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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 12, 14, 16 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, in line 8 after “wherein the cooking using superheated steam” delete “to the raw materials” since the limitation is redundant and to place the claim in proper grammatical form.
In line 14, before “moisture content” insert “the” to place the claim in better form.
In line 14, after “cooked grains product is” delete “to be” since the limitation does not significantly add to the meaning of the claim and to place the claim in better form.
Regarding claims 12 and 14, after “comprising” delete “a” for grammar.
Regarding claim 16, after “sealing step,” delete “a” for grammar.
Regarding claim 23, in line 14 before “moisture content” insert “the” to place the claim in better form.
In line 14, after “cooked grains product is” delete “to be” since the limitation does not significantly add to the meaning of the claim and to place the claim in better form.
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
Claim 10 is rendered indefinite since it is unclear if “adding cooking water to the container containing the cooked raw materials” is a step separate from “adding water to the cooked raw materials obtained after the cooking…” recited in amended claim 1. The specification appears to indicate the water added after superheated steam cooking is the cooking water (paragraph 63). It is also unclear if the claim is further limiting.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
The limitation “adding cooking water to the container containing the cooked raw materials” is interpreted in view of the specification (paragraph 63) to be the same step as “adding water to the cooked raw materials obtained after the cooking…” recited in claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 is not further limiting.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 6-7, 10-11, 16-18 and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choppin et al. (US 2,195,165) in view of Sako (US 2023/0210148 A1), Weibye (US 4,385,074), Fukumori et al. (US 2014/0370174 A1) and Roberts (US 2,686,130).
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “one or more selected from the group consisting of rice and grains other than rice”. For the sake of examination, the limitation “rice” is chosen.
Choppin teaches a method for preparing cooked rice (left column lines 3-4) comprising washing the rice (left column lines 19-20), which one of ordinary skill understands would be performed with water and necessarily includes immersion of the rice in the water for said “thoroughly cleaning”, cooking the rice using steam at a temperature of 100oC or greater and a pressure of greater than 1 atm i.e., superheated steam (left column lines 22-28), the cooking using superheated steam including simultaneous addition of water to the rice based on desired cooking degree and uniformity (left column lines 29-33 and 39-50). Since the product of Choppin is partially or fully precooked, and would therefore require less or no “cooking” prior to consumption, the reference is construed to teach “instant” cooked rice.
Choppin does not teach sealing a container containing the cooked raw materials and retort heating the sealed container.
Sako teaches a method for producing instant cooked rice (abstract; paragraphs 2-3), comprising washing the rice (paragraph 23), adding water and the washed rice into a container and cooking using superheated steam (paragraphs 27 and 31), sealing a container containing the cooked rice (paragraph 28), and sterilizing the sealed container in a pressure chamber using steam to obtain a temperature of 100-120oC (paragraph 29), recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be a type of “retort” process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Choppin to place the cooked rice in a container, seal the container, and retort heat the sealed container since the prior art recognizes the process can be applied to cooked rice, where the process of packaging in a container, sealing, and retort heating are all well-known and commonly practiced in the art, in order to allow storage and transport without contamination of the product, and to ensure product sterility and safety once sealed.
Choppin does not specify the superheated steam is 120-130oC.
Weibye teaches a method of making quick cooking (instant) rice (abstract) comprising cooking the rice by simultaneously spraying steam and water (column 3 lines 47-51), where the steam is pressurized (superheated) and has a temperature of between about 135-160oC (column 4 lines 1-4). For example, steam having a pressure of 3.8 kg/cm2 corresponds to a temperature of 135oC (table 1 example 3). The total amount of moisture imparted to the rice depends on several variables including temperature of the steam (column 4 lines 44-46), and the process using the steam at the disclosed temperature provides a “superior quick cooking rice product” that “does not require conventional cooking in boiling water to be suitable for consumption” (column 5 lines 59-63).
Fukumori teaches a method for manufacturing rice (abstract) comprising cooking the rice under pressurized (superheated) steam at a temperature between 115-150oC (paragraph 56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use superheated steam at the claimed temperature range since the prior art recognizes steam temperature values overlapping and near the claimed range for cooking rice while simultaneously adding water, and therefore to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, since there is no evidence of unexpected results associated with the claimed feature, and since the claimed values would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as type of rice in the composition, desired texture/mouthfeel, desired amount of water absorbed by the rice, desired degree of gelatinization (i.e., partial or full), and cooking time.
Choppin does not teach a water adding ratio of cooked grains obtained after the step of cooking using the superheated steam is 45-90%.
Weibye teaches gelatinization (cooking) of the rice to a certain predetermined moisture content of between 24-78% (column 3 lines 29-30 and 34-37), the number of cycles of spraying is based on rice type and starch content (column 3 lines 59-68), and the total amount of moisture imparted to the rice depends on “nature of the rice, the pressure and temperature of the steam, the temperature of the water, the time of treatment, and the weight and surface area of the rice being contacted” (column 4 lines 44-50).
While the reference does not explicitly recite “water adding ratio” as disclosed in Applicant’s specification (paragraphs 49-50), the reference nonetheless teaches water absorbed by the rice which would have necessarily resulted in a “water adding ratio”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Choppin such that the cooked rice has a water adding ratio of 45-90% since the prior art recognizes that the amount of moisture added to the rice depends on various factors, since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed feature, and since the claimed values would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as type of grains in the composition, desired texture/mouthfeel, degree/rate of gelatinization, the pressure/temperature of the steam, the temperature of the water, the time of treatment, and the weight and surface area of the rice being contacted.
Choppin does not teach a moisture content of the cooked grains obtained after the step of cooking using superheated steam is 35-58%.
Weibye teaches a controlled amount of water and steam is utilized in order to attain a moisture content of about 52-73 wt% (column 3 lines 32-33 and 39-40), where the total amount of moisture imparted to the rice depends on variables including the nature of the rice, the pressure and temperature of the steam, the temperature of the water, the time of treatment, and the weight and surface area of the rice (column 4 lines 44-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Choppin to obtain the claimed moisture content since the reference does not specify such a value, where one of ordinary skill would have looked to the relevant prior art for guidance, since the evidence of record does not indicate criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed feature, and since the values would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as those disclosed by Weibye, as well as desired texture/mouthfeel and degree of gelatinization.
Choppin does not teach adding cooking water to the container containing the cooked raw materials such that the moisture content of a final instant cooked grains product is 55-65%.
Fukumori further teaches adding liquids such as water or seasoning liquid with the steamed rice in the pouch prior to sealing (paragraph 63).
Roberts teaches cooking rice so the grains obtain a moisture content of about 45-60%, where the moisture content allows for further heat treating that increases the moisture content to an edible state of 65-75% without forming a pasty mass (column 3 lines 50-63). The “pasty mass” is recognized to be associated with undesirable characteristics (column 1 line 53 to column 2 line 41). The final product moisture content can be e.g., about 55% (column 4 lines 71-72).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Choppin to provide additional water to obtain a final moisture content of 55-65% since the reference already contemplates adjusting moisture content of the product by adding water to the rice, since the prior art recognizes the claimed process and moisture content for pre-cooked rice in a retort pouch, to prevent the rice from forming an undesired “pasty mass”, since the evidence of record does not indicate criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed feature, and since the claimed values would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as type of grains in the composition, desired flavor, color, aroma and texture/mouthfeel.
Regarding claim 4, Choppin teaches the water is added by spraying (left column lines 32-33).
Regarding claim 6, Choppin teaches using steam having a temperature greater than 100oC and a pressure greater than 1 atm, understood to be superheated steam, as stated for claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Choppin to use the claimed temperature range for the superheated steam for the same reasons stated for claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Choppin teaches the period of time that the rice is exposed to the steam may be varied based on whether the rice is to be cooked partially or completely (left column lines 38-42).
Choppin does not teach the step of cooking is performed for 2-10 minutes.
Weibye teaches the spraying of water can last between 5-40 seconds (column 3 lines 52-53), the steaming can last for about 0.25-3 minutes (column 4 lines 10-11), where the spraying of water and steaming can be performed for up to 7 cycles depending on the type of rice, the duration of the sprays, the temperature of the sprays, etc., until the rice is substantially gelatinized (column 3 lines 59-68; column 4 lines 12-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Choppin to cook the rice for 2-10 minutes since the reference contemplates varying the cooking time, since the prior art recognizes that the duration of steaming and spraying can be varied, and since the claimed values would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as type of grains in the composition, desired texture/mouthfeel, degree/rate of gelatinization, the pressure/temperature of the steam, the temperature of the water, the number of steaming and spraying cycles required, and the weight and surface area of the rice being contacted.
Regarding claim 11, the combination applied to claim 1 teaches retort heating.
Sako further teaches retort heating the sealed container at a temperature of up to 120oC for a period of time to ensure sterilization (paragraphs 29 and 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process to retort the sealed container at the claimed temperature and duration since retort processes are well known to require minimum processing times at elevated temperatures, since there is no evidence of unexpected results associated with the feature, and since the claimed values would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as type of grains in the composition, desired flavor, texture/mouthfeel, product sterility, and consumer safety.
Regarding claim 16, Choppin does not teach inverting the sealed container.
Fukumori teaches packing rice into a retort pouch, the rice immersed in liquid inside the pouch, and flipping the pouch, thereby necessarily inverting, in order to provide uniform absorption and permeation of liquid into the rice (paragraphs 65 and 67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Choppin to invert the sealed container since the prior art recognizes flipping packaged precooked rice, and in order to similarly facilitate mixing and uniform distribution of the rice and other components in the pouch.
Regarding claim 17, Choppin does not teach the variety of rice. However, long and short grain varieties of rice are well known in the art.
Additionally, Weibye teaches Italian or American rice (column 3 lines 62-65), which necessarily comprise short or long grain rice, and Fukumori teaches the rice can be either short or long grain rice (paragraph 54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use long or short grain rice since such varieties are well known in the art, since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed feature, to provide different options for consumer preference, and as a matter of manufacturing preference for the flavor, aroma, texture/mouthfeel, and nutritional profile of the product.
Regarding claims 18 and 20, Choppin does not teach a tray container and the raw materials are filled in the tray before the step of cooking by using superheated steam.
Sako teaches supplying the rice to the container 1 prior to cooking by superheated steam as stated for claim 1, and further teaches the rice is sealed in a tray container (figures 2-4), where the container can be any conventionally known container and have flexibility (paragraph 25). The container comprises protrusions 51 on the inner surface of bottom 2 (figures 3-6; paragraph 46), where the feature facilitates heating/cooked by increasing heat transfer and efficiency (paragraph 47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Choppin to use a tray as the container and to place the rice in the container prior to cooking since the prior art recognizes that instant rice can be packed in trays and that the container can be any known container having flexibility, since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed feature, to cook the rice directly in the packaging, thereby minimizing cleaning and maintenance requirements for transfer surfaces, to facilitate transport and storage (e.g. by stacking), to facilitate heat transfer and efficiency, and as a matter of manufacturing preference for the type of packaging used.
Regarding claims 21-22, he combination applied to claim 1 teaches a method for preparing instant cooked rice as stated for said claim, and the method would have necessarily obtained cooked rice.
Regarding claim 23, the combination applied to claim 1 teaches a method for preparing instant cooked grains as stated for said claim. The same combination is applied to claim 23 and would have been obvious for the same reasons.
Regarding “adding water that is not steam to the raw materials”, Choppin teaches cooking by simultaneously adding water and steam as stated for claim 1.
Regarding claims 24-25, Choppin teaches the steam is generated from a body of water in a steam-tight chamber, the body of water below the rice (left column lines 22-25), and during exposure to the steam, liquid water is added from above by spraying (left column lines 29-33). Thus, the steam and the water are added by separate apparatuses.
Further, Weibye teaches water sprayers 13 as a separate apparatus from steam sprayers 14 (figure 1; column 5 lines 27-28).
Claims 12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choppin et al. in view of Sako, Weibye, Fukumori et al. and Roberts as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Zukerman et al. (US 4,765,390).
Regarding claim 12, Choppin does not teach adding an emulsifier.
Zukerman et al. teaches a rice product (abstract) comprising rice mixed with other non-rice grains (column 1 lines 57-64), comprising adding emulsifiers in order to prevent the grains from sticking together during cooking and to prevent damage to the grains (column 2 line 62 to column 3 line 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Choppin to include emulsifiers for the same advantages taught by Zukerman et al., and to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 14-15, the combination applied to claim 1 does not teach mixing sauce with the raw materials, the mixing performed after cooking by superheated steam.
Zukerman teaches a rice product (abstract), where the cooked grains are mixed with other ingredients such as butter, dextrose, soy sauce, etc. to flavor the grains (column 3 lines 20-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Choppin to mix the cooked grains with sauce since the prior art recognizes the process for cooked grains, since the combination of sauce and grains is a common pairing for foods products, and as a matter of preference for the flavor, aroma, mouthfeel/texture, moisture content, and nutritional profile of the final product.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4, 6-7, 10-12, 14-18 and 20-25 (particularly claim 1) are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 9-14, 16-20 and 23-24 (particularly claims 1-3 and 9) of copending Application No. 17/920,291 (reference application) in view of Fukimori and Roberts as stated in the prior art rejection above.
The ‘291 application teaches washing and immersing, cooking with superheated steam at 110-127oC, a water adding ratio of 45-90%, sealing a container and retort heating (claim 1), the superheated steam cooking and added water performed simultaneously (claim 3), and a moisture content of the cooked grains being 35-58% (claim 9).
The ‘291 application does not teach adding water to the cooked raw materials obtained after the cooking using the superheated steam such that moisture content of a final instant cooked grains product is 55-65%.
Fukumori teaches adding liquids such as water or seasoning liquid with the steamed rice in the pouch prior to sealing (paragraph 63).
Roberts teaches cooking rice so the grains obtain a moisture content of about 45-60%, where the moisture content allows for further heat treating that increases the moisture content to an edible state of 65-75% without forming a pasty mass (column 3 lines 50-63). The “pasty mass” is recognized to be associated with undesirable characteristics (column 1 line 53 to column 2 line 41). The final product moisture content can be e.g., about 55% (column 4 lines 71-72).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of the ‘291 application to provide additional water to obtain a final moisture content of 55-65% since the prior art recognizes the claimed process and moisture content for pre-cooked rice in a retort pouch, to prevent the rice from forming an undesired “pasty mass”, since the evidence of record does not indicate criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed feature, and since the claimed values would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as type of grains in the composition, desired flavor, color, aroma and texture/mouthfeel.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/17/2026 with respect to claims 1, 4, 6-7, 10-11, 16-18 and 20-25 have been considered but the amendment to claim 1 necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Weibye is not relied on to teach adding water to the cooked raw materials such that the moisture content of a final instant cooked grains product is 55-65%. Rather, Roberts is now relied on to show that the claimed moisture content for a final product is known and provides advantages as stated above. Fukumori is relied on to show that adding liquids such as water or seasoning liquid to already steamed rice prior to sealing the container.
The provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection is updated to include the above references.
Applicant’s arguments against the deponent claims are not persuasive for the same reasons stated above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0338. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6.
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 on (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.
/BRYAN KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights