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 .
Status of the Application
Receipt of the Response and Amendment after Non-Final Office Action filed 21 July 2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant has overcome the following by virtue of amendment or cancellation of the claims: (1) the 112(b) rejections of claims 1-11 have been withdrawn; (2) the 112(d) rejection of claim 11 has been withdrawn.
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1-5, 8-10, 16-17, and 20
Withdrawn claims: 16-17
Previously canceled claims: 12-15 and 18-19
Newly canceled claims: 6-7 and 11
Amended claims: 1, 4-5, 8, and 20
New claims: None
Claims currently under consideration: 1-5, 8-10, and 20
Currently rejected claims: 1-5, 8-10, and 20
Allowed claims: None
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 3-4, “and an insoluble legume protein a combination thereof” should read, “an insoluble legume protein, or a combination thereof”.
In claim 4, line 3, “pulses & legumes protein and” should read, “pulse protein, and” because reciting “legumes protein” here is repetitive.
In claim 5, line 3, “an insoluble fiber, or, a combination thereof” should read, “an insoluble fiber, or a combination thereof”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-10, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 as amended recites the limitation, “insoluble additive, wherein the additive is at least one of: an insoluble carbohydrate, an insoluble legume protein, or a combination thereof”. Applicant referenced paragraph [0031] and Examples 2 and 3 of the as-filed specification as providing support for this limitation (Remarks p. 5, ¶ 6).
MPEP § 2163(I)(B) states, “To comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, or to be entitled to an earlier priority date or filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 365, or 386, each claim limitation must be expressly, implicitly, or inherently supported in the originally filed disclosure.”
Additionally, MPEP § 2163(II)(A)(3) states, “The written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, reduction to drawings , or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the inventor was in possession of the claimed genus. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. See Juno Therapeutics, Inc. v. Kite Pharma, Inc., 10 F.4th 1330, 1337, 2021 USPQ2d 893 (Fed. Cir. 2021)…”.
“A “representative number of species” means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus. See AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1300, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2014)”.Paragraph [0031] reads as follows:
In some embodiments the additive is a carbohydrate. In some embodiments the carbohydrate is an oligosaccharide. In some embodiments the oligosaccharide is maltodextrin. In some embodiments the carbohydrate is a polysaccharide. In some embodiments the polysaccharide is a starch. In some embodiments the polysaccharide is a fiber. In some embodiments the fiber is a soluble fiber. In some embodiments the fiber may be: inuline, dextrin, Isomalt chickpea fiber, soybean fiber, pea fiber, corn fiber, cellulose, lignin, psyllium and the like or a combination thereof. In some embodiments the fiber is an insoluble fiber. In some embodiments the fiber may be Swelite, hi fiber and the like or a combination thereof.
Examples 2 and 3 of the as-filed specification provide the specific examples of insoluble inner pea fiber and insoluble hemp fiber.
Regarding insoluble components, paragraph [0031] provides written support for insoluble fiber. No express, implicit, or inherent support for the broader genus “an insoluble carbohydrate” can be found in the original disclosure. The original disclosure is limited to an insoluble fiber, and does not disclose that the insoluble additive can be any insoluble carbohydrate as claimed in amended claim 1. The disclosure of a species of insoluble carbohydrate, insoluble fiber, is not sufficient to represent the genus encompassed by insoluble carbohydrate.
Additionally, no express, implicit, or inherent support for an insoluble legume protein can be found in the original disclosure.
Claim 1 therefore lacks written support.
Claim 4 as amended recites the limitation, “wherein the insoluble legume protein is at least one of…”. No express, implicit, or inherent support for an insoluble legume protein can be found in the original disclosure.
Claim 4 therefore lacks written support.
Claim 5 as amended recites the limitation, “wherein the insoluble carbohydrate is at least one of an insoluble oligosaccharide, an insoluble polysaccharide, an insoluble fiber, or a combination thereof”. Paragraph [0031] provides written support for insoluble fiber. No express, implicit, or inherent support for the broader genera “an insoluble carbohydrate”, “an insoluble oligosaccharide”, or “an insoluble polysaccharide” can be found in the original disclosure. The original disclosure is limited to an insoluble fiber, and does not disclose that the insoluble additive can be any insoluble carbohydrate, any insoluble oligosaccharide, or any insoluble polysaccharide as claimed in amended claim 5.
Claim 5 therefore lacks written support.
Claims 2-5, 8-10, and 16-17 are rejected due to their dependency from claim 1.
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 1-3, 5, 8, 10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stantiall et al. (Stantiall, S.E., Dale, K.J., Calizo, F.S., & Serventi, L. (2018). Application of pulses cooking water as functional ingredients: the foaming and gelling abilities. Eur Food Res Technol, 244, 97-104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-017-2943-x) in view of Nile (Nile Aquafaba Powder. (2018, May 17). Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved September 22, 2025 from https://aquafabapowdersupplier.com/faq).
Regarding claim 1, Stantiall teaches a dry aquafaba based composition comprising at least 60 wt.% dry aquafaba – Stantiall discloses pulse cooking water (PCW), which is aquafaba, made from haricot beans, garbanzo chickpeas, whole green lentils, or split yellow peas (Abstract). Stantiall teaches drying the PCW – “Dry matter content was determined by oven drying” (p. 98, col. 2, ¶ 3). The dry PCW is 100% dry aquafaba.
Stantiall does not teach that the dry aquafaba based composition is in the form of a powder. Stantiall also does not explicitly teach that the dry aquafaba based composition comprises between 0.1 to 40 wt.% insoluble additive, wherein the additive is at least one of: an insoluble carbohydrate, an insoluble legume protein, or a combination thereof.
However, Nile teaches a dry aquafaba powder as “a premium plant-based egg replacer made from natural chickpea water” (p. 1, item “1”) that is “an ideal egg substitute for cakes, meringues, mayonnaise, and more” (p. 1, item “4”).
Stantiall further teaches that in preparing meringues with the different PCWs there was a significant inverse correlation between the insoluble fiber content of the PCW and meringue hardness (p. 102, col. 1 ¶ 1, see also p. 100, Table 1, “Insoluble fibre” and p. 102, Table 2, “Hardness”). Stantiall further teaches that insoluble fiber was also likely responsible for the gelling ability of the PCWs, conferring a chewy internal structure to the meringue, thus lowering the crust hardness (p. 102, col. 1, ¶ 1).
Stantiall therefore teaches that the insoluble fiber content is a known result-effective variable. Increasing the amount of insoluble fiber in PCW decreases the hardness of meringues, and decreasing the amount of insoluble fiber in PCW increases the hardness of meringues.
Regarding the powder form, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the dry aquafaba composition of Stantiall to be in the form of a powder as taught by Nile. Since Stantiall teaches that aquafaba can be used as replacement for egg white in meringues (Abstract) and that the aquafaba can be dried (p. 98, col. 2, ¶ 3), and Nile teaches an aquafaba powder that is an ideal egg substitute for cakes, meringues, mayonnaise, and more (p. 1, item “4”), one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide the aquafaba of Stantiall in a powder form as disclosed by Nile. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Nile teaches an aquafaba powder.
Regarding the 0.1-40 wt.% of an insoluble additive, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine the optimal value for the amount of insoluble fiber in the PCW of Stantiall, through routine experimentation, to impart the meringues with the desired hardness, including 0.1 – 40 wt.% as claimed. Where Stantiall teaches that insoluble fiber content of PCW is a result-effective variable affecting the hardness of meringues produced with PCW, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to determine a suitable amount of insoluble fiber to add to the aquafaba. For example, split yellow pea PCW comprises 1.63 wt.% insoluble fiber (p. 100, Table 1), and results in meringues with a hardness of 1102 g, where meringues made with egg white have a hardness of 590 g (p. 102, Table 3). Whole green lentil PCW comprises 2.09 wt.% insoluble fiber (p. 100, Table 1), and results in meringues with a hardness of 492 g (p. 102, Table 3), closer to the hardness of meringues made with egg whites. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in starting by adding about 0.46 wt.% insoluble legume fiber to the PCW and optimizing the amount by routine experimentation to decrease the hardness of the resulting meringues.
Moreover, Stantiall discloses that while the four different PCWs produced meringues with different qualities (p. 100, Fig. 1 and p. 102, Table 3), sensory analysis indicated that the overall consumer preference did not vary significantly with regard to the meringues, indicating different personal attitudes toward this type of confectionery product (p. 102, col. 2, ¶ 2). In other words, some consumers prefer, for example, a harder meringue, and some prefer a softer, chewier meringue. In this case, it also would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have added insoluble fiber to PCWs that produce meringues with a hardness lower than that of meringues produced with egg whites in order to provide a dry aquafaba powder suitable for use in making meringues to meet the organoleptic preferences of a different subset of consumers.
Claim 1 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Stantiall and Nile teach the dry aquafaba based powder of claim 1.
Stantiall also teaches that the aquafaba is produced from a legume (re: claim 2), wherein the legume is at least one of: chickpeas, beans, peas, or lentils (re: claim 3) – “Stantiall discloses pulse cooking water (PCW), which is aquafaba, made from haricot beans, garbanzo chickpeas, whole green lentils, or split yellow peas (Abstract).
Claims 2 and 3 are therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Stantiall and Nile teach the dry aquafaba based powder of claim 1.
Stantiall also teaches that the insoluble carbohydrate is an insoluble fiber – Stantiall teaches that in preparing meringues with the different PCWs there was a significant inverse correlation between the insoluble fiber content of the PCW and meringue hardness (p. 102, col. 1 ¶ 1, see also p. 100, Table 1, “Insoluble fibre” and p. 102, Table 2, “Hardness”). Stantiall further teaches that insoluble fiber was also likely responsible for the gelling ability of the PCWs, conferring a chewy internal structure to the meringue, thus lowering the crust hardness (p. 102, col. 1, ¶ 1).
Stantiall therefore teaches that the insoluble fiber content is a known result-effective variable. Increasing the amount of insoluble fiber in PCW decreases the hardness of meringues, and decreasing the amount of insoluble fiber in PCW increases the hardness of meringues.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine the optimal value for the amount of insoluble fiber in the PCW of Stantiall, through routine experimentation, to impart the meringues with the desired hardness, as described regarding claim 1 above.
Claim 5 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 8, Stantiall and Nile teach the dry aquafaba based powder of claim 5.
Stantiall does not explicitly state that the insoluble fiber is at least one of insoluble chickpea fiber, insoluble soybean fiber, insoluble pea fiber, insoluble corn fiber cellulose, insoluble lignin, and a combination thereof.
However, Stantiall teaches PCW/aquafaba prepared from haricot beans, garbanzo chickpeas, whole green lentils, or split yellow peas (Abstract), and that in preparing meringues with the different PCWs there was a significant inverse correlation between the insoluble fiber content of the PCW and meringue hardness (p. 102, col. 1 ¶ 1, see also p. 100, Table 1, “Insoluble fibre” and p. 102, Table 2, “Hardness”). Stantiall further teaches that insoluble fiber was also likely responsible for the gelling ability of the PCWs, conferring a chewy internal structure to the meringue, thus lowering the crust hardness (p. 102, col. 1, ¶ 1).
Where Stantiall teaches one of ordinary skill in the art that increasing the insoluble fiber content of PCW is a way to decrease the hardness of meringues made therefrom as described regarding claims 1 and 5, and where Stantiall teaches that the PCWs were prepared from haricot beans, garbanzo chickpeas, whole green lentils, or split yellow peas (Abstract), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected insoluble fiber from the legume used to prepare the PCW to add to the dry PCW/aquafaba powder composition. That is, in the case where the insoluble fiber content of split yellow pea PCW is increased, an obvious choice of insoluble fiber source would have been insoluble pea fiber, and in the case where the insoluble fiber content of chickpea PCW is increased, an obvious choice of insoluble fiber would have been insoluble chickpea fiber. Therefore, the teachings of Stantiall make obvious the inclusion of insoluble chickpea fiber and insoluble pea fiber, as claimed.
Claim 8 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 10, Stantiall and Nile teach the dry aquafaba based powder of claim 1.
Stantiall also teaches that the aquafaba based product comprises between 10-80 wt.% protein – Stantiall teaches that the PCW prepared from garbanzo chickpeas comprises 0.95 wt.% protein and 5.13 wt.% dry matter (p. 100, Table 1). Therefore, in a dry powder form, the chickpea PCW comprises protein in the amount of 0.95 ÷ 5.13 x 100% = 18.5 wt.% protein. Similarly, the PCW prepared from split yellow peas comprises 1.63 wt.% protein and 4.41 wt.% dry matter (p. 100, Table 1). Therefore, in a dry powder form, the split yellow pea PCW comprises protein in the amount of 1.63 ÷ 4.41 x 100% = 37 wt.% protein. The disclosed amounts lie inside the claimed range of 10-80 wt.% protein.
Claim 10 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim Interpretation:
It is noted that the phrase, “a vegan egg powder” is a statement of intended use of the powder composition. A statement with regard to intended use is not further limiting insofar as the structure of the product is concerned. In order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. See MPEP § 2111.02(II). In the present case there is no difference between the aquafaba powder suggested in the prior art and the claimed aquafaba powder.
It is further noted that the claim language, “produced from chickpeas” does not further limit the composition because the claimed element is “aquafaba”. This renders the limitation a product-by-source limitation. Such limitations are unpatentable if the claimed product is identical to or obvious from a product produced by a different process, even if the source or origin of the elements is different. Since Stantiall and Nile teach a dry aquafaba based powder comprising aquafaba (see below), the aquafaba disclosed in the prior art is indistinguishable from the aquafaba as claimed.
Rejection:
Stantiall teaches a dry aquafaba produced from chickpeas and insoluble legume fibers – Stantiall teaches pulses cooking water (PCW) produced from garbanzo chickpeas (Abstract), and that the PCW was prepared from pre-soaked garbanzo chickpeas cooked in boiling water without additional ingredients (p. 98, cols. 1-2, bridging ¶). Stantiall teaches that the chickpea PCW comprises 2.37 wt.% insoluble fiber (p. 100, Table 1, “Insoluble fibre”). Stantiall further teaches drying the PCW – “Dry matter content was determined by oven drying” (p. 98, col. 2, ¶ 3).
Stantiall does not teach that the dry aquafaba based composition is in the form of a powder.
However, Nile teaches a dry aquafaba powder as “a premium plant-based egg replacer made from natural chickpea water” (p. 1, item “1”) that is “an ideal egg substitute for cakes, meringues, mayonnaise, and more” (p. 1, item “4”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the dry aquafaba composition of Stantiall to be in the form of a powder as taught by Nile. Since Stantiall teaches that aquafaba can be used as replacement for egg white in meringues (Abstract) and that the aquafaba can be dried (p. 98, col. 2, ¶ 3), and Nile teaches an aquafaba powder that is an ideal egg substitute for cakes, meringues, mayonnaise, and more (p. 1, item “4”), one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide the aquafaba of Stantiall in a powder form as disclosed by Nile. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Nile teaches an aquafaba powder.
Claim 20 is therefore rendered obvious.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stantiall et al. in view of Nile as applied to claim 1 above, and as evidenced by Sim et al. (Sim, S.Y.J., SRV, A., Chiang, J.H., & Henry, C.J. (2021). Plant Proteins for Future Foods: A Roadmap. Foods, 10(8), 1967, 31 pages. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10081967).
Regarding claim 4, Stantiall and Nile teach the dry aquafaba based powder of claim 1.
The cited prior art does not teach that the dry aquafaba based powder comprises between 0.1 to 40 wt.% insoluble additive, wherein the additive is an insoluble legume protein, or a combination of an insoluble legume protein and an insoluble carbohydrate, wherein the insoluble legume protein is at least one of chickpea protein, bean protein, soybean protein, mung bean protein, pea protein, faba bean protein, quinoa protein, pulse protein, and a combination thereof.
However, Stantiall teaches that while the PCWs demonstrated foaming ability, this ability was significantly lower than the ability of egg white (p. 101, col. 2, ¶ 2). Stantiall further teaches that across the different PCWs there was a strong correlation between protein content and foaming ability, that protein ability to form and stabilize foams is well known, especially for albumin, and that pulses contain significant amounts of albumin, which may be responsible for the formation of stable foams (p. 101, col. 2, ¶ 2).
Stantiall therefore teaches that the protein content is a result-effective variable. Increasing the amount of protein in PCW increases foaming ability, and decreasing the amount of protein in PCW decreases foaming ability.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, further modify the aquafaba powder of Stantiall as modified by Nile to include additional pulse protein in the aquafaba powder to further increase the foaming ability toward that of egg white proteins, and to determine the optimal value for the amount of pulse protein, through routine experimentation, including 0.1 – 40 wt.% as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Stantiall teaches that protein, particularly albumin, ability to form foam is well known, and that pulses contain significant amounts of albumin (p. 101, col. 2, ¶ 2). As evidenced by Sim, up to 75% of protein present in pea (i.e., pulse) protein isolates are insoluble (p. 5, ¶ 4). Therefore, in adding pea protein isolate to the aquafaba composition, one would necessarily also add insoluble pea protein to the composition.
Claim 4 is therefore rendered obvious.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stantiall et al. in view of Nile as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Meringueshop (Meringue Powder. (2019, March 15). Meringueshop. Retrieved September 23, 2025 from https://web.archive.org/web/20190315185427/https://meringueshop.com/products/meringue-deau-powder-vanilla).
Regarding claim 9:
Claim Interpretation:
It is noted that the claim language, “produced from chickpeas” does not further limit the composition because the claimed element is “aquafaba”. This renders the limitation a product-by-source limitation. Such limitations are unpatentable if the claimed product is identical to or obvious from a product produced by a different process, even if the source or origin of the elements is different. Since Stantiall and Nile teach a dry aquafaba based powder comprising aquafaba, the aquafaba disclosed in the prior art is indistinguishable from the aquafaba as claimed.
Additionally, “chickpea protein” as recited in the claim is construed to be any chickpea protein in any form.
Finally, “an additional additive” is understood to be an additive other than the insoluble carbohydrate and/or insoluble legume protein recited in claim 1.
Rejection:
Stantiall and Nile teach the dry aquafaba based powder of claim 1.
Stantiall also teaches that the dry aquafaba based powder comprises (1) aquafaba produced from chickpeas and (2) chickpea protein – Stantiall teaches PCW produced from garbanzo chickpeas (Abstract), and that the PCW was prepared from pre-soaked garbanzo chickpeas cooked in boiling water without additional ingredients (p. 98, cols. 1-2, bridging ¶). Stantiall further teaches that the garbanzo chickpea PCW comprises 0.95 wt.% protein (p. 100, Table 1). This protein is necessarily chickpea protein since only chickpeas and water were used in the preparation of the PCW.
Stantiall and Nile do not teach that the dry aquafaba based powder comprises an additional additive.
However, Meringueshop teaches a meringue powder made with “aquafaba broth (chickpeas, water)” and additives including raw cane sugar, arrowroot powder, non-GMO gum acacia, non-GMO citric acid, and guar gum (p. 1, ¶ 2, “Ingredients”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the dry chickpea PCW powder of Stantiall as modified by Nile with the teachings of Meringueshop to include additional additives. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add raw cane sugar, arrowroot powder, gum acacia, citric acid, and/or guar gum to provide consumers with a dry meringue powder premix. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so since Meringueshop teaches such a meringue powder.
Claim 9 is therefore rendered obvious.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112:
Applicant has overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections of claims 1-11 based on amendment or cancellation of the claims. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant has overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) rejection of claim 11 based on cancellation of the claim. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant’s arguments filed on 21 July 2025 with respect to pending claims 1-5, 8-10, and 20 (p. 5, ¶ 3 – p. 8) 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 arguments.
No claims are allowed.
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 James Shellhammer whose telephone number is (703) 756-5525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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.
/JAMES P. SHELLHAMMER/Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793