the responses to the Declaration provided in the previous Office Action.
Applicant then argued that Table 7 of Example 5 of the Declaration more closely replicates the claimed invention and that Example 5/Table 7 demonstrates that each tested rare sugar increases onset sweetness intensity, overall sweetness intensity, and full-body character relative to the base formulation. Applicant argued that the Examiner discounts the data of Example 5/Table 7 in relation to claims 29, 35, and 43 because the trehalose-containing formulation exhibited greater lingering artificial sweetness than the base formulation (Applicant’s Remarks, page 13, 5th paragraph – page 14, 2nd paragraph).
However, as stated in the responses to the Declaration in the previous Office Action, Example 5 of the Declaration demonstrates that trehalose increases the amount of lingering artificial sweetness when compared to the base composition. Independent claim 29 recites that the rare sugar in the product may be trehalose and requires that trehalose causes the composition to have less lingering artificial sweetness than a comparative product without trehalose. The results in Example 5/Table 7 demonstrate that the claimed composition wherein the rare sugar is trehalose does not achieve this effect. “With respect to the breadth of a claim, the relevant concern is whether the scope of enablement provided to one skilled in the art by the disclosure is commensurate with the scope of protection sought by the claims. The Federal Circuit, citing McRO, provided guidance on the application of enablement to genus claims, holding that "[a]lthough a specification does not need to describe how to make and use every possible variant of the claimed invention, when a range is claimed, there must be reasonable enablement of the scope of the range." MPEP §2164.08. Since the data in Table 7 demonstrates that trehalose does not lessen the lingering artificial sweetness in a base composition, at least claim 29 is inconsistent with the data in the Declaration.
In regard to the data in Table 7 demonstrating the asserted effects for claim 45, claim 45 does not require the product to have any particular characteristics. Therefore, the data in Table 7 is moot in regard to claim 45.
In regard to the data in Table 7 demonstrating the asserted effects for claims 37-38, 44, and 46-56, it is not clear in Table 7 that the asserted and claimed improved sweetness onset, overall sweetness intensity, and lingering artificial sweetness are present across the claimed concentrations and weight ratios of components (a)-(d) as Table 7 only provided data for one value within each claimed weight ratio range and did not test any values outside of the claimed weight ratios. “To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).” MPEP §716.02(d)II.
Applicant then argued that Nachbagauer does not disclose trehalose so that the rejection has not established that a trehalose-containing composition satisfying other claimed limitations would have been obvious. Applicant argued that the Examiner has the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness (Applicant’s Remarks, page 14, 3rd-4th paragraphs).
However, Nachbagauer is no longer cited as prior art so that Applicant’s arguments regarding Nachbagauer are moot.
Applicant argued that the Office fails to consider the substantially narrower scope of the many pending claims. Applicant exemplified claim 37 where the values of components (a)-(d) tested in Example 5/Table 7 fall squarely within the claimed values. Applicant argued that the Applicant does not need to test every possible composition within the claimed range in order to be commensurate with the claims. Applicant argued the Tables A-C demonstrate a trend across multiple rare sugars, component combinations, and formulations rather than an isolated result from a single composition (Applicant’s Remarks, page 14, 5th paragraph – page 16, 2nd paragraph).
However, “To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).” MPEP §716.02(d)II. The threshold of “a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed ranges” is not met by exemplifying a single value within the claimed range, regardless of the breadth of the range. Applicant has not provided any evidence demonstrating maximum and minimum endpoints for any of the claimed concentration ranges including the concentration range of rare sugar so that the claimed concentrations of components (a)-(d) appear as arbitrary. Applicant has merely provided evidence that shows that the presence of some rare sugars in a composition may impart a stronger sweetness impact, stronger overall sweetness intensity, and less artificial sweetness than a comparative product not comprising the rare sugar. For at least these reasons, Applicant’s evidence cannot overcome prior art reference(s) which disclose(s) or suggest(s) the claimed components in the claimed concentrations.
Since Applicant’s arguments have been shown to be unpersuasive or moot, the rejections of the claims stand as written herein.
Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 51-52 and 55-56 over Nachbagauer and Prakash: Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 51-52 and 55-56 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Double Patenting Rejection: The rejection is maintained as written herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kelly Kershaw whose telephone number is (571)272-2847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 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, Nikki Dees can be reached at (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.
/KELLY P KERSHAW/Examiner, Art Unit 1791
