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 .
The amendment filed 10/23/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-23, and 29-34 are pending. Claims 20-23 are withdrawn. Prior objections and rejections not included below are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments and amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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 32 recites the limitation of rapidly cooling of “at least 45 °C/minute”. No support is provided in the published application, either at [0081], Table 2, or elsewhere, for a specific cooling rate.
Claim 34 recites a limitation of a surface area to volume ratio of the solidified oleogel. No support is provided in the published application, either at [0081] or elsewhere, for a ratio of surface area to volume.
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.
Claims 8, 18, 32, and 33 are 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein particles are suspended in oil”. It is unclear whether the oil of Claim 8 is intended to be the same oil as in Claim 1. It is additionally unclear whether the particles of Claim 8 are intended to be identical to the oleogel of Claim 1, which has undergone a “particle formation process”. It is additionally unclear how the oleogel of Claim 1, which may be an oleogel which has undergone particle formation via, e.g. milling, can result in a “prill-in-oil dispersion” as in Claim 8.
Claim 18 recites “an oleogel system”. It is unclear whether the “oleogel system” or Claim 18 differs from the oleogel of Claim 1, and whether the saturated fat level, wax level, and room temperature punch force refer to the same composition or a modified composition comprising the oleogel.
Claim 32 recites the limitation of “quiescently cooling” by performing rapid cooling. It is unclear how a step of “quiescently” cooling, which one of ordinary skill would understand to mean passive cooling without acceleration, may include “rapid” cooling.
Claim 33 recites the limitation of “refined rice bran stearin”. It is unclear how “refined rice bran stearin” differs from the “rice brain stearin” of Claim 1. The published application at [0075] states that rice bran stearin is available from rice refineries, but nowhere is the difference in “refined rice bran stearin” and “rice bran stearin” defined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 4, 16, 17, 19, and 32-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marangoni (WO 2010/143066 A1) in view of Shi (“Composition of Rice Bran Stearin from Various Refineries Across China”, DOI 10.1007/s11746-016-2814-9, April 2016).
Regarding Claim 1, Marangoni teaches a method for an oleogel comprising blending a gelator with an oil, adding a surfactant (which is an inclusion), heating to above the glass transition temperature (which creates a melt), and allowing the mixture to cool (Page 3, Lines 20-25). Marangoni teaches that the oleogel composition is e.g. finely chopped (Page 16, Lines 25-28), which is a form of milling.
Note that the limitation of “milling” is broadly interpreted to mean any process which physically divides a substance into smaller parts. Examiner notes that Applicant has argued that milling is “a mechanical process that involves blades and grinding of a solid or an oleogel to generate smaller particles” (Arguments filed 1/3/2025, Page 4, Paragraph 1).
Marangoni additionally teaches that the mixture is “allowed to cool down and set” (Page 12, Line 9), and additionally that gels undergo “cooling and hardening” before chopping (Page 17, Lines 4-5). Marangoni therefore teaches quiescent cooling.
Marangoni teaches oils and fats intended for food use in the method of making the oleogel (Page 7, Lines 5-12), including stearin (Page 7, Line 7 and 8), but does not specify the use of rice bran stearin.
Shi teaches that rice bran stearin is suitable for food use (Page 876, Column 1, Paragraph 2) and has a high stability towards oxidation (Page 876, Column 1, Paragraph 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize rice bran stearin in the oleogel of Marangoni. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to utilize an oil or fat with high stability towards oxidation.
Regarding Claim 4, Marangoni teaches heating of a melt to “about 130 °C”. (Page 9, Line 21). Since the instant Claim teaches heating to “about 120 °C” and Marangoni teaches heating to “about 130 °C”, the Office takes the position that temperature ranges taught by Marangoni both approach and overlap the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 16, Marangoni teaches the inclusion of food products such as salt (Page 5, Line 32), which is a natural flavor, and water, which is an immiscible droplet. Note that Marangoni teaches mixture of food products with the oleogel in the molten state, prior to cooling (Page 5, Lines 28-30).
Regarding Claim 17, Marangoni teaches the use of flavorings (Page 5, Line 34) which encompasses flavorings in powder form. Marangoni specifically teaches the use of, e.g. sugars and carbohydrates, which are understood by one of ordinary skill to be available in powdered form. Note that the limitation of the claim, “a flavor powder derived from readily soluble wholegrain carrier”, may be broadly interpreted as any flavor powder. The limitation of “derived from a readily soluble wholegrain carrier” describes a product by process. Since Applicant has not disclosed that the flavor powder derived from a readily soluble wholegrain carrier differs from any flavor powder, and additionally since Applicant discloses in the specification that beef flavor processed with rice flour meets the limitations of the claim, the Examiner interprets the limitations of the claim as any powdered flavoring.
Regarding Claim 19, Marangoni teaches the addition of e.g. a surfactant, which is an inclusion. Marangoni additionally teaches that the surfactant is “homogeneously distributed throughout the gel” (Page 5, Line 12), which is interpreted to meet the limitation of an emulsified inclusion. Note that since the product of Marangoni has an emulsified inclusion, as claimed, the product of Marangoni is interpreted to have the property of an enhanced “opacifying effect”.
Regarding Claim 32, modified Marangoni teaches the method as discussed above in regards to Claim 1, but does not discuss the rate of cooling. However, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. See MPEP 2144.05 II A. Since Applicant has not disclosed that the specific limitations recited in instant claims are for any particular purpose or solve any stated problem, absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to discover the optimum workable ranges of the method disclosed by the prior art by normal optimization procedures known in the art.
Regarding Claim 33, modified Marangoni teaches the use of rice bran stearin in an oleogel, as discussed above in regards to Claim 1. Shi teaches that the rice bran stearin is obtained from a refinery (Page 870, “Materials”), and is therefore a refined rice bran stearin.
Regarding Claim 34, modified Marangoni teaches the method as discussed above in regards to Claim 1, but does not discuss cooling on a chilled surface or the ratio of surface area to volume of the resulting oleogel.
Regarding the limitation that the cooling be on a “chilled surface”, it would have been obvious to have cooled an oleogel by any conventional method, including on a chilled surface.
Regarding the limitation of surface area to volume, if the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions and a product having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art product, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art product. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A. Note that Applicant has not provided comparative showings or demonstrated the criticality of the claimed range. Additionally note that arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See MPEP 716.01(c)II.
Claims 2 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marangoni in view of Shi as applied to Claim 1, above, and further in view of Wijarnprecha (“Structure and rheology of oleogels made from rice bran wax and rice bran oil”, DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2018.06.005, 2018)
Regarding Claim 2, Marangoni teaches an oleogel for use in food (Page 6, Line 28) but does not teach a wax as the gelator.
Wijarnprecha teaches oleogels (Abstract) intended for food products (Page 199, Introduction, Column 2, Paragraph 1). Wijarnprecha teaches that waxes (Page 199, Column 2, Paragraph 3), such as rice bran wax (Page 200, Column 1, Paragraph 2), can cause oil gelation are relatively low concentrations. Wijarnprecha additionally teaches that the selection of oil “strongly affects oleogel rheology and kinetic stability”, and that rice bran wax forms an oleogel (e.g. Page 200, Section 2.1, “Materials and oleogel preparation”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Marangoni to utilize waxes as the gelator, as taught by Wijarnprecha. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to select a gelator and oil combination known to be suitable for use in producing oleogels at a low concentration.
Regarding Claim 29, Marangoni teaches a method for an oleogel intended for use in food (Page 6, Line 28) comprising blending a gelator with an oil, heating to above the glass transition temperature (which creates a melt), and allowing the mixture to cool (Page 3, Lines 20-25). Marangoni teaches the addition of water (Page 5, Line 35), which is an immiscible inclusion. Marangoni teaches low saturated fat oils such as e.g. vegetable oil (Page 7, Line 15) but does not teach a vegetable wax as the gelator or the same botanical source of wax and oil.
Wijarnprecha teaches oleogels (Abstract) intended for food products (Page 199, Introduction, Column 2, Paragraph 1). Wijarnprecha teaches that waxes (Page 199, Column 2, Paragraph 3), such as rice bran wax (Page 200, Column 1, Paragraph 2), can cause oil gelation are relatively low concentrations. Wijarnprecha additionally teaches that the selection of oil “strongly affects oleogel rheology and kinetic stability”, and that a combination of rice bran wax and rice bran oil forms an oleogel (e.g. Page 200, Section 2.1, “Materials and oleogel preparation”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Marangoni to utilize rice bran wax and rice bran oil as the gelator, as taught by Wijarnprecha. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to select a gelator and oil combination known to be suitable for use in producing oleogels at a low concentration.
Claims 6, 10-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marangoni in view of Shi as applied to Claim 1, above, and further in view of Baugher (US 4098913).
Regarding Claim 6, Marangoni teaches that the oleogel is incorporated into foods where the oleogel is used to replace animal fat (Page 6, Line 28).
Marangoni does not specifically teach inclusion of the olegel into a plant-based meat analogue.
Baugher teaches the inclusion of oleogels in meat analog products (Abstract) comprising, e.g. soy protein (Column 4, Example 2), which is a plant-based meat analogue mixture. Baugher teaches that such products resemble e.g. ground beef in texture (Column 5, Line 16) and flavor (Column 5, Lines 39-41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the oleogel of Marangoni into a plant-based meat analogue mixture, as taught by Baugher. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Baugher teaches that oleogels are suitable for use in plant-based meat analogue mixtures.
Regarding Claims 10, 11, and 13, Marangoni teaches the inclusion of food products such as salt (Page 5, Line 32), which is a natural flavor, and water, which is an immiscible droplet. Note that Marangoni teaches mixture of food products with the oleogel in the molten state, prior to cooling (Page 5, Lines 28-30).
Regarding Claim 12, Baugher teaches the addition of vitamins, which encompasses B vitamins (Column 4, Example 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to include any vitamin appropriate for a meat analogue mixture.
Regarding Claim 15, Marangoni teaches the addition of a surfactant (Page 7, Line 3).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marangoni in view of Shi and Baugher as applied to Claim 6, above, and further in view of Pibarot (US 2020/0323238 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Marangoni teaches processing the oleogel into particles before incorporation into a meat analogue mixture as detailed above with regard to claim 1. Note that Marangoni teaches a plant-based meat analogue as detailed above with regard to Claim 6. Marangoni does not specifically teach a process where oleogel particles are placed in a pumpable oil suspension.
Pibarot teaches a process for creating a meat analogue which includes an animal fat analogue made of vegetable oil [0069]. Pibarot teaches that the fat analogue is incorporated by processing the analogue into particles, suspending in a non-water liquid (which encompasses oil), and injecting (which implies that the mixture can be pumped) into the meat analogue [0087]. Pibarot teaches that this process allows the formation of a meat analogue product having the appearance of marbled meat [0105].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an oleogel into a meat analogue via an oil suspension of oleogel particles in pumpable form. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to create a meat analogue resembling marbled animal meat.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marangoni in view of Shi and Baugher as applied to Claim 13, above, in view of Varavinit (“Production of Meat-Like Flavor”, ScienceAsia 26 (2000) : 219-224)
Regarding Claim 14, Marangoni teaches the addition of flavoring (Page 5, Line 35).
Varavinit teaches that meat flavorings may be synthesized by heating a solution of amino acids and carbohydrates (Page 220, Column 1, Lines 1-3). Note that a heated solution of amino acids still contains intact amino acids, and is interpreted to meet the limitation in Claim 14 of an aqueous amino acid solution. Varavinit teaches that this process produces desirable flavors. Note that the Varavinit additionally teaches that heating a solution of amino acids and carbohydrates produces meat flavors, and therefore the flavor of Varavinit is interpreted as a flavor precursor, as claimed. Note that the flavoring of Varavinit is aqueous, and would therefore form immiscible liquid droplets in oil, a claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the flavoring of Varavinit as the flavoring of Marangoni and thus incorporate an aqueous amino acid solution as immiscible liquid droplets in the oleogel. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to utilize a desirable beef flavor in a beef analogue.
Claims 9, 18, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marangoni in view of Shi and Baugher as applied to Claim 6, above, and further in view of Wijarnprecha.
Regarding Claim 9, Marangoni teaches an oleogel comprise rice bran stearin for use in food (Page 6, Line 28) but does not teach an oil and gelator from the same botanical source.
Wijarnprecha teaches oleogels (Abstract) intended for food products (Page 199, Introduction, Column 2, Paragraph 1). Wijarnprecha teaches that waxes (Page 199, Column 2, Paragraph 3), such as rice bran wax (Page 200, Column 1, Paragraph 2), can cause oil gelation are relatively low concentrations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Marangoni to utilize rice bran wax and rice bran oil, which are from the same botanical source to form an oleogel, as taught by Wijarnprecha. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to select a gelator known to be suitable for use in producing oleogels at a low concentration.
Regarding Claims 18 and 31, Marangoni teaches an oleogel comprising rice bran stearin in a meat analogue mixture, as discussed above in regards to Claims 1 and 6.
Marangoni teaches an oleogel for use in food (Page 6, Line 28) but does not teach a wax as the gelator.
Wijarnprecha teaches oleogels (Abstract) intended for food products (Page 199, Introduction, Column 2, Paragraph 1). Wijarnprecha teaches that waxes (Page 199, Column 2, Paragraph 3), such as rice bran wax (Page 200, Column 1, Paragraph 2), can cause oil gelation are relatively low concentrations. (Page 200, Section 2.1, “Materials and oleogel preparation”), including 3, 5, 7, and 10% (which lie within the claimed ranges).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Marangoni to utilize waxes as the gelator, as taught by Wijarnprecha. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to select a gelator known to be suitable for use in producing oleogels at a low concentration.
Marangoni does not specifically disclose a saturated fat level of less than 40% and a room temperature punch force of at least 200 grams (Claim 18) or 1401 grams (Claim 31). However, given that the prior art is similar to the claimed product, with a similar intended use, composition, and processing, there is an expectation that the product of the prior art have the saturated fat and room temperature punch force properties as claimed.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marangoni in view of Wijarnprecha as applied to Claim 2, above, and further in view of The Arboretum in Horsholm (“Varnish tree- Rhus verniciflua”, https://ign.ku.dk/arboretum-hoersholm/plant_descriptions/july_rhus_verniciflua/, reference is made to the provided archived version)
Regarding Claim 30, modified Marangoni teaches the use of plant waxes in oleogels, as discussed above in regards to Claim 2. Wijarnprecha teaches that in selecting ingredients for an oleogel, a food industrialist must consider e.g. the suitability of a product for food use.
The Arboretum in Horsholm teaches that Rhus verniciflua wax is used for cooking (Page 2, “Plant description”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Rhus verniciflua wax in a composition intended for eating, since The Arboretum in Horsholm teaches that Rhus verniciflua wax is edible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112b), Applicant argues (Page 6 of Remarks) that the oil of Claim 8 is not the same oil of Claim 1, since a definite article is missing from Claim 8.
This argument is not convincing. The term “oil” in Claim 8 may be interpreted as the same oil or a different oil as the oil of Claim 1, which changes the metes and bounds of the claim. Since it is unclear what is intended by the claim, the claim is indefinite and remains rejected.
Applicant additionally argues (Page 7 of Remarks) that the “oelogel system” and the recited wax and saturated fat levels are definite, since Claim 18 depends from Claim 6, which recites the inclusion of the oleogel in Claim 1 in a plant-based meat analogue mixture. Applicant argues that it is therefore clear that the “oleogel system” is the meat analogue mixture of Claim 6.
This argument is not convincing. Claim 6 does not recite or define an “oleogel system”. Since it is unclear what is intended by the claim, the claim is indefinite and remains rejected.
Examiner notes that Applicant has clearly articulated the intention of the language in Claim(s) 1 and 18 in the submitted Remarks. With a view towards compact prosecution, Examiner requests that Applicant modify claims to communicate this intention.
Regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant argues (Page 9 of Remarks) that fractionated and refined rice bran oil are different products. Applicant additionally argues that fractionated rice bran oil has been separated into different components, typically a liquid (olein) and solid (stearin) fraction.
Note that the rejection of Claim 1 has been modified in view of Applicant’s amendment that the oil is rice bran stearin.
Applicant additionally argues (Page 10 of Remarks) that a surfactant is not an inclusion.
This argument is not convincing. The term “inclusion” is broadly interpreted to encompass a first substance blended within another substance, where the first substance may be distinguished from the second substance. Since surfactants are chemically distinct from the oil and ethylcellulose of Marangoni, they are encompassed by the term “inclusions” in the composition of Marangoni. Note that the Examiner has not asserted that inclusions and surfactants are identical substances. Additionally note that Claim 1 teaches inclusions and does not specify the nature of the inclusion.
Applicant additionally argues (Page 11 of Remarks) that Baugher requires agitation during cooling, and additionally that Marangoni does not disclose quiescent cooling. Applicant argues that Marangoni is, at best, indifferent to cooling, and further discloses tilting a vial during the cooling process.
This argument is not convincing. First, Baugher is not relied upon for teaching a method of cooling. Second, Marangoni teaches that food is mixed with the oleogel in the gelled state (Page 5, Lines 29-30), and additionally that a mixture is “allowed to cool down and set” (Page 12, Line 9), and additionally that gels undergo “cooling and hardening” before chopping (Page 17, Lines 4-5). Marangoni therefore teaches quiescent cooling of the oleogel, absent evidence to the contrary. Examiner additionally notes that prior art is available for all teachings and not only preferred embodiments. See MPEP 2123. Third, the procedure of tilting a vial to check for flow was performed during an experimental trial (Page 11, Lines 30-31) to determine the gelation temperature of the solution. One having ordinary skill would understand that once a gelation temperature was determined, tilting the vial would not be included as part of the method of making.
Applicant argues that Claims 31-34 are allowable (Page 12 of Remarks). Applicant cites features such as high punch force, rapid cooling, and a surface area to volume ratio derived from prill size and oleogel density.
Note that Claims 31-34 are rejected over a combination of references as discussed above. Additionally, note that the density of the oleogel is irrelevant to the ratio of surface area to volume. Surface area to volume ratio is a function of shape and size.
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 DEBORAH LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5685. The examiner can normally be reached 12-8 Eastern Time.
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.
/D.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791