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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 26 February 2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 25-26, 28-29, 35-36, 38-41, and 44-51 are pending in the current application. Claims 27, 30-34, 37, and 42-43 are cancelled.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: lacking paragraph numbers. See MPEP 608.01(1), 37 C.F.R 1.52(b)(6).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 25-26, 28-29, 35-36, 38-41, and 44-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The phrase “sufficient to visually confer a pink or red colour” in Claim 25 is a subjective phrase and therefore not clearly defined. A visual pink or red color is not a standard and would differ from person to person as such one with ordinary skill in the art would not be readily appraised of the metes and bounds of the claim.
The phrase “visually similar to the corresponding animal meat form” in Claim 25 is a subjective phrase and therefore not clearly defined. One with ordinary skill in the art would not be readily appraised of the metes and bounds of the claim.
With regard to Claim 35, the claims states, “Porphoridium sp”. However, the claim is dependent on claim 25 which limits source of the phycobiliproteins to be from “Porphyridium sp and/or a Rhodomonas sp”. Therefore, the claim is rendered indefinite because it is unclear what organism the claims is limited to. The examiner is treating the claim such that “Porphoridium sp” is a misspelling of “Porphyridium sp.”
With regard to Claim 36, the claims states “wherein from a Rhodomonas sp.” This limitation is not complete and therefore is unclear. The examiner suggest “wherein the one of more phycobiliproteins comprise at least phycoerythrin and are obtained from a Rhodomonas sp.” and is treating the claim as such.
Claims 26, 29, 38-41, and 44-51 are rejected as depending on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 25, 26, 29, 36, and 44-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dariush et al. (herein referred to as Dariush, US 20170105438 A1) in view of Ben Ouada et al. (herein referred to as Ben Ouada, US 20170191024 A1), and Thoisen et al. (herein referred to as Thoisen, “A simple and fast method for extraction and quantification of cryptophyte phycoerythrin”)
Claim 25 has product-by-process limitations. Lines 3-4, “upon cooking of the food product to an internal temperature in the range of about 50-95°C”, is a product-by-process limitation.
MPEP § 2113 states that “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”. Therefore, for Claim 25, the structure implied by the process steps of “upon cooking of the food product to an internal temperature in the range of about 50-95°C” will be considered when assessing patentability of Claims 25. However, the Applicant should note that “the Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature" than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). See MPEP § 2113(II).
In any case regarding Claim 25, Dariush teaches a meat mimetic food product (abstract) which includes microalgae ([0262],[0264]) and algae proteins ([0164], [0202]). Dariush teaches a visual color change upon cooking of the food product ([0100], claim 34). Dariush teaches a meat mimetic food product is “done” when compared to cooked animal meat if it has obtained similar or superior color after cooking ([0044]). Dariush continues to teach a mimetic meat food product should be cooked to an internal temperature range of about 50-95℃ ([0039],[0214]). Dariush read such that the product is similar or superior to animal meat because of the cooking color change profile ([0214]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that cooking the mimetic food product to a temperature range of about 50-95℃ would cause a visual color change similar or superior to that of animal meat.
However, Dariush is silent to the algae proteins being phycobiliproteins comprising at least phycoerythrin.
Ben Ouada teaches a mimetic food product ([0091], Claim 16) comprising one or more phycobiliproteins ([0073]) comprising at least phycoerythrin wherein one of more of the phycobiliproteins phycobiliproteins comprise R-phycoerythrin ([0029]) and C-phycoerythrin ([0029]) and are obtained from microalgae ([0002]). Phycobiliproteins are protein pigments having a color capacity ranging from red to blue ([0003]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dariush to include phycobiliproteins comprise R-phycoerythrin and C-phycoerythrin as taught by Ben Ouada to provide the product pigment.
However, the combination of Dariush and Ben Ouada are silent to the microalgae being selected from a Porphyridium sp and/or a Rhodomonas sp.
Thoisen teaches a method for extracting phycoerythrin (abstract). Thoisen teaches extracting phycoerythrin from the microalgae Rhodomonas sp. and more specifically Rhodomonas salina (abstract, “Materials”). The extraction of phycoerythrin from Rhodomonas salina can be performed with only a few materials and equipment easily available in standard laboratories (“background”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the phycoerythrin as taught by the combination of Dariush and Ben Ouada could be from the microalgae Rhodomonas sp. as taught by Thoisen because the extraction of phycoerythrin from Rhodomonas sp. can be performed with only a few materials and equipment easily available in standard laboratories making it a good organism to obtain phycoerythrin from.
With Regard to Claim 26, Dariush teaches a visual color change upon cooking of the food product ([0100], claim 34) to an internal temperature range of about 60-85℃ ([0039],[0214]).
With Regard to Claim 29, Modified Dariush is silent to the one or more phycobiliproteins comprising the at least phycoerythrin are present in the form of an extract.
Ben Ouada teaches one or more of the phycobiliproteins is present in the form of an extract ([0091]) or purified or at least partially purified isolate from microalgae ([0029]).
Therefore, Ben Ouada imparts reasoning for obviousness because the teaching shows that the claimed phycobiliproteins used in the form of a extract was known for such a thing to have been successfully achieved and published at the time of filing, which means it was within the general skill of one with ordinary skill in the art to utilize phycobiliproteins used in the form of a extract, because it would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended purpose. See MPEP 2144.07 that discussed that when the prior art recognizes something is suitable for a similar intended use/purpose, such a thing is obvious.
Regarding Claims 36, Modified Dariush is silent to Rhodomonas sp.
Thoisen teaches a method for extracting phycoerythrin (abstract). Thoisen teaches extracting phycoerythrin from the microalgae Rhodomonas sp. and more specifically Rhodomonas salina (abstract, “Materials”). The extraction of phycoerythrin from Rhodomonas salina can be performed with only a few materials and equipment easily available in standard laboratories (“background”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the phycoerythrin as taught by Ben modified Dariush could be from the microalgae Rhodomonas sp. and more specifically Rhodomonas salina. The extraction of phycoerythrin from Rhodomonas salina can be performed with only a few materials and equipment easily available in standard laboratories making it a good organism to obtain phycoerythrin from (“background”)
With Regard to Claims 44, Dariush teaches one or more additional coloring agents ([0026]) having a color selected from red, magenta, purple/violet, orange, yellow, brown, blue, and green ([0036] Dariush read such as listing coloring agents which would obviously impart the desired colors listed in claim 44).
With Regard to Claims 45, Dariush teaches the coloring agent selected from betalains, carotenoids ([0036]), flavonoids ([0253]), polyphenols ([0036]), caramel ([0036]), burnt sugar ([0036]), and a juice, concentrate ([0036]), extract or dried powder from derived from plants ([0036]), including berries ([0036]), grapes ([0111]), beetroot ([0036]), radish, turmeric ([0036]), and carrot ([0036]).
With Regard to Claims 46, Dariush teaches a non-animal protein ([0106]), one or more carbohydrates ([0108]), one or more fats and oils ([0107]), one or more flavor components ([0298] Table 7) and water ([0298] Table 7).
With Regard to Claims 47, Dariush teaches wherein the non-animal protein source is a plant based protein such as pea ([0106]).
With Regard to Claims 48-49, Dariush teaches the mimetic food product is a mimetic product of ground beef ([0099]).
Claim 50 has product-by-process limitations, lines 1-2, “which has been cooked to an internal temperature in the range of about 50-95°C.”, is a product-by-process limitations.
MPEP § 2113 states that “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”. Therefore, for Claim 50, “which has been cooked to an internal temperature in the range of about 50-95°C, preferably 60-85°C.”, will be considered when assessing patentability of Claims 50. However, the Applicant should note that “the Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature" than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). See MPEP § 2113(II).
With Regard to Claim 50, Dariush teach a meat mimetic food product which has been cooked to an internal temperature in the range of about 60°C to about 80°C ([0039]). Cooking to this temperature provides the product with similar or superior meat-like attributes compared to cooked animal meat ([0044]).
Claim 51 has product-by-process limitations, lines 1-2, “which has been cooked to an internal temperature in the range of about 60-85°C.”, is a product-by-process limitations.
MPEP § 2113 states that “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”. Therefore, for Claim 51, “which has been cooked to an internal temperature in the range of about 60-85°C, preferably 60-85°C.”, will be considered when assessing patentability of Claims 51. However, the Applicant should note that “the Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature" than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). See MPEP § 2113(II).
With Regard to Claim 51, Dariush teach a meat mimetic food product which has been cooked to an internal temperature in the range of about 60°C to about 80°C ([0039]). Cooking to this temperature provides the product with similar or superior meat-like attributes compared to cooked animal meat ([0044]).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dariush (US 20170105438 in view of Ben Ouada (US 20170191024 A1) 20200060309 A1), Thoisen ( “A simple and fast method for extraction and quantification of cryptophyte phycoerythrin”) and Cuellar-Bermudez et al. (herein referred to as Cuellar-Bermudez, “Extraction and purification of high-value metabolites from microalgae: essential lipids, astaxanthin and phycobiliproteins”)
Regarding Claim 28, Modified Dariush is silent to one or more phycobiliproteins comprise phycoerythrin in an amount of at least 50%, or at least 70% or at least 90%, or at least 99% of all phycobiliproteins on a w/w basis.
Cuellar-Bermudez reviews two of the main high-value metabolite which can be obtained from microalgae: pigments and essential lipids (Summary). Specifically, the extraction and purification methods for polyunsaturated fatty acids, astaxanthin, phycoerythrin and phycocyanin are described (Summary). Cuellar-Bermudez teaches one or more phycobiliproteins comprise phycoerythrin (Table 5 “Product”) in an amount of at least 50% (Table 5 “Phormidium sp. A27DM”), or at least 70% (Table 5 “Porphyridium cruentum”) or at least 90% (Table 5 “Synechococcus 883”), or at least 99% of all phycobiliproteins on a w/w basis. Cuellar-Bermudez teaches different extraction and purification methods can result in different percent yields (“extraction and purification methods”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the phycobiliproteins taught by modified Dariush would comprise phycoerythrin in an amount of at least 50%, or at least 70% or at least 90%, or at least 99% because Cuellar-Bermudez imparts reasoning for obviousness because the teaching shows that the claimed phycoerythrin amount was known for such a thing to have been successfully achieved and published at the time of filing, which means it was within the general skill of one with ordinary skill in the art to select phycobiliproteins comprise phycoerythrin in an amount of at least 50% because it would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use. See MPEP 2144.07 that discussed that when the prior art recognizes something is suitable for a similar intended use/purpose, such a thing is obvious.
Claims 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dariush (US 20170105438 A1) in view of Ben Ouada (US 20170191024 A1), Thoisen ( “A simple and fast method for extraction and quantification of cryptophyte phycoerythrin”), and Kathiresan et al. (herein referred to as Kathiresan, “Culture media optimization for growth and phycoerythrin production from Porphyridium purpureum”)
With regard to Claim 35, Modified Dariush is silent to one or more phycobiliproteins comprising at least phycoerythrin are extracted from Porphyridium sp.
Kathiresan teaches Porphyridium spp. is a red micro alga and is gaining importance as a source of valuable products such as phycobiliproteins and more specifically phycoerythrin (abstract).
Therefore Kathiresan imparts reasoning for obviousness because the teaching shows that phycobiliproteins comprising at least phycoerythrin can be extracted from Porphyridium sp. and such a thing was known to have been successfully achieved and published at the time of filing, which means it was within the general skill of one with ordinary skill in the art to select Porphyridium sp., because it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use. See MPEP 2144.07 that discussed that when the prior art recognizes something is suitable for a similar intended use/purpose, such a thing is obvious.
Claims 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dariush (US 20170105438 A1) in view of Ben Ouada (US 20170191024 A1), Thoisen ( “A simple and fast method for extraction and quantification of cryptophyte phycoerythrin”), and Munier et al. (herein referred to as Munier, “Physicochemical factors affecting the stability of two pigments: R-phycoerythrin of Grateloupia turuturu and B-phycoerythrin of Porphyridium cruentum”)
Regarding Claims 38 and 39, Modified Dariush is silent to the phycobiliprotein demonstrating a 50% absorbance reduction of ℷmax in the range of about 50-95°C (instant claim 38) and more specifically 60-85°C (instant claim 39).
Munier teaches the stability of R-phycoerythrin in relation to different light exposure times, pHs, and temperatures (abstract). Munier teaches at 60°C R-phycoerythrin has a 49% reduction in absorbance at 540nm and a 57% reduction in absorbance at 565nm (“3.3. Phycoerythrin stability toward temperature”, paragraph 1).Munier teaches the results presented are consistent with the thermal stability of other phycoerythrin proteins (“3.3. Phycoerythrin stability toward temperature”, paragraph 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the phycobiliproteins as taught by Modified Dariush would exhibit the same reduction of ℷmax in the range of about 50-95°C and more specifically 60-85°C as demonstrated by Munier because that result is consistent for phycoerythrin proteins and would be reflected by other phycobiliproteins.
Regarding Claim 40, Modified Dariush is silent to the ℷmax in the range of about 540-570 nm.
Munier teaches phycoerythrin has a ℷmax of 540-57-nm (“1. Introduction”, paragraph 1). See MPEP 2131.02, A generic claim cannot be allowed to an applicant if the prior art discloses a species (phycoerythrins) falling within the claimed genus (phycobiliproteins).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Ben Dariush to include the teachings of Munier to clearly define the ℷmax of phycoerythrin.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dariush (US 20170105438 A1) in view of Ben Ouada (US 20170191024 A1), Thoisen ( “A simple and fast method for extraction and quantification of cryptophyte phycoerythrin”), and Prozyme (“R-Phycoerythrin (PB31)”)
Regarding Claim 41, Modified Dariush is silent to the phycobiliprotein being phycoerythrin and exhibits a 540-570 nm to 495-503 nm UV/visible absorbance peak ratio of at least 1:1, or at least 3:1, or at least 5:1, or at least 7:1, or at least 10:1, preferably only a single peak at 540-570 nm, more preferably at 550-565 nm.
Prozyme teaches R-phycoerythrin has a primary absorbance peak at 566nm (paragraph 1). Prozyme teaches phycoerythrin exhibits a 540-570 nm to 495-503 nm UV/visible absorbance peak ratio of at least 1:1 (“Specification”, Prozyme reads such that the UV/Visible absorbance peak ratio is A566/A496 <1.5) Prozyme teaches the relative prominence of the secondary peaks varies significantly among R-phycoerythrin from different species (paragraph 1). Prozyme teaches the UV/visible absorbance peak ratio is indicative of the purity of the sample.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the phycoerythrin as taught by modified Dariush could have a UV/visible absorbance peak ratio of at least 1:1 as taught by Prozyme. With the variation of the relative prominence of the second peak as taught by Prozyme, the UV/visible absorbance peak ratio could increase with different species, thus increasing purity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the phrases “sufficient to visually confer a pink or red colour” and “visually similar to the corresponding animal meat form” provide a clear and objective meaning within and the art. This argument with regard to the 112(b) rejection of claim 25 is not found to be persuasive. See MPEP 2173.02(II) which states If the language of the claim is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement, a rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. In this case, the use of the phrase “visually similar” is unclear because there is no standard where one with ordinary skill in the art can define the color visually. For example, one person with ordinary skill in the art may state that a product is visually similar while another person of ordinary skill in the art may say the same sample is not. As such, there is no clearly defined metes and bounds of the claim. The same argument can be made about the use of the phrase “sufficient to visually”, where one person of ordinary skill in the art may believe the color visually conferred is “sufficient” another person of ordinary skill in the art may say the same sample is not “sufficient” in visually conferring the color. The applicant provides the example of beef and chicken and states that both are well recognized by their well-known visual expectations. However, this example is not found to be persuasive because as described by applicant a “deep pink-red hue” and a “paler pink hue” are not clear and would still be very much up for interpretation by one with ordinary skill in the art and therefore does not further clarify the metes and bounds of the claim. The examiner acknowledges the applicants argument but maintains that the metes and bounds of the claims are unclear and therefore there would not be a clear understanding of how to avoid infringement.
Applicant argues that there is a sharp drop of about 50% absorbance over a narrow temperature range observed for an aqueous solution of phycoerythrin obtained from Porphyridium sp. and Rhodomonas sp. is translated as a clear observable color transition in a meat mimetic matric and at temperatures conventionally used to cook animal meat. Applicant than points to Example 7. However, example 7 does not show evidence of color change within the claimed range or outside the claimed range. The example merely states that “a color change characteristic of the transition from raw to cooked product was observed in the temperature range of 68 to 70℃. Per the MPEP 716.02(d)(II) To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). Therefore applicants argument is not found to be persuasive.
With regard to applicants arguments on page 12 of the remarks filed 26 February 2025, in view of the product by process limitations., the applicant argues that the color changing results are merely an inherent property of the raw product and not a claimed process. This argument is not found to be persuasive because the claim states, “upon cooking of the food product to an internal temperature in the range of about 50-95°C” which one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that cooking within a specific temperature range is a process step to achieved a desired results. The applicant is clear that the temperature range is critical to this step and therefore that criticality supports that the color change would not be inherent to a general heating or cooking step and is specific to the claimed process range (see page 8 of applicants remarks). Therefore the color change would be considered a structure implied by the process steps and the color change can only be defined by the process step of cooking at a specific temperature range. See MPEP 2113. Therefore, applicants arguments are not found to be persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 25. 26, 27, 29-35, and 44-51 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to applicant's argument that Ben Ouada does not disclose a food product and therefore is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize a food supplement is still a food product ([0079]) and Ben Ouada is pertinent to the particular problem which the inventor is concerned because the reference teaches one or more phycobiliproteins ([0073]) comprising at least phycoerythrin wherein one of more of the phycobiliproteins phycobiliproteins comprise R-phycoerythrin ([0029]) and C-phycoerythrin ([0029]) and are obtained from microalgae ([0002]). Therefore, applicants argument is not found to be persuasive.
Continuing, applicant argues that nowhere in Calleja is there any disclosure or suggestion that cyanobacteria or extracts of cyanobacteria would be suitable for providing at least phycoerythrin for conferring the necessary pink or red colour to the food product, let alone also affording the necessary visual colour change of the meat mimetic food product upon cooking. This argument is not found to be persuasive because the rejection no longer relied upon Calleja at any point in the rejection.
Applicant argues that Dariush does not teach the use of phycoerythrin obtained from Porphyridium sp and/or a Rhodomonas sp. This argument is not found persuasive in view of the new grounds of rejection. Thoisen is relied upon to teach the use of phycoerythrin obtained from Porphyridium sp and/or a Rhodomonas sp. wherein Dariush is relied upon to teach the visual color change upon cooking of the product to an internal temperature of 50-95℃. Therefore applicants argument is not found to be persuasive.
Lastly applicant argues that Thoisen teaches method for extraction of phycoerythrin from Rhodomonas salina but does not teach that the phycoerythrin extracted from Rhodomonas salina is capable of:
(i) conferring a red or pink colour to a meat mimetic product; and
(ii) that is visually similar to the corresponding animal meat form; and
(iii) which affords a visual colour change similar to that which occurs during
cooking of animal meat, and
(iv) upon cooking of the food product to an internal temperature in the range of
about 50-95°C.
However, Thoisen is merely relied upon to teach that the phycoerythrin as taught by Ben Ouada could be from the microalgae Rhodomonas sp. as taught by Thoisen and it would be advantageous because the extraction of phycoerythrin from Rhodomonas sp. can be performed with only a few materials and equipment easily available in standard laboratories making it a good organism to obtain phycoerythrin from. Therefore applicants argument is not found to be persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Calleja et al. (US 20200060309 A1),
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA I DIVIESTI whose telephone number is (571)270-0787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm (MST).
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.
/K.I.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792