DETAILED ACTION
Background
The amendment dated August 20, 2025 (amendment) amending claims 1, 4 and 6, adding new claims 30-39 and canceling claims 17, 20-21, 23 and 25 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-9, 12,16 and 30-39 as filed with the amendment have been examined. Claims have been withdrawn as directed to a non-elected invention. Claims 5, 10-11, 13-15, and 17-29 have been canceled. In view of the amendments all outstanding claim objections have been withdrawn.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 20, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 30, at line 2 after “10°” delete [[PSI]] and replace it with --pounds per square inch (PSI)--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 39, the term “commercial” in referring to the recited sterilization is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 39 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by WO2020115248 A1 to Berneart et al. (Berneart), of record.
Unless otherwise disclosed, the Office considers weight % (wt%) and mass % as interchangeable.
Berneart at Example 5 on pages 28-29 discloses a method comprising treating a cacao pulp using (at Example 1 on page 27, line 17) pasteurization and then combining 0.2 kg of the treated cacao pulp concentrate (“treated cacao pulp”) and 0.2 kg of a cocoa pod husk fiber (“cocoa pod fiber”) carrier in a 50:50 weight ratio of pulp to carrier and then spray drying the composition.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 35-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220312791 A1 to Dupas-Langlet et al. (Dupas-Langlet), as evidenced by WO2020115248 A1 to Berneart et al. (Berneart), both of record.
Unless otherwise disclosed, the Office considers weight % (wt%) and mass % as interchangeable.
Regarding instant claims 1 and 3, Dupas-Langlet at [0012] discloses a spray dried composition comprising a cacao pulp for use (at [0016]) as a sugar substitute in chocolate products (“confectionary compositions” that do “not comprise any added sugar” - claim 3), wherein at [0178]-[0179] the spray dried cacao pulp is prepared by spray drying cacao pulp with a stabilizer (“with a carrier”).
Further regarding instant claim 1, Dupas-Langlet does not disclose an example of a composition made by spray drying cacao pulp with a carrier selected from cocoa powder, cocoa butter, milk powder and combinations thereof. However, at [0187], Dupas-Langlet discloses at [0187] carrier of claim 36 which is cocoa powder, milk powder and/or cocoa fiber derived (at [0195]) from cocoa husk or bean shells (“cocoa pod fiber”). The ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in Dupas-Langlet to use any of the milk powder, cocoa powder and other stabilizers disclosed therein as spray drying carriers or stabilizers to improve the dry ability of the cocoa pulp and prevent it from sticking in processing as disclosed in Dupas-Langlet at [0180].
The Office interprets the recited composition of a pulp to carrier weight ratio of about 40:60 to about 70:30 as in claim 1 to include any composition having the claimed weight ratio for any time, including any and all of the spray dried composition or product, or any pulp to carrier weight ratio obtained during or before spray drying, if even for a transitory period of time.
Still further regarding instant claim 1, Dupas-Langlet does not disclose an example of a composition with amounts of cacao pulp and carrier in a pulp to carrier weight ratio of from 40:60 to 70:30. However, at [0204] and [0207], Dupas-Langlet discloses a spray dried composition comprising at least 40 wt% and at most 60 wt% of the carrier, wherein the remainder of the composition (at [0210]) comprises cacao pulp. The recited the recited composition of a pulp to carrier weight ratio of about 40:60 to about 70:30 includes a spray dried composition or product. While Dupas-Langlet does not provide a specific example of spray drying cacao pulp with a cocoa pod fiber in a pulp to carrier weight ratio of from 40:60 to 70:30, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found the claimed spray dried composition having the claimed pulp to carrier weight ratio obvious because Dupas-Langlet discloses that claimed weight ratio of cacao pulp and carrier of 60:40 to 40:60 makes desirable confectionary ingredients.
Yet still further regarding instant claim 1, Dupas-Langlet does not provide an example of making a spray dried composition comprising untreated cacao pulp. However, at [0169] Dupas-Langlet discloses spray drying cacao pulp and pasteurizing with no other cacao pulp treatment and wherein the pasteurization step can be at “any appropriate point in the method”; and, at [0223]-[0224] Dupas-Langlet discloses spray drying at a temperature of, for example, at least 100 °C. Accordingly, the ordinary skilled artisan in would have found it obvious in Dupas-Langlet to pasteurize its cacao pulp after spray drying to save energy by pasteurizing a composition containing less water or to pasteurize its cacao pulp as part of the spray drying, as an untreated cacao pulp combined with a carrier, to avoid a separate pasteurization step.
Regarding instant claim 2, Dupas-Langlet at [0187] discloses milk powder (“whole milk powder”) and skimmed milk powder (“skim milk powder”) as suitable carriers.
Regarding instant claim 35, Dupas-Langlet at [0187] discloses a cocoa powder stabilizer containing fat as at [0194] and combination thereof with milk powder, cocoa powder or cocoa fiber (“cocoa pod fiber”). The Office considers the claimed carrier comprising cocoa butter and further comprising cocoa powder as in claim 35 to include the high-fat cocoa powder stabilizer of Dupas-Langlet.
Regarding instant claims 36-37, the Office considers the claimed spray dried composition comprising crystallized sugar particles in the cocoa butter to include the Dupas-Langlet compositions disclosed at [0194] and comprising high-fat cocoa powder and cocoa pulp and (at [0169])) methods comprising spray drying the compositions rapidly so as to avoid degrading the product provides. Further, the Office considers the spray drying method of Dupas-Langlet to be substantially the same thing as the spray dried composition as claimed. Accordingly, absent a clear showing as to how the spray dried composition of Dupas-Langlet differs from that as claimed, the Office considers the spray dried composition of Dupas-Langlet at [0169] and [0194] containing high-fat cocoa butter to form a comprising crystallized sugar particles in the cocoa butter as in claim 36; and, further considers the composition to have crystallized sugar particles that have a particle size of less than 30 microns as in claim 37 See MPEP 2112.01.I. The Office interprets any “particle size” recited as such to include any composition wherein even one particle has the claimed particle size.
Regarding instant claim 38, the Office interprets the recited composition of a pulp to carrier weight ratio having a solids content of 10 to 50% solids to include any composition having the claimed solids for any time, including any and all of the spray dried composition or product, or any pulp to carrier weight ratio obtained during or before spray drying, if even for a transitory period of time. At [0207]-[0208] Dupas-Langlet discloses a spray dried composition comprising at least 40 wt% and at most 65 wt% cacao pulp solids with (at [0204]-[0205]) at least 30 wt% and at most 60 wt% carrier solids or 40:60 to 65:30. Further, Berneart discloses at page 2 of 40, lines 29-30 that cacao pulp (“cacao pulp”) contains 80-90 wt% water. Because Dupas-Langlet discloses at [0199]) compositions that when initially combined are least 75 wt% wet pulp, then regardless of the solids content of the carrier, the compositions will comprising at least about 60 wt% water or a solid content 40 wt% or less of solids, which the claimed 10 to 50 wt% overlaps. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", the Office considers that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.I. The ordinary skilled artisan in Dupas-Langlet would have desired for its composition to comprise 10 to 50 wt% solids in at least one point from the combining to provide a composition to the end of the spray drying of the composition because Dupas-Langlet discloses that a composition comprising the claimed solids content is or provides a desirable confectionary ingredient.
Claims 4, 6, 12, 16 and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2020115248 A1 to Berneart et al. (Berneart) in view of WO2019115731 A1 to Vieira et al. (Vieira), of record, and US20220312791 A1 to Dupas-Langlet et al. (Dupas-Langlet).
Unless otherwise disclosed, the Office considers weight % (wt%) and mass % as interchangeable.
The Office interprets the claimed “untreated cacao pulp” as including any cacao pulp that remains in its native or undenatured state, including cacao pulp during any part of its handling, including fresh, refrigerated or frozen and thawed cacao pulp, naturally fermented cacao pulp, and any other cacao pulp to which nothing has been added.
Regarding instant claims 4, 12, 16 and 31-32, Berneart at page 6 of 40, lines 26-31 discloses a method comprising spray drying a cacao pulp on a carrier (combining a cacao pulp with a carrier”) to form a spray dried composition. At page 22 of 40, lines 14-27, Berneart discloses carriers selected from the group consisting of milk powder, cocoa powder, cocoa pod husk fiber (“cocoa pod fiber” -claim 32) and cocoa cake. Further. Berneart discloses at page 2 of 40, lines 29-30 that cacao pulp contains no fat and is an aqueous pulp. In addition, at page 4 of 40, lines 8-10, Berneart discloses the free-flowing cacao pulp containing no fat for confectionary products (“non-fat based confectionary product” in claim 12). Further, at Example 8 on page 32 of 40, lines 17-21 discloses a composition that does not comprise added sugar (claim 16). The Office considers the claimed carrier comprising cocoa butter (claim 31) and further comprising cocoa powder to include the natural cocoa cake of Berneart.
Further regarding instant claim 4 and regarding instant claim 30, Berneart does not disclose a specific example of a method of spray drying untreated cacao pulp and, further, does not disclose a method of combining untreated spray drying cacao pulp with a carrier selected from the group consisting of cocoa powder, cocoa pod fiber, cocoa butter, milk powder, and combinations thereof in a pulp to carrier weight ratio of about 40:60 to about 70:30 to provide a composition. However, Berneart at Example 5 on pages 29-30 of 40 discloses a method of spray drying an unpasteurized cacao pulp with a carrier composition comprising 0.2 kg of solidified cacao pulp and 0.2 kg of a cacao pod husk fiber carrier (“cocoa pod fiber”) at a pressure of 10 PSI (claim 30). The Office interprets the claimed pulp to carrier weight ratio of from 40:60 to 70:30 to include a weight ratio, based on the weight of total solids as well as a weight ratio, based on the weight of raw materials.
At page 6, lines 45-46, Vieira discloses spray drying cacao pulp and pasteurizing with no other cacao pulp treatment except pasteurizing and (at page 13, lines 1-6) wherein the pasteurization step can be “any appropriate point in the method”. Also, at page 6, lines 45-52 Vieira discloses spray drying at a temperature of from 45 to 125 °C. Further, at page 7, lines 10-11 Vieira discloses drying cacao pulp as soon as possible after removing it from the cacao pod. Accordingly, the ordinary skilled artisan in would have found it obvious in Vieira to pasteurize its cacao pulp during or after spray drying, as untreated cacao pulp as it is appropriate to pasteurize a product that does not contain unwanted moisture.
At [0169] Dupas-Langlet discloses spray drying cacao pulp and pasteurizing with no other cacao pulp treatment except pasteurizing and wherein the pasteurization step can be at “any appropriate point in the method”. Further, at [0199] Dupas-Langlet discloses combining wet cacao with a carrier; and, at [0223]-[0224] discloses spray drying at a temperature of, for example, at least 100 °C. The disclosed method in Dupas-Langlet includes spray drying an untreated cacao pulp combined with a carrier and pasteurizing later or during spray drying which the Office considers as spray drying untreated cacao pulp. Accordingly, the ordinary skilled artisan in would have found it obvious in Dupas-Langlet to pasteurize its cacao pulp as part of or after spray drying to save energy by pasteurizing a composition containing less water or in the same step as spray drying; and, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious to pasteurize its cacao pulp as part of the.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Dupas-Langlet and Vieira for Berneart to combine an untreated cacao pulp with a pulp in a carrier weight ratio of about 40:60 to 70:30 and spray dry the composition. All references disclose a method of spray drying cacao pulp for use in confectionary products. Further, Berneart discloses spray drying a cacao pulp that has not been pasteurized; while each of Dupas-Langlet and Vieira discloses spray drying wet cacao pulp that has only been pasteurized or that is untreated. The ordinary skilled artisan in Berneart would have desired to spray dry its unpasteurized pulp as an untreated cacao pulp as in Dupas-Langlet and Vieira to preserve more of its natural flavor prior to drying, while still allowing for later pasteurization and treatment. Changing any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.C. In addition, the ordinary skilled artisan in Berneart would have desired to form a composition for spray drying having the claimed pulp to carrier weight ratio of from 40:60 to 70:30 as it already discloses a 50:50 mixture of cacao pulp and carrier, and Dupas-Langlet and Vieira each discloses the desirability of spray drying cacao pulp compositions comprising wet cacao pulp. The Office interprets the claimed pulp to carrier weight ratio of from 40:60 to 70:30 to include a weight ratio, based on the weight of total solids as well as a weight ratio, based on the weight of raw materials.
Regarding instant claim 6, while Berneart does not provide an example of spray drying cacao pulp that is not filtered, however, Example 5 of Berneart does not disclose filtering its cacao pulp. The Office considers the claimed untreated cacao pulp that is not filtered prior to the combining to include the cacao pulp of Example 5 of Berneart as modified by Dupas-Langlet at [0169] or Vieira at page 13, lines 1-6.
Regarding instant claims 7-8, Berneart does not disclose an example wherein it also discloses a method of spray drying that occurs at an inlet temperature of 120 °C to 180 °C as in claim 7, and does not disclose an example wherein the disclosed spray drying occurs at an outlet temperature of 60 °C to 100 °C as in claim 8. However, at [0223], Dupas-Langlet discloses spray drying at an inlet temperature of from 90 to 160 °C, which the claimed inlet temperature of 120 °C to 180 °C overlaps, and (at [0224]) discloses an outlet temperature of from 70 to 100 °C. Further, Vieira at page 6, lines 45-52 discloses spray drying at a temperature of from 45 to 125 °C, which the claimed inlet temperature of 120 °C to 180 °C as in claim 7 overlaps and which the claimed outlet temperature of 60 °C to 100 °C as in claim 8 lies within. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", the Office considers that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.I. The ordinary skilled artisan in Berneart would have found it obvious to spray dry its cacao pulp and carrier combination at an inlet temperature of 120 °C to 180 °C because Dupas-Langlet and Vieira each discloses that spray drying at an inlet temperature of 120 °C to 180 °C and an outlet temperature of from 60 to 100 °C effectively and efficiently dries its cacao pulp and carrier mixture without degradation.
Regarding instant claim 33, the Office considers the claimed spray drying methods that provide a composition comprising crystallized sugar particles in the cocoa butter to include the Berneart compositions disclosed at page 6 of 40, lines 26-31 and page 22 of 40, lines 14-27 [0194] and comprising a natural cocoa cake carrier as modified by Vieira at page 7, lines 10-11 and page 13, lines 1-6 and Dupas-Langlet at [0169] and [0194] to be substantially the same thing as the method claimed. Accordingly, absent a clear showing as to how the method of Berneart as modified by Vieira and Dupas-Langlet differs from that as claimed, the Office considers the method of spray drying as in Berneart at page 6 of 40, lines 26-31 and page 22 of 40, lines 14-27 [0194] and comprising a natural cocoa cake carrier as modified by Vieira at page 7, lines 10-11 and page 13, lines 1-6 and Dupas-Langlet at [0169] and [0194] to form a spray dried product comprising crystallized sugar particles in the cocoa butter. See MPEP 2112.01.I.
Regarding instant claim 34, the Office interprets the recited composition of a pulp to carrier weight ratio having a solids content of 10 to 50% solids to include any composition having the claimed solids for any time, including any and all of the spray dried composition or product, or any pulp to carrier weight ratio obtained during or before spray drying, if even for a transitory period of time. Berneart as modified by Vieira and Dupas-Langlet at [0207]-[0208] discloses a spray dried composition comprising at least 40 wt% and at most 65 wt% cacao pulp solids with (at [0204]-[0205]) at least 30 wt% and at most 60 wt% carrier solids or 40:60 to 65:30. Further, Berneart discloses at page 2 of 40, lines 29-30 that cacao pulp (“cacao pulp”) contains 80-90 wt% water. Because Dupas-Langlet discloses at [0199]) compositions that when initially combined are least 75 wt% wet pulp, then regardless of the solids content of the carrier, the compositions will comprising at least about 60 wt% water or a solid content 40 wt% or less of solids, which the claimed 10 to 50 wt% overlaps. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", the Office considers that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.I. The ordinary skilled artisan in Dupas-Langlet would have desired for its composition to comprise 10 to 50 wt% solids in at least one point from the combining to provide a composition to the end of the spray drying of the composition because Berneart as modified by Vieira and Dupas-Langlet discloses that a composition comprising the claimed solids content provides a desirable confectionary ingredient.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2020115248 A1 to Berneart et al. (Berneart) in view of WO2019115731 A1 to Vieira et al. (Vieira) and US20220312791 A1 to Dupas-Langlet et al. (Dupas-Langlet) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of JP 2010078232 A to Enokida et al. (Enokida).
References to Enokida refer to the Clarivate machine translation provided in a previous Office action.
As applied to instant claim 4, Berneart at page 6 of 40, lines 26-31 and page 22 of 40, lines 14-27 [0194] and comprising a natural cocoa cake carrier as modified by Vieira at page 7, lines 10-11 and page 13, lines 1-6 and Dupas-Langlet at [0169], [0178]-[0179] and [0194] discloses a method comprising combining untreated cacao pulp with a carrier in a pulp to carrier weight ratio of from 40:60 to 70:30 and spray drying the composition.
Berneart as modified Vieira and Dupas-Langlet by does not disclose a spray dryer coated with polytetrafluoroethylene.
Enokida at Abstract on page 1 discloses a spray dryer that is easily cleaned of deposits including ceramic powder and binder adhered to its inner wall. In the sentence bridging pages 4 and 5 and page 5, at lines 1-2, Enokida discloses the coating of a fluororesin on a fibrous inorganic material layer of the spray dryer, thereby improving production efficiency. The Office considers the claimed polytetrafluoroethylene to be the same thing as or an obvious variant of the fluororesin of Enokida for creating a non-stick surface.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Enokida for Berneart as modified by Vieira and Dupas-Langlet to use a spray dryer coated with polytetrafluoroethylene. All references disclose spray drying a potentially sticky cacao pulp material. The ordinary skilled artisan in Berneart, Vieira and Dupas-Langlet would have desired to use a polytetrafluoroethylene as in Enokida to avoid fouling its spray drier.
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendment dated August 20, 2025, the following rejections have been withdrawn as moot:
The rejections of claims 4, 6-9, 12 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in regard to the term “pulp to carrier weight ratio” in claim 4;
The rejections of 1, 3-4, 12 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by WO2020115248 A1 to Berneart et al.;
The rejections of claims 7-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220312791 A1 to Dupas-Langlet et al. in view of WO2020115248 A1 to Berneart et al. and EP 0891716 A1 to Shimazaki et al.; and,
The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220312791 A1 to Dupas-Langlet et al. in view of WO2020115248 A1 to Berneart et al. and JP 2010078232 A to Enokida et al.
Regarding the positions taken in the remarks accompanying the amendment dated August 20, 2025 (Reply) in regard to Berneart and untreated cacao pulp, the rejected claim 39 does not require an untreated cacao pulp. Further, the new grounds of rejection of claims reciting an untreated cacao pulp and citing Berneart do not rely on Berneart as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding the positions taken in the Reply that Dupas-Langlet does not disclose an untreated cacao pulp, these positions have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on the portions of Dupas-Langlet applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW E MERRIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-H 8:00A-5:30P and alternate Fridays 8:30A-5P.
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 H Dees can be reached on (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.
/ANDREW E MERRIAM/ Examiner, Art Unit 1791