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
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
Receipt of the Response and Amendment after Final Office Action filed 06/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant has overcome the following rejections by virtue of the amendment or cancellation of the claims: (1) the objections to claims 29-35 and 36-37 have been withdrawn; (2) the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections of claims 27 and 39 have been withdrawn; (3) the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claims 4 and 20-21 over Prakash has been withdrawn; and (4) the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claims 4, 16, and 20-35 over Prakash II and Ohtani has been withdrawn.
This Office Action is a Non-Final Office Action in view of the newly presented 35 U.S.C. §112(a) rejection described below.
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 22, 36-37
Withdrawn claims: None
Previously cancelled claims: 1-3, 5-15, 17-19
Newly cancelled claims: 4, 16, 20-21, 23-35
Amended claims: 22, 36-37
New claims: None
Claims currently under consideration: 22, 36-37
Currently rejected claims: 22, 36-37
Allowed claims: None
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 37 recites that the mixture comprises “about 5 ppm of hesperetin, about 10 ppm of phloretin, about 10 ppm of alpha-glycosyl rubusosides, and about 1 ppm of hesperetin dihydrochalcone” and about 60 ppm of rebaudioside A”. However, neither the present claims nor present specification disclose a content range for any of this components that includes “about” (e.g., the table at the bottom of page 25 of the specification discloses an amount of 10 ppm phloretin but the specification does not disclose an amount of “about 10 ppm phloretin”). Therefore, the amounts recited in present claim 37 represent new matter.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 37 recites a weight ratio of the amount of allulose to the combined amount of hesperetin, phloretin, alpha-glycosyl rubusosides, and hesperetin dihydrochalcone of at least 10:1. However, the range of the weight ratio is unclear as there is no indication in the claim of what constitutes a weight ratio higher or lower than 10:1 (e.g., is a weight ratio of 10:6 considered to be higher than 10:1? Is a weight ratio of 11:0.5 considered to be higher than 10:1?). Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
For the purpose of this examination, the weight ratio range of “at least 10:1” is interpreted as being a weight ratio wherein allulose comprises at least 90.9 wt.% of the total combined weights of allulose, hesperetin, phloretin, alpha-glycosyl rubusosides, and hesperetin dihydrochalcone.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 22 and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash (WO 2018/200663; previously cited), hereinafter referred to as "Prakash II", in view of Ohtani (Ohtani et al., "Further Study on the 1,4-α-Transglucosylation of Rubusoside, a Sweet Steviol-Bisglucoside from Rubus suavissimus", 1991, Agric. Biol. Chem., 55(2), pages 449-453; previously cited).
Regarding claim 22, Prakash II teaches a mixture (corresponding to compositions and sweetened consumables such as a sweetener compositions and beverages) (page 1, lines 7-8; page 22, lines 6-9) comprising D-allulose (corresponding to allulose) (page 31, lines 8-9, 15-16); hesperetin (page 48, lines 5, 15-18); glycosylated rubusoside (corresponding to enzymatically glucosylated steviol glycosides wherein the glycoside is rubusoside) (page 11, lines 17-18, 24-26); phloretin; and hesperetin dihydrochalcone (page 3, lines 10-11). Therefore, Prakash II teaches that the mixture comprises the single component of (a) (corresponding to allulose); both components of (b1) (corresponding to hesperetin and phloretin), and one component of (b2) (corresponding to hesperetin dihydrochalcone) as recited in present claim 22.
Prakash II teaches that the mixture may contain allulose in an amount of about 0.5 wt.% to about 3.0 wt.% (page 31, lines 12, 14-15). This disclosed concentration of allulose encompasses the range recited by present claim 22. Prakash II also teaches that glycosylated rubusoside may be present in the mixture in combination with rebaudioside A so that the combined amount of glycosylated rubusoside and rebaudioside A may be about 0.005 wt.% to about 0.06 wt.% (corresponding to about 50 ppm to about 600 ppm) (page 11, lines 13-14; page 11, line 24-page 12, line 3; page 21, lines 8-9). Therefore, the amount of glycosylated rubusoside in the mixture may be from an amount greater than 0 wt.% to an amount less than 0.06 wt.%.
Prakash II further teaches the mixture may contain about 0.00001 wt.% to about 0.1 wt.% (corresponding to about 0.1 ppm to about 1,000 ppm) of a flavonone ( page 46, lines 11012, 17-18). Since hesperetin is a flavonone, Prakash II at least suggests that the mixture may comprise hesperetin in an amount of about 0.00001 wt.% to about 0.1 wt.%. Prakash II also teaches that the mixture contains phloretin and hesperetin dihydrochalcone in a combined amount of about 0.0001 wt.% to about 0.005 wt.% (corresponding to about 1 ppm to about 50 ppm) (page 3, lines 10-11; page 20, lines 29-30). Therefore, Prakash II discloses that the amount of phloretin in the mixture may be from an amount greater than 0 wt.% to an amount less than about 0.005 wt.%; and that the amount of hesperetin dihydrochalcone may be from an amount greater than 0 wt.% to an amount less than about 0.005 wt.%.
Prakash II teaches that the enzymatically glycosylated rubusoside is present in the mixture to sweeten it (page 11, lines 17-20), but Prakash II does not expressly teach that the glycosylated rubusoside is an alpha-glycosyl rubusoside. Prakash II also does not teach that the mixture comprises the claimed weight ratios of (a) to (b) (corresponding to (a) to (b1)+(b2)) and (b1) to (b2) recited in present claim 22.
However, Ohtani discloses that alpha-glycosyl rubusoside may be produced enzymatically and has an improved sweetness when compared to non-glycosylated rubusoside (page 449, 1st column – 2nd column, 1st paragraph).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the enzymatically glycosylated rubusoside of Prakash II to be alpha-glycosyl rubusoside as taught by Ohtani. Since Prakash II discloses that the glycosylated rubusoside is present in the mixture to sweeten the mixture (page 11, lines 17-20), but does not specify whether the enzymatically glycosylated rubusoside is an alpha- or beta-glycosyl, a skilled practitioner would have been motivated to consult an additional reference such as Ohtani in order to determine a suitable form of enzymatically glycosylated rubusoside for sweetening the mixture. Therefore, the claimed alpha-glycosyl rubusoside as a component of (b2) as recited in present claim 22 is rendered obvious.
The combination of Prakash II and Ohtani discloses a mixture comprising allulose in an amount of about 0.5 wt.% to about 3.0 wt.% (page 31, lines 12, 14-15); hesperetin in an amount of about 0.00001 wt.% to about 0.1 wt.% (page 46, lines 11-12, 17-18; page 48, lines 5, 15-18); phloretin from an amount greater than 0 wt.% to an amount less than about 0.005 wt.%; alpha-glycosyl rubusoside in an amount greater than 0 wt.% to less than about 0.06 wt.% (page 11, lines 13-14; page 21, lines 8-9); and hesperetin dihydrochalcone from an amount greater than 0 wt.% to an amount less than about 0.005 wt.% (page 3, lines 10-11; page 20, lines 29-30). Therefore, modified Prakash II discloses a mixture comprising (a) in an amount of about 0.5 wt.% to about 3.0 wt.%; (b1) in an amount from greater than about 0.00001 wt.% to an amount of about 0.105 wt.%; and (b2) in an amount from greater than about 0 wt.% to less than about 0.065 wt.%. These values mean that a weight ratio of (a) and (b) (corresponding to (a):(b1)+(b2) ) overlaps the claimed weight ratio of (a) to (b) recited in present claim 22 (e.g., a mixture containing (a) in an amount of 3 wt.%; (b1) in an amount of 0.0015 wt.%; and (b2) in an amount of 0.0011 wt.% has a weight ratio of (a):(b) of 1,154:1). These values also mean that a weight ratio of (b1) and (b2) (corresponding to (b1):(b2) ) overlaps the claimed weight ratio of (b1) to (b2) recited in present claim 22 (e.g., a mixture containing (b1) in an amount of 0.0015 wt.%; and (b2) in an amount of 0.0011 wt.% has a weight ratio of (b1):(b2) of 1.3:1).
In regard to the overlapping and encompassing ranges disclosed by modified Prakash, the selection of a value within the overlapping and encompassing ranges renders the claimed weight ratios and claimed allulose concentration obvious, particularly in view of the fact that “[t]he 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.
Regarding claim 36, Prakash II teaches a mixture (corresponding to compositions and sweetened consumables such as a sweetener compositions and beverages) (page 1, lines 7-8; page 22, lines 6-9) that may consist of D-allulose (corresponding to allulose) (page 31, lines 8-9, 15-16); hesperetin (page 48, lines 5, 15-18); glycosylated rubusoside (corresponding to enzymatically glucosylated steviol glycosides wherein the glycoside is rubusoside) (page 11, lines 17-18, 24-26); phloretin; hesperetin dihydrochalcone (page 3, lines 10-11); sucrose (page16, lines 23-25, page 17, lines 9-11); and one or more steviol glycosides (page 11, lines 17-18).
Prakash II teaches that the enzymatically glycosylated rubusoside is present in the mixture to sweeten it (page 11, lines 17-20), but does not expressly teach that the glycosylated rubusoside is an alpha-glycosyl rubusoside.
However, Ohtani discloses that alpha-glycosyl rubusoside may be produced enzymatically and has an improved sweetness when compared to non-glycosylated rubusoside (page 449, 1st column – 2nd column, 1st paragraph).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the enzymatically glycosylated rubusoside of Prakash II to be alpha-glycosyl rubusoside as taught by Ohtani. Since Prakash II discloses that the glycosylated rubusoside is present in the mixture to sweeten it (page 11, lines 17-20), but does not specify whether the enzymatically glycosylated rubusoside is an alpha- or beta-glycosyl, a skilled practitioner would have been motivated to consult an additional reference such as Ohtani in order to determine a suitable form of enzymatically glycosylated rubusoside for sweetening the mixture. Therefore, the claimed alpha-glycosyl rubusoside is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 37, Prakash II teaches a mixture (corresponding to compositions and beverages) (page 1, lines 7-8; page 22, lines 6-9) comprising D-allulose (corresponding to allulose) (page 31, lines 8-9, 15-16); hesperetin (page 48, lines 5, 15-18); glycosylated rubusoside (corresponding to enzymatically glucosylated steviol glycosides wherein the glycoside is rubusoside) (page 11, lines 17-18, 24-26); phloretin; and hesperetin dihydrochalcone (page 3, lines 10-11). Therefore, Prakash II teaches that the mixture may contain the single component of (a) (corresponding to allulose); three components of (b) (corresponding to hesperetin, phloretin, and hesperetin dihydrochalcone) as recited in present claim 37.
Prakash II teaches that the mixture may contain allulose in an amount of about 5,000 ppm to about 30,000 ppm (corresponding to about 0.5 wt.% to about 3.0 wt.%) (page 31, lines 12, 14-15). Prakash II also teaches that a glycosylated rubusoside may be present in the mixture in combination with rebaudioside A so that the combined amount of glycosylated rubusoside and rebaudioside A may be about 50 ppm to about 600 ppm (page 11, lines 13-14; page 11, line 24-page 12, line 3; page 21, lines 8-9). Therefore, Prakash II teaches that the mixture may further contain the component (d) as recited in present claim 37; and that the amount of glycosylated rubusoside in the mixture may be from an amount greater than 0 ppm to an amount less than 600 ppm.
Prakash II further teaches the mixture may contain about 0.1 ppm to about 1,000 ppm of a flavonone (page 46, lines 11012, 17-18). Since hesperetin is a flavonone, Prakash II at least suggests that the mixture may comprise hesperetin in an amount of about 0.1 ppm to about 1,000 ppm. Prakash II also teaches that the mixture contains phloretin and hesperetin dihydrochalcone in a combined amount of about 1 ppm to about 50 ppm (page 3, lines 10-11; page 20, lines 29-30). Therefore, Prakash II discloses that the amount of phloretin in the mixture may be from an amount greater than 0 ppm to an amount less than about 50 ppm; and that the amount of hesperetin dihydrochalcone may be from an amount greater than 0 ppm to an amount less than about 50 ppm.
Prakash II teaches that the enzymatically glycosylated rubusoside is present in the mixture to sweeten it (page 11, lines 17-20), but Prakash II does not expressly teach that the glycosylated rubusoside is an alpha-glycosyl rubusoside. Prakash II also does not teach that the mixture comprises the claimed weight ratio of the amount of allulose to the combined amount of hesperetin, phloretin, alpha-glycosyl rubusosides, and hesperetin dihydrochalcone as recited in present claim 37.
However, Ohtani discloses that alpha-glycosyl rubusoside may be produced enzymatically and has an improved sweetness when compared to non-glycosylated rubusoside (page 449, 1st column – 2nd column, 1st paragraph).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the enzymatically glycosylated rubusoside of Prakash II to be alpha-glycosyl rubusoside as taught by Ohtani. Since Prakash II discloses that the glycosylated rubusoside is present in the mixture to sweeten the mixture (page 11, lines 17-20), but does not specify whether the enzymatically glycosylated rubusoside is an alpha- or beta-glycosyl, a skilled practitioner would have been motivated to consult an additional reference such as Ohtani in order to determine a suitable form of enzymatically glycosylated rubusoside for sweetening the mixture. Therefore, the claimed alpha-glycosyl rubusoside as a component of (b) as recited in present claim 37 is rendered obvious.
The combination of Prakash II and Ohtani discloses a mixture that may consist of D-allulose (Prakash II, page 31, lines 8-9, 15-16); hesperetin (page 48, lines 5, 15-18); alpha-glycosyl rubusoside (Prakash II, page 11, lines 17-18, 24-26; Ohtani, page 449, 1st column – 2nd column, 1st paragraph); phloretin; hesperetin dihydrochalcone (Prakash II, page 3, lines 10-11); sucrose (Prakash II, page16, lines 23-25, page 17, lines 9-11), rebaudioside A (Prakash II, page 1, lines 24-25), and water (Prakash II, page 29, lines 25-28). Prakash II discloses that the mixture may contain hesperetin in an amount of about 0.1 ppm to about 1,000 ppm (page 46, lines 11-12, 17-18; page 48, lines 5, 15-18); phloretin from an amount greater than 0 ppm to an amount less than about 50 ppm; alpha-glycosyl rubusoside in an amount greater than 0 ppm to less than about 600 ppm; rebaudioside A in an amount greater than 0 ppm to less than about 600 ppm (page 11, lines 13-14; page 11, line 24-page 12, line 3; page 21, lines 8-9); and hesperetin dihydrochalcone from an amount greater than 0 ppm to an amount less than about 50 ppm (page 3, lines 10-11; page 20, lines 29-30). These disclosed amounts of hesperetin, phloretin, alpha-glycosyl rubusosides, hesperetin dihydrochalcone, and rebaudioside A encompass the claimed concentrations. These disclosed amounts also provide weight ratios of the amount of allulose to the combined amount of hesperetin, phloretin, alpha-glycosyl rubusosides, and hesperetin dihydrochalcone which at least overlap the claimed weight ratios (e.g., a mixture consisting of 3,000 ppm allulose, 5 ppm hesperetin, 10 ppm phloretin, 10 ppm alpha-glucosyl rubusosides, and 1 ppm hesperetin dihydrochalcone has a weight ratio of the amount of allulose to the combined amount of hesperetin, phloretin, alpha-glycosyl rubusosides, and hesperetin dihydrochalcone of 115:1, which is considered to fall within the claimed range). The selection of a value within the encompassing and overlapping ranges renders the claimed ranges obvious. MPEP §2144.05.
Prakash II also teaches that the mixture may further contain flavorings and/or aroma substances (corresponding to bitter orange oil) (page 41, lines 8-13; page 44, lines 20-21). Therefore, modified Prakash II discloses a mixture that may consist of (a)-(f) as recited in present claim 37.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections: Applicant canceled claims 29-35 and amended claims 36 and 37 to fully address the objections. Therefore, the objections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §112(b) of claims 27 and 30: Applicant canceled claims 27 and 30. Therefore, the rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 4 and 20-21 over Prakash: Applicant canceled the claims. Therefore, the rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 4, 16, and 20-37 over Prakash II and Ohtani: Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been fully considered and are not considered to overcome the cited prior art.
Applicant canceled claims 4, 16, 20-21, and 23-35, thereby mooting their rejections. Applicant argued that the rejection of claim 22 does not identify sufficient reasons to select the two-part taste-modifying system required by claim 22 and combine the system with 1-3 wt.% allulose to arrive at a mixture having the weight ratio of (a) to (b) and the weight ratio of (b1) to (b2) recited by present claim 22. Applicant argued that reliance on overlapping ranges does not cure this deficiency (Applicant’s Remarks, page 6, 4th paragraph – page 7, 2nd paragraph).
However, as described above in the rejection of claim 22, the combination of Prakash II and Ohtani render the claimed combination of ingredients obvious as the combination of Prakash II and Ohtani disclose that such a combination of ingredients may be present in a mixture. Claim 22 does not require the mixture to have any particular effect (e.g., a taste similar to sucrose) and does not eliminate any other ingredients from the mixture (e.g., the claimed mixture may further contain 60 wt.% salt). Therefore, claim 22 merely requires a mixture comprising the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts regardless of any effect displayed in the final mixture. Furthermore, “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. As such, Applicant has not demonstrated that the claimed weight ratios of (a) to (b) and (b1) to (b2) are critical (e.g., the sensory tests in Example 8 of the present specification do not test the upper and lower limits of the claimed weight ratios and do not test weight ratios outside of the claimed range).
For at least the reasons described above, the combination of Prakash II and Ohtani is considered to render claim 22 obvious and Applicant’s arguments are considered unpersuasive. As such, the rejection of claim 22 is maintained as written herein.
Applicant then argued that the rejections of claims 36 and 37 are based on hindsight reconstruction. Applicant argued that the prior Office Action does not identify any disclosure in Prakash II or Ohtani of the formulation recited in present claims 36 and 37 and does not provide a reason as to why a skilled practitioner would have selected the specific compounds in the specific amounts from the optional materials disclosed in Prakash II (Applicant’s Remarks, page 7, 3rd paragraph – page 8, 1st paragraph).
However, neither claims 36 or 37 requires the mixture to have any particular effect (e.g., a taste similar to sucrose). Claim 36 allows for any amount of ingredients (a)-(e) and allows for ingredients which may interfere in whatever effect the mixture of components (a)-(d) were intended to provide (e.g., the claimed mixture may contain 90 wt.% psyllium husk fiber). Therefore, claim 36 merely requires a mixture consisting of the claimed ingredients regardless of any effect displayed in the final mixture. Similarly, claim 37 also allows for ingredients which may interfere in whatever effect the mixture of components (a)-(e) were intended to provide (e.g., the claimed mixture may contain 90 wt.% peppermint oil). Therefore, claim 37 merely requires a mixture comprising the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts regardless of any effect displayed in the final mixture.
Furthermore, “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. As such, Applicant has not demonstrated that the claimed weight ratio recited in present claim 37 is critical, especially wherein it is unclear as to what the weight ratio range of present claim 37 actually is (see 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection written above).
Applicant pointed to the Declaration filed 11/17/2025 as demonstrating that the combination of very small amounts of D-allulose and taste modifiers making sugars taste sweeter was unexpected (Applicant’s Remarks, page 8, 2nd paragraph – page 9, 1st paragraph).
See the Examiner’s responses in the section labeled “Response to Amendment” written in the Final Office Action filed 03/24/2026.
Applicant then argued that the Office relies on generalized assertions that allulose was known to have flavor-modifying properties, that allulose was known to exhibit synergy with other sweeteners, and that hesperetin and phloretin were known taste-modifying compounds in order to discredit the Declaration (Applicant’s Remarks, page 9, 2nd-3rd paragraphs).
However, as written in the Examiner’s responses in the section labeled “Response to Amendment” written in the Final Office Action filed 03/24/2026, the Smythe reference discloses that allulose is known to have flavor modifying properties. Samples B4 and B5 of Table II of the Declaration merely demonstrates flavor modifying properties of allulose (i.e., samples B4 and B5 have a higher impact, intensity, mouthfeel, and aftertaste than sample B1), thus demonstrating a feature that is already known in the art.
As written in the Examiner’s responses in the section labeled “Response to Amendment” written in the Final Office Action filed 03/24/2026, the Pacyniak reference discloses that allulose is known to exhibit a synergistic effect with other sweeteners (i.e., HC, OR, sucrose, and rebaudioside A are known in the art as sweeteners). Samples B2 and B7 of Table III of the Declaration merely demonstrates that a synergistic effect between sweeteners and allulose (i.e., samples B2 and B7 have a higher impact, intensity, mouthfeel, and aftertaste than samples B1, B4, and B5), thus demonstrating a feature that is already known in the art.
Although the Office may rely on generalized assertions, the data in the Declaration supports those generalized assertions and Applicant has not provided any evidence contradicting those assertions.
Applicant then argued that the broader claims criticized by the previous Office Action have been canceled. Applicant argued that claims 22, 36, and 37 are supported by or closely track Tables I, V, and VI of the Declaration so that the remaining claims are commensurate with the Declaration (Applicant’s Remarks, page 9, 4th-5th paragraphs).
However, claim 36 is still considered to not to be commensurate in scope with the data for at least the reasons provided in the responses above (e.g., claim 36 does not require any amount of any of the components (a)-(e) and thus may contain amounts of components not disclosed in the Tables of the Declaration. Applicant has not demonstrated criticality of the weight ratios recited in claims 22 and 37 and does not require the mixtures of claims 22 and 37 to have any particular effect. Therefore, the mixtures may not exhibit any of the asserted increases in mouthfeel, intensity, and impact described in the Declaration. For at least these reasons, the Declaration does not provide sufficient basis to overcome the cited prior art rejections. As such, the rejections of claims 22, 36, and 37 are 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
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights