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 response to the application filed on August 18, 2022. The earliest effective filing date of the application is February 20, 2020.
Priority
The present application is a 371 National Stage Application of PCT/EP2021/053832 which has a filing date of February 17, 2021.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 1, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Application
The amendment filed on April 1, 2026 has been entered. The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1 – 14
Withdrawn claims: None
New claims: 14
Claims currently under examination: 1 – 14
By not repeating the previously presented objection/rejection(s), it is sufficiently clear that said objection/rejection(s) are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4 – 6, and 9 – 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al. (WO 2014001932 A1) in view of Jiaherb (Pea Protein Isolate 80 Safety Data Sheet. Jiaherb. (2015)).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Ding teaches a nanogel composition for the fortification of food comprising:
0.1 to 5 weight-% based on the dry weight of the composition of at least one water- soluble active ingredient;
9 to 40 weight % based on the dry weight of the composition of one or more plant protein(s) (i.e., non-animal protein); and
50 to 90 weight-% based on the dry weight of the composition of one or more soy soluble polysaccharide(s);
wherein the weight ratio of protein(s) to polysaccharide(s) based on the composition in dry matter is from 1:1 to 1:6 (p. 2, lines 1 – 11).
Ding teaches the water-soluble active ingredient is selected from ascorbic acid, biotin, folic acid, nicotinic acid, thiamine, and vitamin B6 (p. 2, lines 1 – 5). Ding teaches the plant protein(s) is selected from soy, lupine, pea, and/or potato (p. 2, lines 24 – 28). The combination of the plant protein(s) and polysaccharide(s) (i.e., carrier comprising at least one non-animal protein) make up 59 to 99.9% by dry weight of the composition. Ding defines the term "nanogel" in the disclosure to be a nanoparticle (i.e. particle) composed of a cross- linked hydrophilic hetero polymer network (hydrogel – p. 2, lines 13 – 14). Ding describes an embodiment of the nanogel as folic acid encapsulated soy protein/soy polysaccharide nanogels (i.e., at least one active ingredient is encapsulated by a carrier – p. 9, lines 7 – 9).
The range of the combination of the plant protein(s) and polysaccharide(s) (i.e., carrier comprising at least one non-animal protein) weight percent, 59 to 99.9%, as disclosed by Ding, overlaps with the claimed range of 40 to 95%. 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 at least one water- soluble active ingredient weight percent, 0.1 to 5%, as disclosed by Ding, overlaps with the claimed range of 5 to 60%. 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.
While Ding does not teach the plant protein(s) (i.e., non-animal proteins) in the nanogel composition have a solubility of greater than or equal to 20% and less than 99%, when measured at a protein concentration of 5% w/w in an aqueous solution, pH 7, and 25 °C, nor a viscosity of less than or equal to 400 mPas, when measured at 65 °C and a shear rate of 50 s-1, and a protein concentration of 15% w/w in an aqueous solution, Jiaherb teaches an 80% pea protein isolate, that, according to the instant specification, meets these precisely claimed solubilities and viscosities (p. 16 and 17, Tables, Jiaherb Pea Protein Isolate). MPEP § 2144.06.II states an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). One of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the pea protein isolate of Jiaherb as the plant protein(s) (i.e., non-animal proteins) in the composition of Ding before the effective filing date of the application because Jiaherb pea protein isolate is a pea protein, which is suggested as a suitable plant protein for the nanogel of Ding. Therefore, the modified composition of Ding renders claims 1 and 14 obvious.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Ding teaches the nanogel composition comprises 9 to 40 weight % based on the dry weight of the composition of one or more plant protein(s) (i.e., non-animal protein – p. 2, lines 1 – 11).
Regarding claim 6, the range of the combination of the plant protein(s) and polysaccharide(s) (i.e., carrier comprising at least one non-animal protein) weight percent, 59 to 99.9%, as disclosed by Ding, overlaps with the claimed range of 70 to 90%. 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 9 and 11, Ding teaches the weight ratio of plant protein(s) (i.e., non-animal protein) to soy soluble polysaccharide(s) (i.e., soluble food materials) based on the composition in dry matter is from 1:1 to 1:6 (p. 2, lines 1 – 11). The composition comprising the combination of the plant protein(s) and soy soluble polysaccharide(s) (i.e., carrier comprising at least one non-animal protein) comprises from 14 to 50% plant protein(s) (i.e., non-animal protein) and 50 to 86% soy soluble polysaccharides (i.e., soluble food materials).
The range of the plant protein(s) (i.e., non-animal protein) weight percent within the combination of the plant protein(s) and polysaccharide(s) (i.e., carrier comprising at least one non-animal protein), 14 to 50%, as disclosed by Ding, overlaps with the claimed range of 2 to 80%. 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 the soy soluble polysaccharides (i.e., soluble food materials) weight percent within the combination of the plant protein(s) and polysaccharide(s) (i.e., carrier comprising at least one non-animal protein), 50 to 86%, as disclosed by Ding, overlaps with the claimed range of 20 to 98%. 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 claim 10, Ding teaches the water-soluble active ingredient is selected from ascorbic acid, biotin, folic acid, nicotinic acid, thiamine, and vitamin B6 (p. 2, lines 1 – 5).
Claims 1 – 3 and 6 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sillick et al. (US 20200260768 A1) in view of Wouters et al. (Relevance of the Functional Properties of Enzymatic Plant Protein Hydrolysates in Food Systems. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety. Vol 15. Pp. 786 – 800. (2016)) and Lamsal et al. (Rheological properties of soy protein hydrolysates obtained from limited enzymatic hydrolysis. LWT. Vol 40. Pp. 1215 – 1223. (2007)).
Regarding claim 1, Sillick teaches a method of encapsulating natural flavor compounds with a malt comprising at least partially germinated whole grain seed, pulses, legumes, false grains or flour derived therefrom (Abstract). The natural flavor compound (i.e., active ingredient) may comprise a mint or lime oil ([0026]). The legumes may comprise chickpea, yellow pea, lentil, mung bean, green pea, or flour derived therefrom (i.e., non-animal proteins – [0030]). Sillick teaches enzymes such as proteases and amylases may be present naturally in the malt, or be added to the malt to produce a mash ([0088]). Sillick teaches malt flour may be gradually added to the mash to further avoid increases in viscosity ([0087]). Sillick teaches naturally present fatty acids, phospholipids, and proteins in the malt contribute to the emulsification of the active ingredients ([0137]). Sillick teaches the emulsion can be spray dried to produce a food powder encapsulate (i.e., a particle wherein the at least one active ingredient is encapsulated by the carrier – [0138]).
Sillick does not teach the malt (i.e., carrier comprising at least one non-animal protein) makes up 40 to 95wt% of the total weight of the composition. Sillick does not teach the natural flavor (i.e., at least one active ingredient) makes up 5 to 60wt% of the total weight of the composition.
While Sillick does not teach the precisely claimed ranges of the malt (i.e., carrier comprising at least one non-animal protein) and the natural flavor (i.e., at least one active ingredient), one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed ranges by optimizing the amount of hydrolyzed biomass and nutrient to maintain flavor while ensuring the product can be spray dried.
While Sillick does not teach the protein naturally present in partially germinated whole grain seed, pulses, legumes, false grains or flour derived therefrom (i.e., at least one non-animal protein) has a solubility of greater than or equal to 20% and less than 99%, when measured at a protein concentration of 5% w/w in an aqueous solution, pH 7, and 25 °C, nor the protein naturally present in partially germinated whole grain seed, pulses, legumes, false grains or flour derived therefrom (i.e., non-animal protein) has a viscosity of less than or equal to 400 mPas, when measured at 65 °C and a shear rate of 50 s-1, and a protein concentration of 15% w/w in an aqueous solution, Sillick teaches enzymes such as proteases and amylases may be present naturally in the malt, or be added to the malt to produce a mash ([0060]; [0088]). Further, Sillick teaches, during the mashing step, the endogenous enzymes present in the malt of the at least partially germinated whole grain seed convert (i.e., convert by enzymolysis) the stored starch to produce a soluble film-forming oligosaccharide solution suitable for spray processing ([0084]). Sillick teaches a mash that is too viscous does not enrobe (i.e., encapsulate – [0083]). While amylases are known to hydrolyze starches, proteases are known to hydrolyze proteins. Hydrolyzed proteins, like hydrolyzed starches, are known to have increased solubility, as taught by Wouters (p. 789, paragraph 1), and decreased viscosity, as taught by Lamsal (p. 1221, paragraph 3), relative to their native counterparts.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the degree of hydrolyzation via protease to control the solubility and viscosity of the plant proteins in the method of Sillick during routine optimization to find the malt with the best encapsulation properties and spray-dryability. MPEP §2144.05(II) states where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The claimed solubility of greater than or equal to 20% and less than 99%, when measured at a protein concentration of 5% w/w in an aqueous solution, pH 7, and 25 °C, and the viscosity of less than or equal to 400 mPas, when measured at 65 °C and a shear rate of 50 s-1, and a protein concentration of 15% w/w in an aqueous solution of the protein naturally present in partially germinated whole grain seed, pulses, legumes, false grains or flour derived therefrom (i.e., at least one non-animal protein), would thus be obvious.
Regarding claim 2, While Sillick does not teach the protein naturally present in partially germinated whole grain seed, pulses, legumes, false grains or flour derived therefrom (i.e., at least one non-animal protein) has a solubility of greater than or equal to 50% and less than 99%, when measured at a protein concentration of 5% w/w in an aqueous solution, pH 7, and 25 °C, Sillick teaches enzymes such as proteases and amylases may be present naturally in the malt, or be added to the malt to produce a mash ([0060]; [0088]). Further, Sillick teaches, during the mashing step, the endogenous enzymes present in the malt of the at least partially germinated whole grain seed convert (i.e., convert by enzymolysis) the stored starch to produce a soluble film-forming oligosaccharide solution suitable for spray processing ([0084]). While amylases are known to hydrolyze starches, proteases are known to hydrolyze proteins. Hydrolyzed proteins, like hydrolyzed starches, are known to have increased solubility, as taught by Wouters, relative to their native counterparts (p. 789, paragraph 1).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the degree of hydrolyzation via protease to control the solubility of the plant proteins in the method of Sillick during routine optimization to find the malt with the best encapsulation properties and spray-dryability. MPEP §2144.05(II) states where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The claimed solubility of greater than or equal to 50% and less than 99%, when measured at a protein concentration of 5% w/w in an aqueous solution, pH 7, and 25 °C of the protein naturally present in partially germinated whole grain seed, pulses, legumes, false grains or flour derived therefrom (i.e., at least one non-animal protein), would thus be obvious.
Regarding claim 3, Sillick teaches enzymes such as proteases and amylases may be present naturally in the malt, or be added to the malt to produce a mash (i.e., the non-animal protein is hydrolyzed – [0060]; [0088]). Proteases are known to hydrolyze proteins.
Regarding claim 6, while Sillick does not teach the precisely claimed ranges of the malt (i.e., carrier comprising at least one non-animal protein) and the natural flavor (i.e., at least one active ingredient), one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed ranges by optimizing the amount of hydrolyzed biomass and nutrient to maintain flavor while ensuring the product can be spray dried.
Regarding claim 7, while Sillick does not teach the precisely claimed ranges of the malt (i.e., carrier comprising at least one non-animal protein) and the natural flavor (i.e., at least one active ingredient), one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed ranges by optimizing the amount of hydrolyzed biomass and nutrient to maintain flavor while ensuring the product can be spray dried.
Regarding claim 8, Sillick teaches the natural flavor compound (i.e., active ingredient) may comprise a mint or lime oil (i.e., flavor oil – [0026]).
Regarding claim 9, Sillick teaches enzymes such as proteases and amylases may be present naturally in the malt, or be added to the malt to produce a mash ([0060]; [0088]). Sillick teaches enzymes such as alpha- and beta-amylase hydrolyze natural starches to decrease the viscosity of the starches and produce soluble oligosaccharides (i.e., soluble food materials) within the malt ([0083] - [0084]).
Although Sillick is silent with respect to the precisely claimed ranges of the plant protein(s) (i.e., non-animal protein) and soluble oligosaccharides (i.e., soluble food materials), one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the degree of starch hydrolyzation via amylase naturally present in the malt during routine optimization to find the ratio between plant protein(s) and soluble oligosaccharides that results in the best carrier. MPEP §2144.05(II) states where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The claimed non-animal protein weight percent, 2 to 80%, and the claimed soluble food material weight percent, 20 to 98% of the total weight of the carrier, would thus be obvious.
Regarding claim 10, Sillick teaches a method of encapsulating natural flavor compounds with a malt comprising at least partially germinated whole grain seed, pulses, legumes, false grains or flour derived therefrom (Abstract). Sillick teaches the legumes may comprise chickpea, yellow pea, lentil, mung bean, green pea, or flour derived therefrom (i.e., non-animal proteins – [0030]).
Regarding claim 11, Sillick teaches enzymes such as proteases and amylases may be present naturally in the malt, or be added to the malt to produce a mash ([0060]; [0088]). Sillick teaches enzymes such as alpha- and beta-amylase hydrolyze natural starches to decrease the viscosity of the starches and produce soluble oligosaccharides (i.e., starch hydrolysates, which are soluble food materials) within the malt ([0083] - [0084]).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Sillick teaches the composition can be used to produce a foodstuff such as a snack, a confection, dry beverage, dry doughs such as cake, cookie or bread mixes, stock cubes (i.e., a savory good), crackers or tortilla, bakery mix, pancake mix, breakfast cereals, bars, protein smoothies (i.e., protein drinks), nutritional supplement, instant sauce mixes, spice rubs and marinades, stuffing, coffee/tea or meat and meat-alternatives (i.e., meat analogues – [0036]).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sillick et al. (US 20200260768 A1) in view of Wouters et al. (Relevance of the Functional Properties of Enzymatic Plant Protein Hydrolysates in Food Systems. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety. Vol 15. Pp. 786 – 800. (2016)) and Lamsal et al. (Rheological properties of soy protein hydrolysates obtained from limited enzymatic hydrolysis. LWT. Vol 40. Pp. 1215 – 1223. (2007)) as applied to claim 1 above, and further evidenced by Boulter et al. (Screening for Protein Quality in Legumes. Qual. Plant. - P1. Fds. Hum. Nutr. Pp. 107 – 119. (1976)).
Regarding claim 4, Sillick teaches a method of encapsulating natural flavor compounds with a malt comprising at least partially germinated whole grain seed, pulses, legumes, false grains or flour derived therefrom (Abstract). Sillick teaches the legumes may comprise chickpea, yellow pea, lentil, mung bean, green pea, or flour derived therefrom (i.e., non-animal proteins – [0030]). As evidenced by Boulter, legume seeds contain several thousand different proteins which can be arbitrarily divided into metabolic proteins, such as enzymes and structural proteins, and storage proteins, which are laid down in relatively large amounts, to be used as a nitrogen source subsequently during seed germination (p. 114, paragraph 2). MPEP § 2111.03.I states “The transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps”. Therefore, while partially germinated whole grain seed, pulses, legumes, false grains or flour derived therefrom comprise multiple non-animal proteins, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 4 encompasses compositions that contain one non-animal protein, without excluding additional non-animal proteins (i.e., compositions that comprise at least one non-animal protein). Therefore, the composition of claim 4 is rendered obvious by Sillick.
Regarding claim 5, Sillick teaches a method of encapsulating natural flavor compounds with a malt comprising at least partially germinated whole grain seed, pulses, legumes, false grains or flour derived therefrom (Abstract). Sillick teaches the legumes may comprise chickpea, yellow pea, lentil, mung bean, green pea, or flour derived therefrom (i.e., non-animal proteins – [0030]). As evidenced by Boulter, legume seeds contain several thousand different proteins which can be arbitrarily divided into metabolic proteins, such as enzymes and structural proteins, and storage proteins, which are laid down in relatively large amounts, to be used as a nitrogen source subsequently during seed germination (p. 114, paragraph 2). Therefore, Sillick teaches a malt comprising at least two non-animal proteins.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 1, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the statement that other protein may have their own species-specific properties, which may affect the properties of the claimed composition is hypothetical and insufficient to maintain the current rejection (p. 4, paragraph 4).
Applicant’s argument has been carefully considered however the argument is not persuasive. MPEP § 716.02(d) states “the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range.” There has not been any established correlation of behavior across protein species, and therefore, no evidence to suggest the same results would be garnered across the entire claimed range of proteins.
Applicant argues the Office should provide an example of a protein, its corresponding species-specific properties, and the corresponding impact of that protein on its composition (p. 4, paragraph 5).
Applicant’s argument has been carefully considered however the argument is not persuasive. MPEP § 716.02(b) asserts that it is the applicant’s burden to provide evidence to support the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance.
Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the claimed compositions to produce similarly advantageous results across the claimed proteins (p. 5, paragraph 3).
Applicant’s argument has been carefully considered however the argument is not persuasive. Given that the results are unexpected, it is not clear why they expect there to be a correlation across all non-animal proteins. MPEP § 716.02(c)(II) states “Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention, just as unexpected results are evidence of unobviousness thereof”.
Applicant argues because the present claims define the at least one non-animal protein by a functional limitation (i.e., the solubility and viscosity parameters), this aspect must be afforded patentable weight (p. 7, paragraph 2).
Applicant’s argument has been carefully considered however the argument is not persuasive. The Office agrees the solubility and viscosity of the non-animal protein should be provided patentable weight. The solubility and viscosity of the non-animal protein are addressed in the rejections of claim 1 above. The fact that the non-animal protein must have the precisely claimed solubilities and viscosities does not render the examples commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Applicant argues the solubility and viscosity of the non-animal protein are critical to the success of the invention (p. 7 – 9).
Applicant’s argument has been carefully considered however the argument is not persuasive.. While the claimed functional property limitations (i.e., solubility and viscosity) are shown to be effective in the examples presented in the specification, as set forth in the advisory action filed on March 17, 2026, the two relevant examples only show compositions using pea protein. The examples do not show that the claimed solubilities and viscosities remain essential across a range of proteins. Proteins with the precisely claimed solubilities and viscosities may have their own species-specific properties, which may affect the properties of the claimed composition. The Office is not merely focusing on the species of the protein while ignoring the viscosity and solubility, but acknowledging that the examples fail to provide a range of diverse proteins which have the claimed solubilities and viscosities, thereby showing the solubility and viscosity of a given proteins is an essential quality which provides the unexpected results. When assessing whether the invention achieves an unexpected result, a range of proteins with the claimed solubilities and viscosities is necessary. 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).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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
Prosecution Insights