DETAILED ACTION
Background
The amendment dated May 07, 2026 (amendment) amending claims 1, 7, 16-17, 23-24 and 34 and adding new claims 36-37 has been entered. Claims 16-19, 23-25, 30-31, 33-34 and 36-37 as filed with the amendment have been examined. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 14-15, 32 and 35 have been withdrawn from consideration as drawn to a non-elected invention. Claims 4, 6, 11-13, 20-22 and 26-29 have been canceled.
In the amendment, claim 7 recites an incorrect status identifier which should read as “(Withdrawn, Currently amended)”. 37 CFR 1.121(c)(2).
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 18 and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 18, at line 2, insert before the period (.) at the end of the line -- of the total weight of the baked food product--; and,
In claim 25, at line 2, insert before the period (.) at the end of the line -- by weight of the total weight of the baked food product--.
Appropriate correction is required. All of the objections would provide valid grounds for a formal indefiniteness rejection. Weight basis is not in this case presumed from an antecedent claim recitation.
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 16-19, 25, 30-31 and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0303997 A1 to Fulton (Fulton) in view of CN 108703180 A to Qian et al. (Qian), both of record, and further in view of WO2020/051527 A1 to Rankin (Rankin).
All references to Qian refer to the Espace.net machine translation, a copy of which was included in an earlier Office action.
Unless otherwise indicated, all percentages (%) are assumed to be weight %s (wt%) and wt% and mass % are considered as interchangeable.
The Office considers the claimed baked food product of claim 17 “consisting essentially of” the recited amounts of lipids, proteins, carbohydrates and vegetable fibers as including the baked food product of Fulton because none of the materials in the Fulton baked food product detract from the basic and novel characteristics of a baked food product for treating physiological and/or pathological conditions of individuals by means of the ketogenic diet or for managing a ketogenic diet.
Regarding instant claims 16-18 and 33, Fulton at Abstract discloses starch-free high-fiber baked food products which (at [0016]) include cookies or biscuits and bread that comprise protein, fat and fiber. At [0004] Fulton discloses its baked food product used for treating or managing cancer (“tumors” - claim 33) and Alzheimer’s disease (claim 33) At [0024], Fulton discloses baked food products comprising from 10 to 40 wt% of fat, from 3 to 30 wt% protein, and from 10 to 40 wt% fiber from psyllium and coconut (“vegetable fiber”), which each of the claimed 10 to 38 wt% vegetable fibers in claim 16 and the claimed 12 to 40 wt% vegetable fibers in claim 17, based on the total weight of the baked food product, overlaps. The baked food product disclosed in Fulton at [0024] further comprises a digestible carbohydrate content (“carbohydrate”) of 4 wt% or less and from 10 to 40 wt% of fat, which each of the claimed 15 to 60 wt% of lipids in claim 16, the claimed 17 to 62 wt% of lipids in claim 17 and the claimed 25 to 35 wt% of lipids in claim 18, based on the total weight of the baked food product, overlaps. The claimed 0.5 to 8 wt% of carbohydrates in claims 16 and 17, based on the total weight of the recited baked food product, both overlap the 4 wt% or less of carbohydrates in the baked food product disclosed in Fulton at [0024]. The Office considers baked food products for “physiological and/or pathological conditions of individuals by means of the ketogenic diet”- claim 16 and “for managing a ketogenic diet”- claim 17 as including those disclosed in Fulton.
Further and regarding instant claims 25 and 34, each of the claimed 0.25 to 14 wt% of proteins in claim 16, the claimed 0.25 to 15 wt% proteins in claim 17, the claimed 0.25 to 10 wt% of proteins in claim 25, and the claimed 0.25 to 5 wt% of proteins in claim 34, based on the total weight of the recited baked food product, overlaps the 3 to 30 wt% of protein in the baked food product disclosed at [0024] of Fulton. And, at [0041], Fulton discloses as its proteins animal proteins (“consist exclusively of animal proteins” - claims 16 and 17) including egg proteins, milk proteins and connective tissue proteins including collagen and gelatin that provide improved dough handling and baking properties.
Before the effective date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Fulton to include in its disclosed baked food product the claimed amounts of each of its disclosed lipids, proteins, carbohydrates and vegetable fibers, based on the total weight of the recited baked food product. 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 Fulton would have desired to use the claimed amount of lipids in claims 16, 17 and 18, the claimed amount of proteins In claims 16, 17, 25 and 34, the claimed amount of carbohydrates in claims 16 and 17, and the claimed amount of vegetable fibers in claims 16 and 17, based on the total weight of its baked food product, because Fulton discloses that the claimed amounts of lipids, proteins, carbohydrates and vegetable fibers provide a desirable baked food product for treating Alzheimer’s disease and tumors.
Still further, Fulton does not disclose an example wherein its lipids comprise medium-chain triglycerides (MCTs) having aliphatic carbon chains comprising from 6 to 12 carbon atoms and derived from caprylic acid or capric acid or lauric acid, or combinations thereof; and Fulton does not disclose an example wherein its vegetable fibers comprise both psyllium and bamboo fibers as in claims 16 and 17. Further, Fulton does not disclose a lipid wherein the MCTs constitute from 30% to 60% by weight of a total quantity by weight of lipids present in said food formulation as in claim 16 or by weight of lipids present in the baked food product as in claim 17. However, at [0047] bridging pages 6 and 7, Fulton discloses coconut oil. The Office considers the claimed medium-chain triglyceride (MCT) having aliphatic carbon chains comprising from 6 to 12 carbon atoms to include the coconut oil disclosed in Fulton as disclosed at page 4, 2nd full paragraph; and, further, considers the claimed lipid derived from one, more or all of octanoic (caprylic acid) capric acid and lauric acid to include the coconut oil disclosed in Fulton.
Qian at page 1, Abstract discloses a ketogenic biscuit. At the 1st paragraph of page 9, Qian discloses administering the ketogenic biscuit to epilepsy patients to eat as food therapy material. Further, Qian at Example 2 on page 9 discloses a ketogenic biscuit comprising 15 parts of inulin, 30 parts of MCT oil, 30 parts of γ-linolenic acid, 3 parts of egg powder, 0.5 part of baking powder, 0.4 parts of baking soda powder and 0.1 part of rice bran fatty alcohol in 100 weight parts. The Example 2 biscuit of Qian comprises 50 wt% of MCT oil, based on the weight of all lipids in its food formulation (claim 16) and all lipids in its baked food product (claim 17). At page 5, 2nd full paragraph, Qian discloses that MCTs are the best ingredient for the ketogenic diet as they have a fast digestion rate and energy supply and provide brain nutrition while, at the same time they do not synthesize fatty acids.
Rankin at Example 12 on pages -149- to -151- discloses at [0240] a ketogenic dough comprising (at [0242]) whey as protein and bamboo fiber as long fiber cellulose to absorb liquid, as well as (at [0253]) flour containing fat and seed husk to add dietary fiber and soluble fiber, wherein (at [0254] adding the bamboo fiber prevent the dough from oiling off as it bakes.
Before the effective date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Qian for Fulton to use as its lipid 30 to 60 wt% of MCT on the weight of lipids as blend of MCT oil with γ-linolenic acid or another fat suitable for baking. Both references disclose low carbohydrate baked food products comprising vegetable fiber and coconut oil for treating neurogenerative disorders. The ordinary skilled artisan in Fulton would have desired to seek the health benefits provided by making its product with a mixture of MCT oil and γ-linolenic acid or another fat as in Qian containing 30 to 60 wt% of the MCT oil, based on the total weight of lipids in its baked food product.
Before the effective date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Rankin for Fulton to include bamboo fiber as a long insoluble cellulose fiber in its ketogenic dough. Both references disclose ketogenic doughs comprising protein, lipid and soluble dietary fiber. The ordinary skilled artisan in Fulton would have desired to use the bamboo fiber of Rankin as needed to absorb extra water in the dough and prevent oil in the dough from oiling off during baking.
Regarding instant claim 19, the Office considers the claimed mixture of medium-chain triglycerides to include the coconut oil disclosed at [0047] of Fulton.
Regarding instant claim 30, Fulton at [0034] discloses fiber as a mixture of soluble vegetable fibers and insoluble vegetable fibers.
Regarding instant claim 31, the Office considers the claimed baked food product for treating drug-resistant epilepsy or neurodegenerative diseases to include the dietary treatment disclosed in Fulton at [0004] for Alzheimer’s disease.
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0303997 A1 to Fulton (Fulton) in view of CN 108703180 A to Qian et al. (Qian) and WO2020/051527 A1 to Rankin (Rankin) as applied to claim 17, above, and further in view of US 20160081383 A1 to Gamberi et al. (Gamberi), of record.
The cited Gamberi reference is equivalent to EP 3001914 A1 to Gamberi et al.
All references to Qian refer to the Espace.net machine translation, a copy of which was included in an earlier Office action.
Unless otherwise indicated, all percentages (%) are assumed to be weight %s (wt%) and wt% and mass % are considered as interchangeable.
As applied to claim 17, Fulton at [0024] and [0045] as modified by Qian at Abstract on page 1 and Rankin at Example 12 discloses a baked food product for managing a ketogenic diet comprising 17 to 62 wt% lipid comprising 30 to 60 wt% of lipids as an MCT oil having aliphatic carbon chains comprising from 6 to 12 carbon atoms, between 10 and 38 wt% of vegetable fibers, from 0.25 to 15 wt% of proteins and from 0.5 to 10 wt% carbohydrates.
Regarding instant claims 23-24, Fulton as modified by Qian and Rankin does not disclose an example of a baked food product as bread having a ketogenic ratio of lipids to proteins and carbohydrates of between 1.5:1 and 2.5:1 as in claim 23 and does not disclose an example of a baked food product as at least one of biscuits, crackers, breadsticks, sweet snacks, savory snacks and other baked products that has a ketogenic ratio between lipids and sum of carbohydrates and proteins comprised between 1.5:1 and 6:1. However, Fulton discloses at [0016] bread and cookies or biscuits as a baked food product.
The Office interprets the recited ketogenic ratio as being a weight ratio of lipids to carbohydrates.
Gamberi at [0017] discloses baked food products like bread, crackers or breadsticks comprising plant flours with fats in a composition made up of (at [0018]-[0022]) from 10 to 40% plant proteins, from 5 to 35% of soluble plant fibers, from 5 to 30% of insoluble plant fibers or “vegetable fibers”, from 5 to 50% of lipids, and from 0.5 to 10 wt% carbohydrates. Further 24, Gamberi discloses at [0025] and in claim 14 baked food products having a ketogenic ratio of lipids to proteins and carbohydrates of 2:1 and of from 2:1 to 5:1.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Gamberi for Fulton to make a baked food product as a bread having a ketogenic ratio of lipids to proteins and carbohydrates of between 1.5:1 and 2.5:1 as in claim 23 and to make a baked food product at least one of biscuits, crackers, breadsticks, sweet snacks, savory snacks and other baked products having a ketogenic ratio between lipids and sum of carbohydrates and proteins comprised between 1.5:1 and 6:1. Both references disclose dietary baked food products having a high fat and fiber content, the same or similar protein content and a low carbohydrate content. The ordinary skilled artisan in Fulton would have desired to limit the amount of protein in its baked food products as in Gamberi while keeping its mucilaginous fiber and fat content high (as at [0016] of Fulton) to provide a workable dough having a desirable ketogenic ratio for the consumer.
Claims 16-17, 19, 23-25, 30-31, 33 and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2017/0202239 A1 to Sakurada et al. (Sakurada) in view of US 20160081383 A1 to Gamberi et al. (Gamberi) and WO2020/051527 A1 to Rankin (Rankin).
Unless otherwise indicated, all percentages (%) are assumed to be weight %s (wt%) and wt% and mass % are considered as interchangeable.
Regarding instant claims 16-17, 25 and 34, Sakurada at the Abstract discloses a baked confectionery (“baked food product” - claims 16-17) for use (at [0036]) in the ketone diet or ketogenic diet, including (at [0028]) doughnuts. Further, the baked food productor formulation therefore of Sakurada substantially includes no flour and has improved taste, comprising 40-80 mass % of lipids, which the claimed 15 to 60 wt.% of lipids in claim 16 and 17 to 62 wt% in claim 17 overlaps; further comprising from 1-10 mass % of proteins (claims 16, 17 and 25), which the claimed 0.25 to 5 wt% of proteins in claim 34 overlaps; and comprising from 5-25 mass % of saccharides (“carbohydrates”), which the claimed 0.5 to 8 wt.% of carbohydrates in claim 16 and 17 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 Sakurada would have desired to use the claimed amount of lipids in claims 16 and 17, the claimed amount of proteins in claim 34, the claimed amount of carbohydrates in claims 16 and 17, based on the total weight of its baked food product, because Sakurada at Abstract discloses that the claimed amounts of lipids, proteins, carbohydrates and vegetable fibers provide a desirable baked food product.
Further, Sakurada discloses its lipids as having at least 50 mass % of its constituent fatty acids a s a C6-12 medium-chain fatty acid triglyceride (“medium chain triglycerides” and triglycerides “derived from caprylic acid or capric acid or lauric acid, or combinations thereof”), which the claimed 30 to 60 wt% overlaps. See MPEP 2144.05.I. The ordinary skilled artisan in Sakurada would have desired to use the claimed 30 to 60 wt% of MC%s, based on the total weight of lipids in the food formulation because Sakurada discloses that the claimed lipids in the claimed amounts and having the claimed proportion of MCTs provide a desirable baked food product.
Still further, Sakurada at [0039] discloses that its protein includes milk, whey or animal protein. The ordinary skilled artisan in Sakurada would have found it obvious to make its formulation for a baked food product to consist exclusively of animal proteins because Sakurada discloses that use of proteins consisting of animal proteins provides a desirable baked food product. In addition, Sakurada at [0056] discloses its baked food product as including dietary fiber without limitation as used in making a baked confectionary. The Office considers baked food products for “physiological and/or pathological conditions of individuals by means of the ketogenic diet”- claim 16 and “for managing a ketogenic diet”- claim 17 as including those disclosed in Sakurada at the Abstract.
Still further and regarding instant claim 19, 23-24, 30-31 and 33, Sakurada does not disclose an example of a baked food product from a formulation comprising vegetable fibers between 10 and 38 wt% as in claim 16 or between 12 and 40 wt% as on claim 17; further, does not disclose an example wherein its vegetable fibers comprise both psyllium and bamboo fibers as in claims 16 and 17, and does not disclose that its vegetable fibers comprise soluble vegetable fibers and/or insoluble vegetable fibers as in claim 30. Further, Sakurada does not disclose that its food product is bread and has a ketogenic ratio by weight between lipids and sum of carbohydrates and proteins comprised between 1.5:1 and 2.5:1 as in claim 23 or disclose its baked food product, wherein said food product is at least one of biscuits, crackers, breadsticks, sweet snacks, savory snacks, and other baked products, and has a ketogenic ratio by weight between lipids and sum of carbohydrates and proteins comprised between 1.5:1 and 6:1 as in claim 24. Still further, Sakurada does not disclose that its baked food product is suitable for use in the treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy or neurodegenerative diseases as in claim 31, or disclose that its baked food product is suitable for use in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, autism, migraine, tumors, or brain trauma as in claim 33.
Gamberi at [0017] discloses baked food products like bread and sweets or confectionary comprising plant flours which are made from (at [0027]) a dough with fats in a composition comprising (at [0018]-[0022]) from 10 to 40% plant proteins; further, comprising from 5 to 35% of soluble plant fibers and from 5 to 30% of insoluble plant fibers, both of which are “vegetable fibers”; still further, comprising from 5 to 50% of lipids, in both cases which the claimed 10 to 38 wt% in claim 16 and the claimed 12-40 wt% in claim 17 overlap; and, also comprising from 0.5 to 10 wt% carbohydrates. See MPEP 2144.05.I Further, Gamberi discloses at [0025] and in claim 14 baked food products having a ketogenic ratio of lipids to proteins and carbohydrates of 2:1 (claims 23-24) and of from 2:1 to 5:1, including at page 2 of Gamberi disclosing Aglucidic mixture A having a ketogenic ratio of about 4.3:1 (claim 24) and Aglucidic mixture E having a ketogenic ratio of 2.0:1 (claims 23-24). Gamberi at [0011] discloses uses its dough for treating neurodegenerative diseases (claim 31) as Alzheimer’s disease patients (claim 33) and in Aglucidic mixture E tumors (claim 33). The ordinary skilled artisan in Gamberi would have found it obvious to use the claimed amount of vegetable fiber because Gamberi discloses that the claimed amount of vegetable fiber gives a desirable baked food product.
Rankin at [0204] and page -111- to -113- discloses ketogenic doughs for treating cancer (at end of [0204]) (a “neurodegenerative disease” (claim 31) defined by tumors (claim 33) comprising unsaturated fatty acids (“lipids”) and dairy proteins and/or whey. In addition, Rankin at [0006] discloses a ketogenic dough or baked product comprising yeast. Further, Rankin at Example 13 on pages -151- to -152- discloses ketogenic dough comprising (at [0262]) psyllium husks (“soluble vegetable fiber”), MCC insoluble fiber and coconut oil; and, (at [0264]) discloses long fiber cellulose replacing the MCC. Further, at Example 12 on pages -149- to -151- discloses at [0240] a ketogenic dough comprising (at [0242]) bamboo fiber as long fiber cellulose to absorb liquid, wherein (at [0254] adding the bamboo fiber prevent the dough from oiling off as it bakes.
Before the effective date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Gamberi for Sakurada to include from 10 to 38 wt% or 12 to 40 wt% of vegetable fibers, of the total weight of the baked food product, and to formulate the dough for its baked food product as a bread dough having the protein/lipid/carbohydrate/vegetable fiber profile of Aglucidic mixture A of Gamberi as in claim 24 or one having a ketogenic ratio of from 1.5:1 to 2.5:1 as in claim 24 including about 50 wt% lipid and about 25 wt% of a combination of carbohydrate and protein which the disclosed formulation in the Abstract of Sakurada overlaps. Further, further the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Gamberi to use the baked food product in treatments including drug-resistant epilepsy or neurodegenerative diseases as in claim 31, or in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, autism, migraine, tumors, or brain trauma as in claim 33 as disclosed in Gamberi at [0011] and [0030]. Both references disclose doughs having overlapping amounts of protein, lipid, carbohydrate and fiber to make baked food products for use in the ketogenic diet. The ordinary skilled artisan in Sakurada would have desired to use the claimed amounts of proteins, lipids, carbohydrates and vegetable fiber as disclosed in Gamberi in making a desirable baked food product which would in view of Gamberi be suitable for making a bread and treating those following a ketogenic diet and suffering from neurodegenerative diseases, Alzheimer's disease or tumors.
Before the effective date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Rankin for Sakurada to include bamboo fiber as a long insoluble cellulose fiber as well as psyllium fiber in its ketogenic dough. Both references disclose ketogenic doughs comprising protein, lipid and soluble dietary fiber. The ordinary skilled artisan in Sakurada have desired to use the bamboo fiber of Rankin as needed to absorb extra water in its dough and prevent its oil or fat from oiling off during baking.
Regarding instant claims 36-37, Sakurada as modified by Gamberi does not disclose a baked food product, wherein the food formulation further comprises yeasts as in claim 36; and, further does not disclose a baked food product further comprising yeasts as in claim 37.
Rankin at Example 12 on pages -149- to -151- discloses at [0240] a ketogenic dough which is gas-containing and leavened comprising whey and bamboo fiber as long fiber cellulose to absorb liquid, as well as flour containing fat and seed husk to add dietary fiber and soluble fiber, wherein at [0249] the dough comprises yeast and the method of making the dough comprises fermenting the dough to reduce the amount of sugars in the dough.
Before the effective date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Rankin for Sakurada as modified by Gamberi to include yeast in its dough and its bread for leavening and flavor, as well as to reduce the amount of sugar in its dough. All references disclose doughs for making bread suitable for treatment of those following a ketogenic diet. The ordinary skilled artisan in Sakurada as modified by Gamberi would have desired to add yeast as disclosed in Rankin at [0249] for leavening and to reduce sugar content in its dough, as well as for flavor.
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendment dated May 07, 2026, the following rejections have been withdrawn as moot:
The rejections of claims 17-19, 23-25, 30-31 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in regard to "said food formulation" in claim 17 and the units for the ketogenic ratio in each of claims 23 and 24.
Regarding the positions taken in the remarks accompanying the amendment dated May 07, 2026, the Office has fully considered the positions taken; however, the positions taken but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for disclosing or rendering obvious any vegetable fibers comprising both psyllium and bamboo fibers as specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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
Prosecution Insights