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 .
This office action is in regard to the application filed on August 18, 2022. The earliest effective filing date of the application is February 18, 2020.
Priority
The present application is a 371 National Stage Application of PCT/EP2021/053827 which has a filing date of February 17, 2021.
Affidavit
The affidavit by applicant Fedlthusen Jensen filed on November 10, 2025, has been considered. The Office appreciates Applicant’s education, time and experience in this matter.
It is asserted that the combination of tocopherol and sodium ascorbate yields the unexpected result of the stabilization of vitamin A in flour because tocopherol alone yielded low stabilization of vitamin A in flour (paragraph 11).
In response, it is noted that the affidavit refers only to the system described in the above referenced application and not to the individual claims of the application. Thus, there is no showing that the objective evidence of nonobviousness is commensurate in scope with the claims. See MPEP § 716. Therefore, the affidavit is not persuasive.
Status of Application
The amendment filed November 10, 2025 with the Remarks has been entered. The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 17 –27 and 29 – 31
Withdrawn claims: None
Previously cancelled claims: 1 – 16 and 28
Amended claims: 18 – 23, 25, and 29
Claims currently under consideration: 17 – 27 and 29 – 31
The status of the objections and rejections regarding the disclosure upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Withdrawn Rejections: The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 18 – 27, 29, and 30 are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
35 U.S.C. § 112 Rejections: The previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claim 31 is maintained.
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections: The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 17 – 27 and 29 – 31 are maintained.
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 31 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.
Claim 31 depends on a cancelled claim, rendering them incomplete. It is unclear what limitations are included in claim 31. It appears to be the applicant’s intention, given the presented claims, for the claims that are dependent on the cancelled claim 16 to depend on claim 17. For the purpose of examination, claim 31 is interpreted to reference claim 17 instead of claim 16.
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 17 – 20, 22 – 27, and 29 – 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindemann (WO 2009071289 A1) in view of Masoumi et al. (Enhancement of encapsulation efficiency of nanoemulsion-containing aripiprazole for the treatment of schizophrenia using mixture experimental design. International Journal of Nanomedicine. Vol. 10. Pp. 6469 – 6476. (2015)) as evidenced by Aramouni, F. et al. ((2018). Methods for Developing New Food Products - An Instructional Guide (Expanded 2nd Edition) – Chapter 3 – Functionality of Food Components - 3.3.2 Maltodextrins. (p. 32). DEStech Publications), herein after referred to as Aramouni.
Regarding claim 17, Lindemann teaches a dry (finely divided) pulverous formulation (i.e., a powderous composition). Lindemann teaches the formulation comprises: 2 to 20% by weight fat-soluble active ingredients (i.e., fat soluble vitamins and/or carotenoids – p. 5, lines 16-19), 5 to 50 % by weight plasticizers (i.e., starch hydrolysates – p. 6, lines 6-8), 30 to 65 % by weight hydrocolloids (p. 5, lines 1-3), 1 to 15 % by weight triglycerides (i.e., carrier oil – p. 6, lines 22-24), 0.1 to 10% by weight antioxidants (i.e., tocopherol and sodium ascorbate – p. 5, lines 30 – 32), 0.1 to 1 % by weight flow-conditioning agents (i.e., anticaking agents – p. 6, line 33-35), and 1 to 8 % by weight residual moisture (i.e., residual water – p. 7, lines 2-4).
Lindemann teaches antioxidants are included in the composition to prevent oxidation of the active ingredients. Lindemann teaches both fat-soluble and water-soluble antioxidants may be used in one composition (p. 5, lines 22 – 23). Lindemann teaches it is advantageous if the amount of antioxidant(s) (one or more compounds) is in the range of from 0.1 to 10% (p. 5, lines 30 – 32). Water-soluble antioxidants are selected from ascorbic acid or salts thereof, including sodium ascorbate. Fat-soluble antioxidants are selected from tocopherol (synthetic or natural); butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT); butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA); ethoxyquin (EMQ); propyl gallate; tert. butyl hydroxyquinoline. Dl – tocopherol is especially preferred (p. 5, lines 21 – 26). Lindemann does not require BHT in the composition.
Given Lindemann teaches that any combination of the disclosed fat- and water-soluble antioxidants can be used, absent evidence to the contrary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to have used any ratio of sodium ascorbate to tocopherol, including the weight ratio of 1 to 6. For example, sodium ascorbate may comprise 1% of the composition, while tocopherol comprises 6%, both are within Lindemann’s teaching of 0.1 – 10% total antioxidants.
The range of antioxidants (i.e., tocopherol and sodium ascorbate) weight percentages, 0.1 to 10%, as disclosed by Lindemann, overlaps with the claimed range of 0.75 to 12%. MPEP § 2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Lindemann’s disclosure of any range of ratios between antioxidants (i.e., tocopherol and sodium ascorbate) overlaps with the claimed ratio of 1:6 of sodium ascorbate to tocopherol. MPEP § 2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
The range of fat-soluble active ingredients (i.e., fat soluble vitamins and/or carotenoids) weight percentages, 2 to 20%, as disclosed by Lindemann, overlaps with the claimed range of 0.25 to 25%. MPEP § 2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
The range of plasticizers (i.e., starch hydrolysates) weight percentages, 5 to 50%, as disclosed by Lindemann, overlaps with the claimed range of 20 to 89.75%. MPEP § 2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
The range of triglycerides (i.e., carrier oils) weight percentages, 1 to 15%, as disclosed by Lindemann, overlaps with the claimed range of 0 to 20%. MPEP § 2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
The range of flow-conditioning agents (i.e., anticaking agents) weight percentages, 0.1 to 1%, as disclosed by Lindemann, overlaps with the claimed range of 0 to 50%. MPEP § 2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
The range of residual moisture (i.e., residual water) weight percentages, 1 to 8%, as disclosed by Lindemann, overlaps with the claimed range of 0 to 5%. MPEP § 2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Lindemann does not teach a dry (finely divided) pulverous formulation (i.e., a powderous composition) comprising 9.25 to 25wt.-% of total weight hydrocolloid.
Masoumi studies encapsulating apriprazole, a water-insoluble (i.e., fat-soluble) compound, with various emulsifier (i.e., hydrocolloid) compositions. Masoumi teaches for enhancing the dissolution rate of a poorly water-soluble (i.e., fat-soluble) molecule, the surface area is purposely increased by reducing the droplet size of drug molecule (p. 6470, paragraph 2). Masoumi teaches a decrease in droplet diameter with increasing emulsifier (i.e., hydrocolloid) concentration can be attributed to various factors: faster emulsifier (i.e., hydrocolloid) adsorption to oil droplet surfaces during homogenization leads to lower interfacial tensions thereby facilitating droplet breakup; more emulsifier (i.e., hydrocolloid) available to cover the droplet surfaces formed during homogenization. Increasing amount of emulsifier (i.e., hydrocolloid) decreases the interfacial tension, which leads to the reduction in Laplace pressure and stress required for droplet deformation (p. 6474, paragraph 3). Because adjusting the emulsifier (i.e., hydrocolloid) concentration in the composition can control the droplet size of the encapsulation and the dissolution rate of a water-insoluble (i.e., fat-soluble) compound, the emulsifier (i.e., hydrocolloid) concentration is a result-effective variable.
Lindemann and Masoumi are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely, microencapsulation of fat-soluble bioactive components. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize 9.25 to 25wt.-% of total weight emulsifier (i.e., hydrocolloid) in the composition of Lindemann, as taught by Masoumi, to balance the droplet size of the encapsulation with the dissolution rate of the water-insoluble (i.e., fat-soluble) compound.
Regarding claims 18 and 20, Lindemann teaches the dry (finely divided) pulverous formulation (i.e., a powderous composition) according to claim 17. Lindemann teaches a dry (finely divided) pulverous formulation (i.e., a powderous composition) comprising one or more fat-soluble active ingredients (p. 1, lines 3 – 4), wherein the fat-soluble ingredient is selected from the group consisting of vitamin A, D, E, K and derivatives thereof (p. 1, lines 7 – 8); carotenoids such as beta-carotene, lycopene, lutein, bixin, astaxanthin, apocarotenal, beta-apo-8'-carotenal, beta-apo-12'- carotenal, canthaxanthin, cryptoxanthin, citranaxanthin and zeaxanthin (p. 1, lines 12 – 15); polyunsaturated fatty acids and flavoring or aroma substances as well as mixtures thereof (p. 1, line 9). Here, Vitamin A palmitate is considered a derivative of vitamin A.
Regarding claim 19, Lindemann teaches the dry (finely divided) pulverous formulation (i.e., a powderous composition) according to claim 17. Lindemann teaches the fat-soluble ingredient may be selected from carotenoids such as beta-carotene, lycopene, lutein, bixin, astaxanthin, apocarotenal, beta-apo-8'-carotenal, beta-apo-12'- carotenal, canthaxanthin, cryptoxanthin, citranaxanthin and zeaxanthin (p. 1, lines 12 – 15).
Regarding claims 22 – 24, Lindemann teaches the dry (finely divided) pulverous formulation (i.e., a powderous composition) according to claim 17. Lindemann teaches the composition must include emulsifying agents wherein the emulsifying agents are hydrocolloids (p. 2, lines 30 – 36). Lindemann teaches emulsifying agents that are commonly used are gelatins, proteins, starches, pectins, gum acacia, xanthan gum, guar, caroub gums, lignosulfonates, alginates, celluloses, cellulose derivatives, such as carboxy methyl- cellulose, and/or modified polysaccharides (p. 3, lines 5 – 8). A preferred emulsifier is starch sodium octenyl succinate (p. 4, lines 17 – 18).
Regarding claims 25 – 27, Lindemann teaches the dry (finely divided) pulverous formulation (i.e., a powderous composition) according to claim 17. Lindemann plasticizers (i.e., starch hydrolysates) are used in order to modulate the mechanical properties of the matrix, thus flexibility, softness, elasticity, and compressibility can be controlled (p. 5, lines 34 – 35). Lindemann teaches the preferred plasticizer (i.e., starch hydrolysate) in the formulation is maltodextrin (p. 6, lines 3 – 4).
Lindemann does not teach the plasticizer (i.e., starch hydrolysate) has a DE-value of 17 to 20.
However, as evidenced by Aramouni maltodextrins have a DE-value below 20 (p. 32, Maltodextrins, paragraph 1).
The range of the DE-value of maltodextrins, 0 to 20, as disclosed by Lindemann, overlaps with the claimed range of 17 to 20. MPEP § 2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claims 29, Lindemann teaches the dry (finely divided) pulverous formulation (i.e., a powderous composition) according to claim 17.
Lindemann teaches adding the dry (finely divided) pulverous formulation (i.e., a powderous composition) to a food composition (i.e., staple food – p. 7, lines 11 – 13).
Regarding claim 31, Lindemann teaches the a dry (finely divided) pulverous formulation (i.e., a powderous composition) according to claim 17.
Given Lindemann teaches that any combination of the disclosed fat- and water-soluble antioxidants can be used, absent evidence to the contrary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to have used any ratio of sodium ascorbate to tocopherol, including the weight ratio of 1.5 to 6. For example, sodium ascorbate may comprise 1.5% of the composition, while tocopherol comprises 6%, both are within Lindemann’s teaching of 0.1 – 10% total antioxidants.
Lindemann’s disclosure of any range of ratios between antioxidants (i.e., tocopherol and sodium ascorbate) overlaps with the claimed ratio of 1:6 of sodium ascorbate to tocopherol. MPEP § 2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claims 21 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindemann (WO 2009071289 A1) in view of Masoumi et al. (Enhancement of encapsulation efficiency of nanoemulsion-containing aripiprazole for the treatment of schizophrenia using mixture experimental design. International Journal of Nanomedicine. Vol. 10. Pp. 6469 – 6476. (2015)), as applied to claims 20 and 29 above, and further in view of Sougandis et al. (A Comparison of Retinyl Palmitate and Red Palm Oil β-Carotene as Strategies to Address Vitamin A Deficiency. Nutrients. Vol. 5. Pp. 3257 – 3271. (2013)).
Regarding claim 21, the invention encompassed by claim 20 has been rendered obvious for the reasons stated above.
Lindemann does not teach the fat-soluble vitamin is vitamin A palmitate.
Sougandis teaches in developing countries, the widespread consumption of primarily vegetable-based diets has exacerbated vitamin A deficiency because of the poor bioavailability of Provitamin A carotenoids (1. Introduction, paragraph 1). Sougandis teaches although preformed vitamin A is highly unstable, esterification techniques using palmitic and acetic acid have yielded more stable esters in the form of retinyl palmitate (i.e., vitamin A palmitate) and retinyl acetate, respectively (2. The Evolution of Vitamin A Fortification through Retinyl Palmitate and RPO, paragraph 1). Retinyl palmitate (i.e., vitamin A palmitate) has superior temperature, pressure and storage stability relative to native vitamin A (i.e., β-carotene – 3. Comparing the Stability of Retinyl Palmitate and β-Carotene, paragraphs 1 and 5). Sougandis teaches the stability of retinyl palmitate (i.e., vitamin A palmitate) in microcapsules containing other micronutrients has been investigated. Spray cooling, also known as “matrix” encapsulation, has been used to generate microcapsules containing retinyl palmitate (i.e., vitamin A palmitate), iron, and iodine (3. Comparing the Stability of Retinyl Palmitate and β-Carotene, paragraph 4). Sougandis teaches although there was a significant loss of retinyl palmitate (i.e., vitamin A palmitate) during production, only 12% of the retinyl palmitate (i.e., vitamin A palmitate) content was lost during 6 months of storage; this observation was attributed to the microcapsule’s hydrogenated fat content, which served as a barrier to oxygen (3. Comparing the Stability of Retinyl Palmitate and β-Carotene, paragraph 4).
Lindemann and Sougandis are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely, vitamin A supplementation. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected retinyl palmitate (i.e., vitamin A palmitate) as the fat-soluble vitamin in the composition of Lindemann, as taught by Sougandis because retinyl palmitate (i.e., vitamin A palmitate) has superior temperature, pressure and storage stability relative to native vitamin A (i.e., beta-carotene) and has proven stability in microcapsule compositions.
Regarding claim 30, the invention encompassed by claim 29 has been rendered obvious for the reasons stated above.
Lindemann does not teach the staple food fortification is a flour, sugar, rice, or condiment.
Sougandis teaches vitamin A deficiency affects approximately 125–130 million preschool-aged children and 7 million pregnant women in low-income countries and is the leading cause of preventable pediatric blindness in the developing world (1. Introduction, paragraph 1). The most common cause of Vitamin A deficiency is insufficient dietary intake of Vitamin A (1. Introduction, paragraph 1). Sougandis teaches successful methods of food fortification with retinyl palmitate (i.e., vitamin A palmitate) have included margarine, cereal products and flours, and sugars, and have provided the basis for country-based programs (2. The Evolution of Vitamin A Fortification through Retinyl Palmitate and RPO, paragraph 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include vitamin A supplements in margarine, cereal products and flours, and sugars, as taught by Sougandis in the composition of Lindemann because these foods have been effective vectors for vitamin A supplementation of populations in the developing world.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 10, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the Office has not established a case of prima facie obviousness because there is no suggestion to select the precisely claimed ratio of tocopherol to sodium ascorbate (p. 5, paragraph 1).
Applicant’s argument has been carefully considered however the argument is not persuasive. As stated in paragraph 55 of the previous action, while it is true there is no disclosure by Lindemann suggesting a rationale to modify the disclosed ranges to achieve the claimed ranges of antioxidants, MPEP § 2114.05 teaches the selection of the overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore a prima facie case of obviousness has been established by the examiner.
Applicant argues the claimed ranges result in unexpected synergy and are critical to achieving the specific antioxidant properties equivalent to BHT, as demonstrated in the examples provided in the application (p. 5, paragraph 2).
Applicant’s argument has been carefully considered however the argument is not persuasive. As stated in paragraph 57 of the previous action, the results presented in the instant specification are not commensurate with the claims. Claim 17 allows for any fat-soluble vitamin or carotenoid, any hydrocolloid, any starch hydrolysate, any carrier oil, and any powdering and anti-caking agent in combination with DL-alpha-tocopherol and sodium ascorbate in the specified broad ranges. The examples provided in the instant specification are only directed toward 17.8 – 18.8 wt% vitamin A palmitate, 17.8 – 20.0 wt% modified food starch, 46.4 – 52.3 wt% maltodextrin, and 2.2 – 8.0 wt% corn starch and tricalcium phosphate in combination with 0.8 – 1.3 wt% DL-alpha-tocopherol and 2.0 – 2.4 wt% sodium ascorbate (Examples 1 – 6). None of the examples show carotenoids as a fat-soluble vitamin. Because the examples in the specification are not commensurate with the claims, the evidence relied upon has not established that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance. See MPEP 716.02(b).
Applicant argues Lindemann nor any of the other references do not disclose or suggest the precisely claimed ranges, let alone any ranges (p. 6, paragraph 2).
Applicant’s argument has been carefully considered however the argument is not persuasive. Had the prior art taught the precise ranges, the prior art would have been cited to have anticipated the claimed invention. The rejection against the ranges of claim 17 are obviousness rejections. Given Lindemann teaches that any combination of the disclosed fat- and water-soluble antioxidants can be used, absent evidence to the contrary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to have used any ratio of sodium ascorbate to tocopherol, including the weight ratio of 1 to 6. For example, sodium ascorbate may comprise 1% of the composition, while tocopherol comprises 6%, both are within Lindemann’s teaching of 0.1 – 10% total antioxidants.
Applicant argues there is nothing routine about the optimization carried out by the inventors (p. 6, paragraph 3).
Applicant’s argument has been carefully considered however the argument is not persuasive. It is unclear how the inventor’s experimentation is not considered routine. To overcome a prima facie case of obviousness, a showing of unexpected results is necessary. See MPEP § 2145. As articulated in paragraph 55, the assertion of criticality of the ranges as claimed is not supported by evidence, therefore there is no evidence presented that shows unexpected results. Furthermore, MPEP 2145.II states “mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention”. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage (i.e., superior properties) which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LARK JULIA MORENO whose telephone number is (571)272-2337. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30 - 4:30 M - F.
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, Emily Le can be reached at (571) 272-0903. 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.
/L.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793