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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Note: The amendment of August 22nd 2025 has been considered.
Claims 1, 2 and 39 have been amended.
Claims 4-6, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21-23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31-34 and 41-48 are cancelled.
Claim 49 was added.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 11, 14, 17, 20, 27, 30, 35-40 and 49 are pending and examined in the current application.
Any rejections not recited below have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35 of the U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, 7-9, 11, 14, 17, 20, 27, 30, 35-38, 40 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghorbani et al. (USPatPub. 2018/0055070 A1). As evidenced by NPL West “The Importance of Particle Size & Distribution in Food Powders” (from https://apdynamics.com/particle-size-distribution-in-food-powders/).
Regarding claims 1 and 40: Ghorbani discloses a method of recovering an animal protein powder from animal tissue (i.e., fish) by mixing minced animal tissue with organic solvent (i.e., isopropyl alcohol) and ozone, heating the mixture to 45°C-75°C followed by removal of the solvent by repeated filtering and drying to provide a protein powder meal that is further milled to attain the animal protein powder (see Ghorbani abstract; paragraphs [0012], [0017], [0018], [0029], [0030], [0034]-[0044] and [0047]-[0076]), but fails to disclose at least 30% of the proteins comprise aldehydes, amides, triazenes, carboxylic acids and/or alkanes; However, given the fact applicant contemplates attaining the claimed composition (i.e., protein powder) from the same source through the same process as disclosed in Ghorbani (see current specification paragraphs [0088]-[0104]), it is examiner’s position the claimed at least 30% of the protein comprising aldehydes, amides, triazenes, carboxylic acids and/or alkanes is inherently present in the fish protein powder in Ghorbani. As set forth in MPEP §2112.01, "where...the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on "inherency" under 35 USC 102, on "prima facie obviousness" under 35 USC 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. See In re Brown, 59 CCPA 1036, 459 F.2d 531,173 USPQ 685 (1972)." In re Best, Bolton and Shaw 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
As to the particle size recite in claim 1: Ghorbani discloses the recovered fish protein meal is further milled to powder (see Ghorbani paragraphs [0018], [0056], [0081] and [0082]). Given the fact food powders are known to have particle size ranging from 50µm to 1000µm (see West page 1), the powder in Ghorbani meets the claimed particle size recited in claim 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 3: Ghorbani discloses a method of recovering an animal protein powder from animal tissue (i.e., fish) by mixing minced animal tissue with organic solvent (i.e., isopropyl alcohol) and ozone, heating the mixture to 45°C-75°C followed by removal of the solvent by repeated filtering and drying to provide a protein powder meal that is further milled to attain the animal protein powder (see Ghorbani abstract; paragraphs [0012], [0017], [0018], [0029], [0030], [0034]-[0044] and [0047]-[0076]), but fails to disclose the protein weight distributions of the composition (i.e., the fish protein powder) as recited in claims 2-4; However, given the fact applicant contemplates attaining the claimed composition (i.e., protein powder) from the same source through the same process as disclosed in Ghorbani (see current specification paragraphs [0088]-[0104]), it is examiner’s position the claimed protein weight distributions of the composition recited in claims 2-4 are inherently present in Ghorbani. As set forth in MPEP §2112.01, "where...the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on "inherency" under 35 USC 102, on "prima facie obviousness" under 35 USC 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. See In re Brown, 59 CCPA 1036, 459 F.2d 531,173 USPQ 685 (1972)." In re Best, Bolton and Shaw 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 7: Ghorbani discloses a method of recovering an animal protein powder from animal tissue (i.e., fish) by mixing minced animal tissue with organic solvent (i.e., isopropyl alcohol) and ozone, heating the mixture to 45°C-75°C followed by removal of the solvent by repeated filtering and drying to provide a protein powder meal that is further milled to attain the animal protein powder (see Ghorbani abstract; paragraphs [0012], [0017], [0018], [0029], [0030], [0034]-[0044] and [0047]-[0076]), but fails to disclose the water solubility of the composition (i.e., protein powder) recited in claim 7; However, given the fact applicant contemplates attaining the claimed composition (i.e., protein powder) from the same source through the same process as disclosed in Ghorbani (see current specification paragraphs [0088]-[0104]), it is examiner’s position the claimed water solubility of the composition recited in claim 7 is inherently present in Ghorbani. As set forth in MPEP §2112.01, "where...the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on "inherency" under 35 USC 102, on "prima facie obviousness" under 35 USC 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. See In re Brown, 59 CCPA 1036, 459 F.2d 531,173 USPQ 685 (1972)." In re Best, Bolton and Shaw 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 8: Ghorbani discloses a method of recovering an animal protein powder from animal tissue (i.e., fish) by mixing minced animal tissue with organic solvent (i.e., isopropyl alcohol) and ozone, heating the mixture to 45°C-75°C followed by removal of the solvent by repeated filtering and drying to provide a protein powder meal that is further milled to attain the animal protein powder (see Ghorbani abstract; paragraphs [0012], [0017], [0018], [0029], [0030], [0034]-[0044] and [0047]-[0076]), but fails to disclose the composition (i.e., protein powder) comprises non-hygroscopic protein as recited in claim 8; However, given the fact applicant contemplates attaining the claimed composition (i.e., protein powder) from the same source through the same process as disclosed in Ghorbani (see current specification paragraphs [0088]-[0104]), it is examiner’s position the claimed non-hygroscopic protein recited in claim 8 are inherently present in Ghorbani. As set forth in MPEP §2112.01, "where...the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on "inherency" under 35 USC 102, on "prima facie obviousness" under 35 USC 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. See In re Brown, 59 CCPA 1036, 459 F.2d 531,173 USPQ 685 (1972)." In re Best, Bolton and Shaw 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 9: Ghorbani discloses a method of recovering an animal protein powder from animal tissue (i.e., fish) by mixing minced animal tissue with organic solvent (i.e., isopropyl alcohol) and ozone, heating the mixture to 45°C-75°C followed by removal of the solvent by repeated filtering and drying to provide a protein powder meal that is further milled to attain the animal protein powder (see Ghorbani abstract; paragraphs [0012], [0017], [0018], [0029], [0030], [0034]-[0044] and [0047]-[0076]), but fails to disclose the composition (i.e., protein powder) comprises non-hydrolyzed protein as recited in claim 9; However, given the fact applicant contemplates attaining the claimed composition (i.e., protein powder) from the same source through the same process as disclosed in Ghorbani (see current specification paragraphs [0088]-[0104]), it is examiner’s position the claimed non-hydrolyzed protein recited in claim 9 are inherently present in Ghorbani. As set forth in MPEP §2112.01, "where...the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on "inherency" under 35 USC 102, on "prima facie obviousness" under 35 USC 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. See In re Brown, 59 CCPA 1036, 459 F.2d 531,173 USPQ 685 (1972)." In re Best, Bolton and Shaw 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 11: Ghorbani discloses a method of recovering an animal protein powder from animal tissue (i.e., fish) by mixing minced animal tissue with organic solvent (i.e., isopropyl alcohol) and ozone, heating the mixture to 45°C-75°C followed by removal of the solvent by repeated filtering and drying to provide a protein powder meal that is further milled to attain the animal protein powder (see Ghorbani abstract; paragraphs [0012], [0017], [0018], [0029], [0030], [0034]-[0044] and [0047]-[0076]), but fails to disclose the fish protein powder) comprises one or more proteins with an aldehyde group as recited in claim 11; However, given the fact applicant contemplates attaining the claimed composition (i.e., protein powder) from the same source through the same process as disclosed in Ghorbani (see current specification paragraphs [0088]-[0104]), it is examiner’s position the claimed one or more proteins with an aldehyde group recited in claim 11 are inherently present in Ghorbani. As set forth in MPEP §2112.01, "where...the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on "inherency" under 35 USC 102, on "prima facie obviousness" under 35 USC 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. See In re Brown, 59 CCPA 1036, 459 F.2d 531,173 USPQ 685 (1972)." In re Best, Bolton and Shaw 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 14: Ghorbani discloses a method of recovering an animal protein powder from animal tissue (i.e., fish) by mixing minced animal tissue with organic solvent (i.e., isopropyl alcohol) and ozone, heating the mixture to 45°C-75°C followed by removal of the solvent by repeated filtering and drying to provide a protein powder meal that is further milled to attain the animal protein powder (see Ghorbani abstract; paragraphs [0012], [0017], [0018], [0029], [0030], [0034]-[0044] and [0047]-[0076]), but fails to disclose the fish protein powder comprises one or more proteins with a triazene group as recited in claim 14; However, given the fact applicant contemplates attaining the claimed composition (i.e., protein powder) from the same source through the same process as disclosed in Ghorbani (see current specification paragraphs [0088]-[0104]), it is examiner’s position the claimed one or more proteins with a triazene group recited in claim 14 are inherently present in Ghorbani. As set forth in MPEP §2112.01, "where...the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on "inherency" under 35 USC 102, on "prima facie obviousness" under 35 USC 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. See In re Brown, 59 CCPA 1036, 459 F.2d 531,173 USPQ 685 (1972)." In re Best, Bolton and Shaw 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 17: Ghorbani discloses a method of recovering an animal protein powder from animal tissue (i.e., fish) by mixing minced animal tissue with organic solvent (i.e., isopropyl alcohol) and ozone, heating the mixture to 45°C-75°C followed by removal of the solvent by repeated filtering and drying to provide a protein powder meal that is further milled to attain the animal protein powder (see Ghorbani abstract; paragraphs [0012], [0017], [0018], [0029], [0030], [0034]-[0044] and [0047]-[0076]), but fails to disclose the fish protein powder comprises one or more proteins with a carboxylic acid group as recited in claim 17; However, given the fact applicant contemplates attaining the claimed composition (i.e., protein powder) from the same source through the same process as disclosed in Ghorbani (see current specification paragraphs [0088]-[0104]), it is examiner’s position the claimed one or more proteins with a carboxylic acid group recited in claim 17 are inherently present in Ghorbani. As set forth in MPEP §2112.01, "where...the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on "inherency" under 35 USC 102, on "prima facie obviousness" under 35 USC 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. See In re Brown, 59 CCPA 1036, 459 F.2d 531,173 USPQ 685 (1972)." In re Best, Bolton and Shaw 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 20: Ghorbani discloses a method of recovering an animal protein powder from animal tissue (i.e., fish) by mixing minced animal tissue with organic solvent (i.e., isopropyl alcohol) and ozone, heating the mixture to 45°C-75°C followed by removal of the solvent by repeated filtering and drying to provide a protein powder meal that is further milled to attain the animal protein powder (see Ghorbani abstract; paragraphs [0012], [0017], [0018], [0029], [0030], [0034]-[0044] and [0047]-[0076]), but fails to disclose the fish protein powder comprises one or more proteins with an alkene group as recited in claim 20; However, given the fact applicant contemplates attaining the claimed composition (i.e., protein powder) from the same source through the same process as disclosed in Ghorbani (see current specification paragraphs [0088]-[0104]), it is examiner’s position the claimed one or more proteins with an alkene group recited in claim 20 are inherently present in Ghorbani. As set forth in MPEP §2112.01, "where...the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on "inherency" under 35 USC 102, on "prima facie obviousness" under 35 USC 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. See In re Brown, 59 CCPA 1036, 459 F.2d 531,173 USPQ 685 (1972)." In re Best, Bolton and Shaw 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 27: Ghorbani discloses a method of recovering an animal protein powder from animal tissue (i.e., fish) by mixing minced animal tissue with organic solvent (i.e., isopropyl alcohol) and ozone, heating the mixture to 45°C-75°C followed by removal of the solvent by repeated filtering and drying to provide a protein powder meal that is further milled to attain the animal protein powder (see Ghorbani abstract; paragraphs [0012], [0017], [0018], [0029], [0030], [0034]-[0044] and [0047]-[0076]), but fails to disclose the fish protein powder comprises one or more proteins with an alkane group as recited in claim 27; However, given the fact applicant contemplates attaining the claimed composition (i.e., protein powder) from the same source through the same process as disclosed in Ghorbani (see current specification paragraphs [0088]-[0104]), it is examiner’s position the claimed one or more proteins with an alkane group recited in claim 27 are inherently present in Ghorbani. As set forth in MPEP §2112.01, "where...the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on "inherency" under 35 USC 102, on "prima facie obviousness" under 35 USC 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. See In re Brown, 59 CCPA 1036, 459 F.2d 531,173 USPQ 685 (1972)." In re Best, Bolton and Shaw 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 30: Ghorbani discloses a method of recovering an animal protein powder from animal tissue (i.e., fish) by mixing minced animal tissue with organic solvent (i.e., isopropyl alcohol) and ozone, heating the mixture to 45°C-75°C followed by removal of the solvent by repeated filtering and drying to provide a protein powder meal that is further milled to attain the animal protein powder (see Ghorbani abstract; paragraphs [0012], [0017], [0018], [0029], [0030], [0034]-[0044] and [0047]-[0076]), but fails to disclose the fish protein powder wherein at least 10% of the protein are bioactive proteins as recited in claim 30; However, given the fact applicant contemplates attaining the claimed composition (i.e., protein powder) from the same source through the same process as disclosed in Ghorbani (see current specification paragraphs [0088]-[0104]), it is examiner’s position the claimed protein population wherein at least 10% of the protein are bioactive proteins in claim 30 are inherently present in Ghorbani. As set forth in MPEP §2112.01, "where...the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on "inherency" under 35 USC 102, on "prima facie obviousness" under 35 USC 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. See In re Brown, 59 CCPA 1036, 459 F.2d 531,173 USPQ 685 (1972)." In re Best, Bolton and Shaw 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 35: Ghorbani discloses a method of recovering an animal protein powder from animal tissue (i.e., fish) by mixing minced animal tissue with organic solvent (i.e., isopropyl alcohol) and ozone, heating the mixture to 45°C-75°C followed by removal of the solvent by repeated filtering and drying to provide a protein powder meal that is further milled to attain the animal protein powder (see Ghorbani abstract; paragraphs [0012], [0017], [0018], [0029], [0030], [0034]-[0044] and [0047]-[0076]), but fails to disclose the composition (i.e., protein powder) is an ace-inhibitor (i.e., angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor) as recited in claim 35; However, given the fact applicant contemplates attaining the claimed composition (i.e., protein powder) from the same source through the same process as disclosed in Ghorbani (see current specification paragraphs [0088]-[0104]), it is examiner’s position that the claimed protein population is an ace-inhibitor as recited in claim 35 is inherently present in Ghorbani. As set forth in MPEP §2112.01, "where...the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on "inherency" under 35 USC 102, on "prima facie obviousness" under 35 USC 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. See In re Brown, 59 CCPA 1036, 459 F.2d 531,173 USPQ 685 (1972)." In re Best, Bolton and Shaw 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claims 36-38: Ghorbani discloses a method of recovering an animal protein powder from animal tissue (i.e., fish) by mixing minced animal tissue with organic solvent (i.e., isopropyl alcohol) and ozone, heating the mixture to 45°C-75°C followed by removal of the solvent by repeated filtering and drying to provide a protein powder meal that is further milled to attain the animal protein powder (see Ghorbani abstract; paragraphs [0012], [0017], [0018], [0029], [0030], [0034]-[0044] and [0047]-[0076]), but fails to disclose the relative amino acid contents of the composition (i.e., protein powder) recited in claims 36-38; However, given the fact applicant contemplates attaining the claimed composition (i.e., protein powder) from the same source through the same process as disclosed in Ghorbani (see current specification paragraphs [0088]-[0104]), it is examiner’s position the claimed relative amino acid contents of the composition recited in claims 36-38 are inherently present in Ghorbani. As set forth in MPEP §2112.01, "where...the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on "inherency" under 35 USC 102, on "prima facie obviousness" under 35 USC 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. See In re Brown, 59 CCPA 1036, 459 F.2d 531,173 USPQ 685 (1972)." In re Best, Bolton and Shaw 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 49: Ghorbani discloses a method of recovering an animal protein powder from animal tissue (i.e., fish) by mixing minced animal tissue with organic solvent (i.e., isopropyl alcohol) and ozone, heating the mixture to 45°C-75°C followed by removal of the solvent by repeated filtering and drying to provide a protein powder meal that is further milled to attain the animal protein powder (see Ghorbani abstract; paragraphs [0012], [0017], [0018], [0029], [0030], [0034]-[0044] and [0047]-[0076]), but fails to disclose the osmolality of the protein population and the Protein Digestibility-Corrected Amino Acid Score recited in claim 49; However, given the fact applicant contemplates attaining the claimed composition (i.e., protein powder) from the same source through the same process as disclosed in Ghorbani (see current specification paragraphs [0088]-[0104]), it is examiner’s position the protein population and the Protein Digestibility-Corrected Amino Acid Score recited in claim 49 are inherently present in Ghorbani. As set forth in MPEP §2112.01, "where...the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on "inherency" under 35 USC 102, on "prima facie obviousness" under 35 USC 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. See In re Brown, 59 CCPA 1036, 459 F.2d 531,173 USPQ 685 (1972)." In re Best, Bolton and Shaw 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghorbani as applied to claims 1-3, 7-9, 11, 14, 17, 20, 27, 30, 35-38, 40 and 49 above, and further in view of NPL “CBD for Pets” (‘Innovetpet’) (from https://www.innovetpet.com/collections/hemp-cbd-products-for-pets).
Regarding claim 39: Ghorbani discloses the fish protein recovered can be used in pet food (see Ghorbani paragraph [0005]), but fails to disclose the cannabinoids recited in claim 39; However, Innovetpet discloses CBD when administered with the pet food is known to reduce stress symptoms in the pet (see Innovetpet page 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time the application was filed to have modified Ghobani and to have added CBD to the protein composition when used as pet food, in order to provide the pet with reduced stress symptoms, and thus arrive at the claimed limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on August 22nd 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to applicants’ argument that the prior art references fail to disclosed newly claimed particles size, cannabinoids, osmolality of the protein population and the Protein Digestibility-Corrected Amino Acid Score, it is most respectfully noted that these new limitations are addressed above.
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 ASSAF ZILBERING whose telephone number is (571)270-3029. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571) 270-3475. 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.
/ASSAF ZILBERING/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights