DETAILED ACTION
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 after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.114 has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/28/2025 has been entered.
Claim status
The examiner acknowledged the amendment made to the claims on 07/28/2025.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-14 and 16-20 are pending in the application. Claim 1 is currently amended. Claims 4 and 15 are previously cancelled. Claim 10 is currently cancelled. Claim 20 is newly presented. Rest of claims are previously presented. Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-14 and 16-20 are hereby examined on the merits.
Examiner Note
Any objections and/or rejections that are made in the previous actions and are not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
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 19 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 19 is indefinite because it depends on a claim that is cancelled. It is further unclear what the mixture of algae in water encompasses. Is it before or after adding all other ingredients as recited in claim 1? Note that claim 19 uses open-ended transitional phrase “comprising”. For the purpose of examination, claim 19 is not rejected by an art. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toshuki JPS63157963 A (cited in the IDS filed 10/24/2022, English translation of the description relied for reference, hereinafter referred to as Toshuki) in view of Adams EP 0020011 A2 (hereinafter referred to as Adams) and Neal WO 91/00217 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Neal).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 14, Toshuki teaches a method of preparing an algae-containing composition (e.g., a food that contains, inter alia, chlorella, milk powder and water, see abstract) comprising pre-sterilizing a mixture of crushed chlorella, milk powder, lecithin and water at a temperature of 100-140 °C for one second to several seconds (for example, 130 °C for 3 seconds in the example), homogenization, cooling, to 10 °C, adding a small amount of lactic acid bacteria, fermenting, and sterilizing the fermented mixture at a temperature of 60 °C or higher (Abstract; page 2, 5th para., 8th para.; 8th para. from the bottom para.; Example). The pre-sterilization as disclosed by Toshuki reads on the primary heat treatment as recited in claim 1,and the sterilization after the fermentation reads on the second heat treatment as recited in claim 1.
The temperature of 60 °C or higher encompasses the range of 90-150 °C as recited in claim 1. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Toshuki is silent regarding a step of pre-heating the mixture to 70-80 °C prior to raising the temperature to 100-140 °C for sterilization.
Adams teaches a method of heating fresh eggs in boiling water to make hardboiled eggs, the method comprising a step of pre-heating the eggs to reduce thermal shock when eggs are put in boiling water (Abstract; page 2, line 15-18). Thermal shock is known to be a phenomenon characterized by a rapid change in temperature that results in a transient mechanical load on an object that leads to structural failure such as disintegration.
Both Toshuki and Adams are directed to heating a food to a temperature that is above 100 °C. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Toshuki by preheating the mixture of milk and chlorella to a temperature that is lower than 100-140 °C so as to reduce thermal shock.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have manipulated the temperature the mixture is preheated to so as to ensure that there is no structure failure. As such, the temperature of 70-80 °C the mixture is preheated to as recited in claim 1 is merely an obvious variant of the prior art.
Toshuki teaches pre-sterilizing a mixture of crushed chlorella, milk powder, lecithin and water thus being silent regarding a composition that consists algae and water.
Neal teaches that in forming a sterilized food mixture, it is suitable to individually sterilize each ingredients followed by combining the sterilized ingredients (page 4, first para. under “Detailed description of the invention”; page 3, first para. under “Summary of the invention”).
Both Toshuki and Neal are directed to sterilization of food. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Toshuki by sterilizing algae in water followed by adding pre-sterilized milk and lecithin to form a mixture of chlorella, milk, lecithin and water with reasonable expectation of success, for the reason that prior art has established that in forming a sterilized food mixture, it is suitable to combine individually sterilize ingredients to form a sterilized mixture.
Toshuki teaches using algae genus chlorella in the composition; further Toshuki includes an example teaching that the composition comprises 100 parts chlorella, 30 parts milk powder, 0.2 parts lecithin and 400 parts water (see example). It is noted that the composition in the example of Toshuki comprises a higher content of chlorella than 0.3-6% as recited the instant claim.
However, the gist of Toshuki is about adding a small amount of lactic acid bacteria (e.g., 0.5-3%) to an aqueous suspension containing a microalgae (e.g., chlorella) and fermenting the microalgae at a temperature of 20-45 °C to a pre-determined acidity so as to eliminate the unpleasant flavor peculiar to the microalgae (page 1, bottom para.; page 2, para. 10), as such, the amount of chlorella or the amount of water in the pre-fermentation mixture that consists of algae and water or in the fermentation mixture that comprises the microalgae, water and other additive does not appear to be a determining factor in the method of Toshuki, provided that the predetermined acidity is reached to eliminate the unpleasant flavor. Further, Toshuki teaches that the fermented product can be used either as a beverage or a food material (page 2, para. 10), and the example of Toshuki that use higher concentration of chlorella is about making a chlorella food (page 2 bottom para.). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, when using the fermented chlorella mixture as a beverage base, would have been motivated to vary the amount of chlorella or the amount of water in the suspension such that the resultant fermented suspension or the beverage has desired amount of chlorella solid. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to manipulate the amount of LAB, the duration of fermentation, and temperature of fermentation based upon the microalgae content in the fermentation mixture so as to ensure that the predetermined acidity is reached to eliminate the unpleasant flavor. As such, the chlorella content as recited in claim 1 is merely an obvious variant of the prior art.
Toshuki teaches that the fermentation will improve the unpleasant flavor peculiar to chlorella (page 1, bottom para.), thus reading the preamble language about reducing an off-taste of an algae-containing composition. Further, such a recitation of the purpose of the method does not result in a manipulative difference between the claim and prior art because the actual steps recited in Toshuki in view of Adams and Neal and the instant claim are the same and will necessarily provide the purpose in the preamble of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Toshuki as recited above teaches pre-sterilizing a mixture at a temperature of 100-140 °C followed by cooling to 10 °C, thus the mixture necessarily arrives at a temperature of 70-80 °C during cooling.
Regarding claim 7, Toshuki as recited above teaches a second heating at 60 °C or above, thus in the case the mixture is removed from the heating source, the temperature of the mixture will drop which necessarily arrives at the range as recited during cooling.
Regarding claim 8, Toshuki teaches a sterilization of the fermented mixture comprising chlorella and milk at a temperature of 60 °C or higher, but is silent regarding that such a sterilization is carried out by an indirect heat treatment. However, Toshuki teaches that it is suitable to pre-sterilize the mixture of chlorella and milk by an indirect heat treatment (e.g., plate heat type sterilizer; page 2, the 8th para. from the bottom para.), therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have used the plate heat type sterilizer to sterilize the fermented mixture of chlorella and milk with reasonable expectation of success, for the reason that prior art has established suitability of plate type sterilizer in sterilizing a mixture of chlorella and milk.
Regarding claims 12-13, where prior art teaches essentially the same heat treatment of an algae-containing composition as the method recited in the claim, it logically follows that the off-flavor causing compounds such as those recited in claim 13 is reduced, while maintaining the flavor of the remaining component of the composition. See In re Best.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toshuki in view of Adams and Neal as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Badertscher US Patent No. 5,863,587 (hereinafter referred to as Badertscher).
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Toshuki teaches using a plate type sterilizer to pre-sterilize the mixture of milk and chlorella, thus being silent regarding using a direct heat treatment such as direct steam injection. What Toshuki teaches is that any method that can achieve the purpose of sterilization is suitable (page 2, 8th para. from the bottom para.).
Badertscher teaches that direct steam injection is used in food industry for pasteurizing or sterilizing of a fluid product (column 1, line 14-18).
Both Toshuki and Badertscher are directed to sterilizing a fluid product. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Toshuki by substituting direct steam injection sterilization for the plate heat sterilization with reasonable expectation of success, for the reason that prior art has established that direct steam injection is suitable for sterilizing a fluid product thus the result of substitution would have been predictable.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toshuki in view of Adams, Neal and Badertscher as applied to claim 3 above, further in view of Mitchell US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0353787 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Mitchell) and Hee US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0234313 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Hee).
Regarding claim 5, modified Toshuki as recited above teaches a primary heat treatment (e.g., pre-sterilization) that comprises a pre-heating step and a heating step, homogenization, and cooling the homogenized mixture to 10 °C, thus the mixture necessarily arrives at a temperature of 70-80 °C during cooling.
Further, Toshuki in view of Adams, Neal and Badertscher as recited above teaches a pre-sterilization of the mixture of milk and chlorella by direct steam injection at a temperature of 100-140 °C.
Toshuki as recited above teaches a sterilization temperature of 100-140 °C for one second to several seconds (for example,130 °C for 3 seconds in the example; page 2, 8th para. from the bottom para. and the example), which reads on the limitation about a holding time of 2-10 seconds as recited in the claim.
Toshuki as recited above teaches cooling the pre-sterilized mixture, but is silent regarding flash cooling.
Mitchell teaches that cooling a food by flash cooling (e.g., blast chilling) to a lower a temperature is relative safe from bacterial growth (0040).
Both Toshuki and Mitchell are directed to food sterilization and cooling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have cooling the mixture by flash cooling so as to inhibit bacterial growth.
Toshuki teaches a homogenization pressure of 147 bar (e.g., 150 kg/cm2, see the example) thus being silent regarding a homogenization pressure of 10-100 bar.
Hee teaches that the pressure applied in a process of homogenization determines the degree of particle size reduction (e.g., higher pressure, higher particle size reduction, 0060).
Both Toshuki and Hee are directed to homogenization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Toshuki by manipulating the pressure during homogenization for desired particle size reduction so as to obtain a homogenized product. As such, the pressure as recited in claim 5 is merely an obvious variant of the prior art.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toshuki in view of Adams and Neal as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Walstra, chapter 9, “Homogenization” in the book of “Dairy Science and Technology”, Taylor & Francis, 2005, pages 279-296 (hereinafter referred to as Walstra) and Singh, “Process and Plant Design” in the book of “Encyclopedia of Dairy Science”, Elsevier, 2011, volume 4, pages 124-133 (hereinafter referred to as Singh).
Regarding claim 9, Toshuki as recited above teaches a second heat treatment (e.g., sterilization of fermented mixture) at a temperature of 60 °C or above, but is silent regarding a step of pre-heating the fermented mixture prior to raising the temperature of the fermented mixture for sterilization.
However, Adams teaches a method of heating fresh eggs in boiling water to make hardboiled eggs, the method comprising a step of pre-heating the eggs to reduce thermal shock when eggs are put in boiling water (Abstract; page 2, line 15-18). Thermal shock is known to be a phenomenon characterized by a rapid change in temperature that results in a transient mechanical load on an object that leads to structural failure.
Both Toshuki and Adams are directed to heating a food. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Toshuki by preheating the fermented mixture of milk and chlorella so as to reduce thermal shock.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have manipulated the temperature the mixture is preheated to so as to ensure that there is no structure failure. As such, the temperature of 80 to 110 °C the mixture is preheated to as recited in claim 9 is merely an obvious variant of the prior art.
Toshuki as recited above teaches a second heat treatment (e.g., sterilization of fermented mixture) at a temperature of 60 °C or above, which encompasses the range of 100-150 °C as recited in the claim 9. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Toshuki is silent regarding the duration of sterilizing the fermented mixture. What Toshuki teaches is that in the step of sterilizing the pre-fermented mixture, the holding time is one second to several seconds (for example,130 °C for 3 seconds in the example. Further, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, one of the ordinary skill in the art would have known that the duration of heating during a sterilization step affects the efficiency of inactivating the microorganisms. Therefore, that skilled person would have been motivated to manipulate the time of heating so as to ensure the effective inactivation of the microorganisms. As such, the duration of heating as recited in the claim 9 is merely an obvious variant of the prior art.
Toshuki as recited above teaches a second heat treatment (e.g., sterilization of fermented mixture) at a temperature of 60 °C or above, but is silent regarding cooling the sterilized mixture to a temperature to 60-80 °C, or a homogenization step at a pressure of 200-400 bar. Toshuki teaches a homogenization step before fermentation though.
Walstra teaches that homogenization of a dairy product helps to counteract creaming, improve stability toward partial coalescence, and create desirable rheological properties (page 279), and that the homogenization is usually done at a temperature of 40-75 °C to ensure the fat is not in crystalline form (page 286-287, “6. Temperature”).
Walstra teaches that the pressure of homogenization at least affects the average fat globule size of a dairy product, and demonstrates a homogenization pressure of 25 -400 bar (e.g., 2.5-40 MPa) (page 285, “2. Homogenization pressure”; Fig. 9.5).
Singh teaches that a temperature of 55-80 °C and a pressure of 100-250 bar (e.g., 10-25 MPa) are suitable for homogenizing a dairy product (page 127, left column, 2nd para. under “Homogenizers”).
Both Toshuki and Walstra are directed to dairy products. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Toshuki by subjecting the sterilized fermented mixture to homogenization so as to product help to counteract creaming, improve stability toward partial coalescence, and create desirable rheological properties.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have cooling the pre-sterilized mixture of milk and chlorella to 40-75 °C for homogenization with reasonable expectation of success, for the reason that prior art has established that such a temperature range is suitable for homogenizing a dairy product for the aforementioned benefits.
The temperature as disclosed by Walstra overlaps with the temperature as disclosed by Walstra overlaps with the range as recited in claim 2. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Toshuki, Walstra and Singh are all directed to dairy products. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Toshuki by applying a homogenization pressure at a value that is within the range of 25-400 bar or 100-250 bar (note that 147 bar as disclosed by Toshuki falls within both ranges) with reasonable expectation of success, for the reason that prior art has established that any pressure within the whole range of 25-400 bar or 100-250 bar during the homogenization of a dairy product is suitable. The pressure as disclosed by prior art overlaps with the range as recited in claim 9. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding the limitation that the composition is cooled to about 20-30 °C as recited in claim 9, page 2 bottom para. of Toshuki teaches that the fermented product is sterilized to obtain a chlorella food. Thus reasonably when the fermented product is removed from the heat source, it will necessarily cool to the room temperature, thus reading on the temperature range of 20-30 °C as recited in claim 9.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toshuki in view of Adams and Neal as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of applicant’s admitted prior art (hereinafter referred to as AAPA).
Applicant’s attention is drawn to MPEP 2129 I. Admissions by Applicant Constitute Prior Art. A statement by an applicant in the specification or made during prosecution identifying the work of another as "prior art" is an admission which can be relied upon for both anticipation and obviousness determinations, regardless of whether the admitted prior art would otherwise qualify as prior art under the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 102.
Regarding claim 16, Toshuki in view of Adams and Neal teaches using algae genus chlorella as a food composition, and further includes an embodiment teaching that the composition comprises 100 parts chlorella, 30 parts milk powder, 0.2 parts lecithin and 400 parts water (see example), as such, Toshuki encompasses the limitation about the composition comprises at least 0.3 %, 0.4% or 0.5% chlorella. Further, reference is made to para. 21 above which shows that the concentration of chlorella is obvious over the teaching of the prior art.
Toshuki is silent regarding the chlorella is the species of Chlorella vulgaris.
However, AAPA teaches that Chlorella vulgaris species of genus chlorella has a long history of use as food source (page 2, line 7-15).
Both Toshuki and AAPA are directed to a food composition comprising chlorella, and where Toshuki teaches that chlorella genus is suitable for use as a food, AAPA specifies that Chlorella vulgaris has long been used as food. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Toshuki by including Chlorella vulgaris in the food composition of Toshuki with reasonable expectation of success, for the reason that prior art has established that Chlorella vulgaris is suitable for use as a food. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claims 17-18, Toshuki teaches genus chlorella but is silent regarding the chlorella is the species of Chlorella vulgaris. Prior art is further silent regarding including both phototrophical Chlorella vulgaris and heterotrophical Chlorella vulgaris in the composition of Toshuki.
However, AAPA teaches that Chlorella vulgaris species of genus chlorella has a long history of use as food source (page 2, line 7-15), and that it is known in the art that Chlorella vulgaris can be produced either phototrophically or heterotrophically (page 6, line 22-24).
Both Toshuki and AAPA are directed to a food composition comprising chlorella, and where Toshuki teaches that chlorella genus is suitable for use as a food, AAPA specifies that Chlorella vulgaris has long been used as food. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Toshuki by including Chlorella vulgaris in the food composition of Toshuki with reasonable expectation of success, for the reason that prior art has established that Chlorella vulgaris is suitable for use as a food. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
On the limitations that the algae-containing composition comprises both phototrophical Chlorella vulgaris and heterotrophical Chlorella vulgaris and the ratio thereof as recited in claims 17-18: it is noted that claims do not positively recite a method step of producing Chlorella vulgaris by phototrophical and heterotrophical methods, instead, claims recite the source of Chlorella vulgaris. In the instant case, where Toshuki as modified by AAPA teaches a food composition comprising Chlorella vulgaris, the food composition as disclosed by prior art would be materially indistinguishable from the composition as recited in claims 17-18, for the reason that it would not be possible to tell which Chlorella vulgaris is from phototrophical source and which is from a heterotrophical source. Therefore, Toshuki in view of Adam and AAPA renders obvious claims 17-18.
Alternatively, where AAPA establishes that Chlorella vulgaris is either from a phototrophical source or from a heterotrophical source, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have used Chlorella vulgaris of either source in the food composition of Toshuki with reasonable expectation of success, for the reason that prior art has established that Chlorella vulgaris is suitable for use as a food and that Chlorella vulgaris is produced either phototrophically or heterotrophically. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined phototrophical Chlorella vulgaris with heterotrophical Chlorella vulgaris in the food composition of Toshuki with reasonable expectation of success, because as stated in MPEP 2144.06, "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." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to vary the amounts of each of the phototrophical Chlorella vulgaris and heterotrophical Chlorella vulgaris in the food composition based on personal preference, absent a showing of the new result. As such, the ratio as recited in claim 18 is merely an obvious variant of the prior art.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toshuki in view of Adams and Neal as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Whalen US Patent No. 9,155,326 B2 (hereinafter referred to as Whalen).
Regarding claim 20, Toshuki as recited above teaches a food or a beverage comprising chlorella but is silent regarding the food or the beverage comprising oat syrup.
Whalen teaches that an oat syrup resulting from the enzymatic treatment of oat material is substantially flavorless, has a nearly white color, and has unique sweetness, and can be used to sweeten a food or a beverage (column 2, line 15-25, 35-36 and 44-49).
Both Toshuki and Whalen are directed to food and beverages. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Toshuki by including the oat syrup of Whalen in the food or beverage of Toshuki for sweetening purpose.
On the amount of the oat syrup in the food or the beverage: one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to manipulate the amount of the oat syrup depending on the degree of sweetness desired for the food or the beverages. As such, the amount of oat syrup as recited in the claim is merely an obvious variant of the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/2025 have been fully considered and the examiner the response is shown below:
Applicant argues on pages 6-7 of the Remarks that Toshuki does not teach a second heating temperature of 80 °C or above, rather, Toshuki teaches 60 °C or higher.
The argument is considered. However, a teaching of 60 °C or higher still encompasses the range of 90-150 °C thus prima facie case of obviousness exists. On the other hand, applicant has not shown by convincing evidence that the temperature range of 90-150 °C is critical.
Applicant argues on page 8 of the Remarks that Toshuki does not teach the limitation about heating a mixture comprising water and chlorella only, wherein the amount of chlorella is 0.3-6%.
The argument is considered but found moot over the new ground of rejection set forth in the instant office action.
For the reasons set forth above, applicant’ arguments on page 9 of the Remarks regarding the secondary references are not persuasive, either.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANGQING LI whose telephone number is (571)272-2334. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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 H 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.
/CHANGQING LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791