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 applicant’s submission dated February 17, 2026. Any objections and/or rejections made in the previous action, and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
Claims 1-3, 5, 11,16-20, 22-24, and 26 are pending, and claims 28-35 remain withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 17, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
With respect to Claims 24 and 26, Claim 24 recites “soft plastic, a tube or static container” and Claim 26 recites “product according to claim 24, wherein said tube or soft plastic container or static container”. Applicant is directed to be consistent in the language used to limit the container.
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 3, 5, 18-19 and 23 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.
Regarding claims 3 and 23, the phrase "mayonnaise-like" renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "mayonnaise-like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claims unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
With respect to Claim 5, the recitation of “wherein the fatty acids comprise omega-3 fatty acids and/or marine oil” is unclear as to whether or not it is further limiting the recitation of claim 1 “comprising fatty acids, said fatty acids comprising docosahexaenoic acid triglyceride ester” as DHATG is already an omega-3 fatty acid. For the purposes of interpretation, the limitation will be interpreted as further comprising other omega-3 fatty acids and/or marine oil.
With respect to Claims 18 and 19, Claims 18 and 19 recite the limitation, “The composition according to claim 1, wherein the composition comprises: omega-3 fish oil at 50-90 wt% comprising 40-70 wt% DHATG, or DHATG at 40-70 wt%”. Claim 1 recites the limitation, “wherein the composition comprises 40-70 percent DHATG by weight”. The limitation of claim 18 and 19 with respect to the DHATG of the composition recites a composition that has a DHATG composition that is not in accordance with the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 18 and 19 are rejected for being indefinite.
The term “essentially free” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “essentially free” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of interpretation, essentially free will be interpreted as comprising none.
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.
Claims 1-5, 11, 16, 17, 22-26, and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myhre (5346709) in view of Smit-Kingma et al. (WO2012084416A1).
With respect to Claim 1, Myhre presents an oil-in-water emulsion described as mayonnaise that can be produced with a marine oil, marine oil concentrates, or mixtures of such. [Col. 2, Lines 41-46] Myhre proceeds to present an example of said oil-in-water emulsion as composed of 800g oil, 50g egg yolk, 10g lemon oil, 55g sugar, 10g salt, 20g citric acid, 40g water, 10g Pepper, and 5g preservatives. [Example 1] Another embodiment is presented wherein the recipe in Example 1 is infused with Vitamins. [Example 5] Additionally, Myhre states the emulsion can be stored in tubes or soft containers that collapse proportional to the amount left [Col. 2, Lines 59-60] or in stiff containers that use screw or piston-like devices that reduce according to the dose administered [Col. 2, Lines 65-69] so that no air space arises and no oxidation occurs. [Col. 2, Lines 63-64]
MPEP 2112 II states, “There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference”. The egg yolk taught in Myhre would possess all the same properties as recited in claim 1, specifically, acting as an emulsifier intermediate. Therefore, Myhre teaches an invention that reads on the limitations a composition, comprising fatty acids, egg yolk, and an acidic aqueous medium, wherein the invention is in the form of an emulsion with the egg yolk functioning as an emulsifier. Myhre is silent to a composition comprising 40-70% DHATG.
Smit-Kingma et al. present a method for developing a water-in-oil emulsion comprising 15-90% fat phase [Page 7, Line 9], wherein the fatty acids comprises 4-70% omega-3 fatty acids selected from eicosapentaenoic acid, docosahexaenoic acid, and combinations thereof. [Page 7, Line 22-23] Additionally, 60-85% by weight of the fat phase comprise glyceride, [Page 7, Lines 15-17] and at least 90% DHA is preferably in triglyceride form, [Pg. 8, Ln. 25-Pg. 9, Ln. 1-2]. Smit-Kinga et al. suggests the incorporation of salt, Vitamins, mineral, proteins, and other nutritive substances. [Page 11, Lines 8-12] A particular embodiment of the invention states the glycerides consist of marine oils such as fish oil, algae oil, and combinations thereof in a quantity no more than 97% [Page 10, Lines 4-7], and vegetable oil comprises no more than 0-80% by weight of the glycerides in the emulsion. [Page 13, Lines 3-5] Smit-Kingma presents a motivation for the use of DHA in that DHA has been linked to health benefits such as the reduction of heart disease. [Page 2, Lines 18-19] Smit-Kingma et al. reads on the limitations of a composition comprising fatty acids and an acidic aqueous medium wherein the total composition comprises between 40-70% DHATG.
Myhre and Smit-Kingma et al. both exist within the same field of endeavor in that they both present an emulsion utilizing fish oil in order to increase the consumption of DHA. Myhre presents a mayonnaise emulsion comprising fatty acids, egg yolk, and an acidic aqueous medium wherein 80% of the emulsion is fish oil. Smit-Kingma et al. presents an emulsion with a fat phase of 60-85% fatty acids comprising 4-70% DHA, wherein 90% is DHATG, results in between about 1.8-54% DHATG. One would be motivated to produce the mayonnaise presented in Myhre with the fatty acid composition presented in Smit-Kingma et al. in order to produce a mayonnaise that would have beneficial health impacts, especially related to heart health. An emulsion of 80% fish oil, wherein 1.8-54% is DHATG would have a final DHATG content of between 1.4-43%. According to the MPEP 2144.05, “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have created a composition comprising fatty acids, egg yolk, and an acidic aqueous medium wherein the composition comprises 40-70 percent docosahexaenoic acid triglyceride (DHATG) by weight using the composition presented in Myhre and the fatty acid composition presented in Smit-Kingma et al.
With respect to Claim 2, Myhre and Smit-Kingma et al. provide a composition according to claim 1. The composition of Myhre is an oil-in-water emulsion. [Col. 2, Line 43] Therefore, Myhre with Smit-Kingma et al. reads on the limitation of an oil-in-water emulsion presented in claim 2.
With respect to Claim 3, Myhre and Smit-Kingma et al. provide a composition according to claim 1. The composition of Myhre is a mayonnaise. [Col. 2, Line 41] Therefore, Myhre with Smit-Kingma et al. reads on the limitation of the composition having a mayonnaise-like consistency presented in claim 3.
With respect to Claim 5, Myhre and Smit-Kingma et al. provide a composition according to claim 1. The composition of Myhre comprises marine oil. Claim 5 states that the fatty acids comprise or consist of omega-3 fatty acids and/or marine oil. The phrase and/or is read in its broadest interpretation of or. [Example 1] Therefore, Myhre with Smit-Kingma et al. reads on the limitation of the composition comprising marine oil as presented in claim 5.
With respect to Claim 11, Myhre and Smit-Kingma et al. provide a composition according to claim 1. The composition of Myhre comprises salt, sugar, pepper, lemon oil, a preservative, an aqueous medium comprising citric acid and vitamins C, B1, B2, B, E and Niacin. [Example 5] Therefore, Myhre with Smit-Kingma et al. reads on the limitation of the composition comprising one or more flavoring agents, such as salt, one or more preservatives, and one or more vitamins, such as Vitamin C, as presented in claim 11.
With respect to Claims 16 and 17, Myhre and Smit-Kingma et al. provide a composition according to claim 1. The composition of Myhre comprises salt, sugar, pepper, lemon oil, a preservative, an aqueous medium comprising citric acid and vitamins C, B1, B2, B, E and Niacin [Example 5] wherein the composition consists of, by total weight, 5% egg yolk, 13% acidic aqueous medium consisting of 4% water, 1% salt, 5.5% sugar, 2% citric acid, and 0.5% preservative, 1% lemon oil, 1% pepper, and 80% cod liver oil. [Example 1] The fatty acid composition presented by Smit-Kingma et al. has preferably 4-70% omega-3 fatty acids such as DHATG [Page 7, Lines 19-20]. The total DHATG in a composition with 80% marine oil would have 3.2-56% DHATG total (4% times 80% = 3.2% and 70% times 80% = 56%), and the remaining marine oil would consist of other fatty acids. According to the MPEP 2144.05, “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application to have created the composition described in claims 16 and 17, wherein the composition comprises, by weight, between 40-70% DHATG and 1-50% other fatty acids, 0.5-25% egg yolk, 0.5-30% aqueous medium, wherein the composition additionally comprises 0.1-10% lemon oil or d-limonene, 0.5-20% sugar, 0.01-5% salt, 0.1-10% citric acid, 0.5-20% water, 0.01-5% pepper, 0.001-2% preservatives by utilizing the composition presented in Myhre and the fatty acid composition presented in Smit-Kingma et al.
With respect to Claim 18, Myhre and Smit-Kingma et al. provide a composition according to claim 1. The composition of Myhre comprises salt, sugar, pepper, lemon oil, a preservative, an aqueous medium comprising citric acid and vitamins C, B1, B2, B, E and Niacin [Example 5] wherein the composition consists of, by total weight, 5% egg yolk, 13% acidic aqueous medium consisting of 4% water, 1% salt, 5.5% sugar, 2% citric acid, and 0.5% preservative, 1% lemon oil, 1% pepper, and 80% cod liver oil. [Example 1] The fatty acid composition presented by Smit-Kingma et al. has preferably 4-70% omega-3 fatty acids such as DHATG [Page 7, Lines 19-20]. The total DHATG in a composition with 80% marine oil would have 3.2-56% DHATG total (refer to previous claim for math), and the remaining marine oil would consist of other fatty acids. According to the MPEP 2144.05, “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application to have created the composition described in claim 18, wherein the composition comprises, by weight, between 50-90% omega-3 fish oil comprising 40-70% DHATG, or DHATG at 40-70%, and 1-50% other fatty acids, 1-20% egg yolk, 0.01-5% citric acid, 1-20% water, and one or more preservatives and/or flavoring agents by utilizing the composition presented in Myhre and the fatty acid composition presented in Smit-Kingma et al.
With respect to Claim 20, Myhre and Smit-Kingma et al. provide a composition according to claim 1. The composition presented by Myhre is composed of 800g oil, 50g egg yolk, 10g lemon oil, 55g sugar, 10g salt, 20g citric acid, 40g water, 10g Pepper, and 5g preservatives. [Example 1] This composition is essentially free of surfactants. Therefore, Myhre with Smit-Kingma et al. reads on the limitation of the composition being essentially free of surfactants as presented in claim 20.
With respect to Claim 22 and 23, Myhre and Smit-Kingma et al. provide a composition according to claim 1. Myhre presents an embodiment of the composition according to claim 1 that is a mayonnaise infused with Vitamins. [Example 5] The specification defines “medical food” as any edible or drinkable foods, drinks, or dietary components that comprise, are fortified and/or enhanced with any of the compositions described herein. [Page 23, Lines 15-19] Therefore, Myhre with Smit-Kingma et al. reads on the limitation of the composition being a medical food, as presented in claim 22 and 23.
With respect to Claim 24 and 26, Myhre and Smit-Kingma et al. present a composition that describes the invention in claim 23. Additionally, Myhre states the composition can be stored in tubes or soft containers that collapse proportional to the amount left [Col. 2, Lines 59-60] or in stiff containers that use screw or piston-like devices that reduce according to the dose administered [Col. 2, Lines 65-69] so that no air space arises and no oxidation occurs. [Col. 2, Lines 63-64] Therefore, Myhre with Smit-Kingma et al. reads on the limitation of the composition being packaged in a container of an airtight material in soft plastic, a tube, or a static container with a piston or screw for dispensing wherein said plastic, tube, or container is arranged to collapse during use proportionally to the amount of said composition remaining after a portion of said composition is dispensed from said container, wherein no air space forms in said container after said dispensing, and wherein no discernable oxidation occurs during the storage and use of said composition as presented in claim 24 and 26.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myhre (5346709) in view of Smit-Kingma et al. (WO20152084416A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Inoue et al. (US20110189348 A1), Santtini (Orange Mayonnaise), Clark (NYT Mayonnaise), Varvara et al. (The use of ascorbic acid as a food additive: technical-legal issues), and USDA (Pasteurized Eggs).
With respect to Claim 19, Myhre and Smit-Kingma et al. provide a composition according to claim 1. Additionally, the composition comprises, by weight, between 50-90% omega-3 fish oil comprising 40-70% DHATG, or DHATG at 40-70%, and 1-50% other fatty acids, 1-20% egg yolk, 0.01-5% citric acid, 0.5% preservatives and 1-20% water. The preservatives used by Myhre are E211, sodium benzoate, and E202, potassium sorbate. [Example 1] Additionally, the evidentiary refence USDA states that congress passed the Egg Products Inspection Act in 1970 [Par. 1] requiring all egg products, such as egg yolk or whites, distributed for consumption be pasteurized. [Par. 7] Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have used pasteurized eggs in the production of the composition described by Myhre. Additionally, Vitamin C is provided in an embodiment of the invention at 30mg ascorbic acid/7.5g composition, or 0.4%. [Example 5] Varvara et al. states that the food additive (ascorbic acid) comes in many forms commonly found in trade, including sodium ascorbate. [Page 7, Col. 3, Par. 1] According to MPEP 2144.06 I “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to use either ascorbic acid or sodium ascorbate in order to supplement the Vitamin C described in Myhre. Smit-Kingma et al. presents an embodiment of a fat-continuous spread according to the disclosure, comprising beta-carotene at 0.06% of the total. According to the MPEP 2144.05, “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Myhre and Smit-Kingma et al. are silent to the use of sucralose, sodium ascorbate, orange flavor, xanthan gum, menthol, and canola oil.
Inoue et al. presents a composition containing sucralose designed to give various properties to the compositions to which it is added, specifically, sweetening, masking unpleasant odor, preservatives, flavor compositions, and more. [0005-0012] One sucralose composition presented contains a hydrocolloid, for example xanthan gum, wherein the composition comprises sucralose between 0.0001-1% [0374] total weight and xanthan gum between 0.01-10% total weight. [0376] Inoue et al. points out a motivation to use the sucralose composition comprising a hydrocolloid due to enhancing the emulsifying power of the compound. [0370] Another embodiment describes a sucralose composition designed to improve flavor. [VI] The Flavor composition described comprises menthol, but states that menthol above 3% produces a bitter or acrid flavor. [0615] By providing sucralose, the menthol flavor can be provided in low amounts while still accomplishing a cool, refreshing flavor. [0616] By combining the flavor composition with the hydrocolloid composition, one would find it obvious and be motivated to create a stabilizing flavor composition for an emulsion such as mayonnaise [372] comprising less than 3% menthol, between 0.01-10% xanthan gum, and between 0.0001-1% sucralose. According to the MPEP 2144.05, “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Clark presents a basic recipe for mayonnaise that comprises egg yolk, lemon juice, salt, water, and a neutral oil such as safflower or canola. [Ingredients] The comment by Jay mentions that oils other than olive, such as the canola presented in the ingredients, may assist in reducing the oily flavor of a mayonnaise. [Comments] Additionally, Myhre concedes that marine oil has a fishy flavor [Col. 1, Lines 67-68] and Smit-Kingma et al. provides an embodiment of the invention comprising between 0-80% vegetable oil. [Page 13, Lines 3-4] According to the MPEP 2144.05, “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Therefore, one would find it obvious and be motivated to utilize canola oil to mask the fishy flavor of marine oil in a composition described by claim 1 wherein the composition comprises between 0.01% and 10% canola oil. Santtini teaches a flavored mayonnaise composition that uses orange juice in order to flavor an existing mayonnaise composition. [Ingredients] Santtini also mentions that the flavor profile of this composition is delicious and would go well with a fish flavor. [Par. 3] Therefore, one would have been motivated and found it obvious to have used orange flavor in order to enhance the composition described by Myhre and Smit-Kingma et al.
Myhre and Smit-Kingma et al. present a composition described by claim 1, and with the references from Varvara et al. and the USDA, support is made for the use of pasteurized eggs and sodium ascorbate in the production of said composition. Santtini, Clark, and Inoue et al. all exist within the same field of endeavor in that they all refer to the production or enhancement of mayonnaise compositions, like the one described in claim 19. Inoue et al. presents the use of sucralose in conjunction with flavorings such as menthol and emulsifiers such as xanthan gum to enhance any composition, but mayonnaise specifically. Clark and Santtini present methods designed to enhance the flavor of a mayonnaise composition through the use of flavors such as orange and neutral oils such as canola, in order to make the resulting composition more palatable. By combining these arts, one would be able to present the composition described in claim 19. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the application, one would have found it obvious to have combined the composition in claim 1 described by Myhre and Smit-Kingma et al. with the enhancements presented in Clark, canola oil, Santtini, orange flavor, and Inoue et al., sucralose, xanthan gum, and menthol, in order to produce the composition in claim 19, wherein the composition comprises, by weight, between 50-90% omega-3 fish oil comprising 40-70% DHATG, or DHATG at 40-70%, and 1-50% other fatty acids, 1-20% pasteurized chicken egg yolk, 0.01-5% citric acid, 1-20% water, 0.01-10% ascorbic acid, 0.01-10% sodium ascorbate, 0.001-10% sucralose, 0.001-10% xanthan gum, 0.001-10% menthol, 0.01-1% potassium sorbate, 0.01-1% sodium benzoate, 0.001-10% beta-carotene, 0.01-1% canola oil, 0.01-5% orange flavor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states on Page 8 Lines 2-3 that, “Provided herewith is a declaration of inventor Fred Sancilio proffered under 37 CFR 1.132 in support of patentability of the pending claims”. Additionally, applicant refers to said declaration in applicant’s remarks on Page 10, Paragraphs 2-3 and Page 11 Paragraph 1. No declaration can be found in the records on file, and therefore cannot be considered in defense of applicant’s remarks with respect to the rejection on record.
Applicant asserts on Page 10 Lines 4-5 that “neither Myhre et al. nor Smit Kingma et al. can afford a teaching relevant to the amount of DHATG as recited in claim 1” and supports this on Page 12, Lines 2-3, “the 15-90 wt.% fat phase disclosed in Smit-Kingma cannot equal 15-90 wt.% fatty acids, since the fat phase comprises phytosterol esters”.
Applicant is directed to Smit-Kingma et al. Page 7 Lines 11-22, wherein the reference teaches the fat phase is 60-85% fatty acids, of which 4-70% is selected from a group comprising DHA. A fat phase comprising 85% fatty acids at 70% DHA, wherein at least 90% DHA is preferably in triglyceride form, [Pg. 8, Ln. 25-Pg. 9, Ln. 1-2] results in a fat phase comprising 53.55% DHATG. The composition taught by Myhre comprises 80% fat phase, as described in the rejection of claim 1 above, resulting in a final DHATG concentration of about 43%. According to the MPEP 2144.05, “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Therefore, applicant’s assertions are found to be unpersuasive.
Applicant asserts on Page 11 Lines 16-19 that, “the outstanding Office Action states in Section 37 that ‘it would have been obvious to envisage a composition wherein the fat phase is only marine oil.’ However, it is respectfully submitted that Smit-Kingma teaches away from using 100% marine oil as the fat phase”.
The claims of the instant invention do not recite a limitation wherein the oil is 100% marine oil. MPEP 2145 teaches that “Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims”. For this reason, applicant’s assertion is found to be unpersuasive.
Applicant states on Page 11 Lines 18-19, “It is respectfully submitted that a PHOSITA lacks a motivation to select DHATG as the omega-3 fatty acid based on a reading of Myhre et al., Smit-Kingma et al., or the combination”. Applicant is respectfully directed to the rejection of claim 1, wherein the references teach the use of DHA, preferably DHATG, and the purported health benefits of DHA. For this reason, applicant’s assertion is found to be unpersuasive.
Applicant asserts on Page 12 Lines 7-9 that, “the claimed composition from Smit-Kingma, which does not directly and unambiguously disclose whether an emulsifier is used and if so, what it would be and how it acts”. Applicant’s assertion in this case amounts to an attack on the reference individually, and MPEP 2145 states, “One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references”. For this reason, applicant’s assertion is found to be unpersuasive.
Applicant asserts on Page 13 Lines 10-13 that “Applicant respectfully submits that the cited references fail to cure the deficiencies of Myhre et al. and Amit-Kingma et al. as described above with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of amended claim 1. Applicant’s assertions with respect to claim 1 have been found to be unpersuasive, and therefore do not overcome the rejection of claim 19.
In light of the above response, the rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 11, 16-20, 22-24, and 26 are maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH CULLEN MERCHLINSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-2260. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached at 571-270-3435. 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.
/J.C.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791