DETAILED ACTION
Background
The amendment dated August 13, 2025 amending claims 1, 3, 5-12, 14-26 and 30-31, adding new claim 32 and canceling claims 2 and 4 has been entered. Claims 1, 3 and 5-32 as filed with the amendment dated August 13, 2025 have been examined. In view of the amendment, all outstanding objections to the claims have been withdrawn; and, all outstanding rejections of canceled claims 2 and 4 have been withdrawn as moot.
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, 11, 19, 24, 30 and 31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, at line 6, before “polyglycerol fatty acid” insert --a --;
In claim 11, at line 9, before “polyglycerol fatty acid” insert --a --;
In claim 19, at line 4, before “polyglycerol fatty acid” insert --a --
In claim 24, at line 3, after “when storage” insert --of the fermented milk --;
In claim 30, at line 6, before “polyglycerol fatty acid” insert --a --; and,
In claim 31, at line 5, before “polyglycerol fatty acid” insert --a --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3 and 5-32 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.
In each of claims 1, 11, 14, 19, 21, 30 and 31, the recited amount of the food emulsifier as a wt%, including at claims 14 and 21 the recited “from 0.06 to 0.45 wt%” is indefinite because the claim does not recite a denominator or basis for the recited wt%. Does the Applicant intend to claim a wt% of food emulsifier based on the weight of the recited fermented milk, a certain phase, i.e. aqueous or oil phase, a raw material comprising a food emulsifier, some other ingredient in the raw material, or some other thing having weight?
The Office interprets the claims as reciting a wt% of the food emulsifier, based on the total weight of a raw material milk composition as used in the manner of claim 11.
Claims 3, 5-10, 12-13, 15-18, 20, 22-29 and 32 are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-13, 15, 17, 19-20, 22-23, 25 and 27-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 98/18337 A1 to Pingel et al. (Pingel).
All references to Pingel refer to the Clarivate machine translation, a copy of which is included with this Office action.
Unless otherwise stated, the Office considers any disclosure of whole milk or plainly “milk” in Pingel, to be whole cow’s milk which has a fat content of about 3-4 wt%.
The Office interprets claims 11, 19 and 30-31 reciting a wt% of a food emulsifier as meaning the wt% of the food emulsifier, based on the weight of a raw material milk. Further, the Office interprets claims 15 and 22 as reciting a wt% as a fat content, based the weight of any of the weight of the fermented milk, or the weight of a food composition containing it.
Regarding instant claims 11, 17, 19, 23 and 30-31, Pingel at page 3, 2nd to last full paragraph discloses a food composition as an oil in water emulsion comprising fermented dairy (“fermented milk”), and esters of fatty acids and sucrose (“sucrose fatty acid ester”) wherein (at page 7, 3rd full paragraph) the composition is not pasteurized (“comprises viable lactic acid bacteria” - claims 11, 19, 30 and 31). In the paragraph bridging pages 3 and 4, Pingel discloses sowing a milk based raw material with lactic acid bacteria (“adding a lactic acid bacterium starter to a raw material milk composition for fermentation” - claim 11) and fermenting. At page 4, 1st full paragraph, Pingel discloses inoculating in raw material milk several bacteria of the genus Lactobacillus (claims 17 and 23) as well as S. thermophilus as lactic acid bacteria. Further, at Example 1 on page 7 Pingel discloses adding in (“blending”- claim 30) an emulsifying agent (“food emulsifier”) to yogurt (“fermented milk”) during production of a fermented milk as in claims 19, 30 and 31. In Example 1, Pingel discloses adding 6g of a 10 wt% emulsifier solution of sucrose fatty acid esters (0.6 g) to 28 g of a yogurt to form a homogeneous phase as a total of (6g + 28g + other materials as 2g yogurt powder + 25g glucose syrup +2g sorbitol + 4g glycerin or) 67g, for an total amount of food emulsifier of about 1 wt% (claims 11, 19, 30 and 31) of the raw material milk as the disclosed yogurt composition.
Further regarding instant claims 30 and 31, the Office considers the claimed “method of modifying a flavor and/or texture of fermented milk, comprising blending a food emulsifier into a raw material composition during production of fermented milk” as in claim 30 and the “method for suppressing an increase in acidity of fermented milk during storage comprising adding a food emulsifier to fermented milk during production of fermented milk” as in claim 31 as including the mixing of a food emulsifier and a yogurt or fermented milk product disclosed in the method of Example 1 of Pingel at page 7 to make a food composition.
Regarding instant claims 12 and 20, at Example 1 on page 7, Pingel discloses palmitic (16C) and stearic (18C) sucrose fatty acid esters as food emulsifiers.
Regarding instant claims 13, 15, 22, 25 and 27-29, the Office considers the fermented milk product of Example 1 of Pingel to be substantially the same thing as the claimed fermented milk and to be a whole milk yogurt. Further, Pingel discloses no material in its fermented milk of Example 1 that contains iron or phytosterols and discloses adding no materials comprising calcium to the fermented milk. Accordingly, absent a clear showing as to how the phytosterol, iron or calcium content of the fermented milk or the food emulsifier in the fermented milk of Example 1 of Pingel differs from that of the fermented milk as claimed, the Office considers the fermented milk of Example 1 of Pingel to comprise a food emulsifier that has not been pre-treated with calcium or iron (claim 13); to comprise all of: A fermented milk that has a fat content of from 0 to 5.0 wt%, based on the weight of the fermented milk (claims 15 and 22); to comprise a composition that exhibits an increase (y%) in acidity after storage at x°C (4 < x < 35) for 14 days that satisfies a relational expression: y < 0.0115x + 0.025 (claim 25); to be substantially free of phytosterols (claim 27); a composition that has a calcium content of 1.5 wt% or less, based on nonfat milk solid content (claim 28); and, a composition that has an iron content of 0.001 wt% less, based on the weight of the fermented milk (claim 29). See MPEP 2112.01.I.
Regarding instant claims 17 and 23, in the paragraph bridging pages 3 and 4, Pingel discloses sowing a milk based raw material with lactic acid bacteria and (at page 4, 1st full paragraph) discloses inoculating in milk several bacterium of the genus Lactobacillus.
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, 3, 5-10 and 19-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5175015 to Kahn et al. (Kahn), of record.
The Office interprets claims 1 and 19 as reciting, for claim 1 a wt% of the food emulsifier that is based on a raw material composition which can be any raw material composition containing the food emulsifier; and, for claim 19, a wt% of the fermented milk. Further, the Office interprets claim 22 as reciting a wt% as a fat content, based any of the weight of the weight of the fermented milk, or the weight of a food composition containing it.
Regarding instant claims 1, 3, 6, 10, 19 and 23, Kahn at Example 2 on at col. 4, lines 29-41 and the Table accompanying at the top of col. 4 (Table) discloses a method for producing fermented milk which comprises viable lactic acid bacteria, the method comprising preparing a flavoring premix as disclosed in the Table (“preparing a raw material composition containing a food emulsifier”) in the amount of 1.795 g of which sodium stearoyl lactylate is 0.042 g or about 2.2 wt%, based on the weight of the of the premix (“at least 0.06 wt% of the raw material composition”- claims 1 and 19), followed by adding it to a skim milk, and pasteurizing and homogenizing. Then, Kahn discloses adding to the homogenized milk (“raw material milk composition” - claim 19) a lactic acid bacterium an amount of 5 wt% as a yogurt culture comprising a starter as Lactobacillus bulgaricus, a bacterium of the genus Lactobacillus (claims 10 and 23), and then incubating it to produce a fermented milk (claim 19). Kahn in the Table at the top of col. 4 discloses emulsifiers comprising sodium stearoyl lactylate, a stearic acid ester (having “an unsaturated fatty acid content of 30% or less” -claim 6).
Further regarding instant claims 1 and 19, Kahn does not disclose an amount of the food emulsifier of 0.06 wt% or more, based on the total weight of a raw material as in claim 1 or a fermented milk as in claim 19. However, Kahn at col. 2, lines 10-17 discloses a fermented milk product comprising 1 to 5 wt% of the flavoring premix (“raw material”), which premix comprises about 6 to about 10 wt% of emulsifier, wherein the disclosed emulsifier itself comprises (at col. 2, lines 36-39) 23-43 wt% of a stearoyl lactylate, or a total amount of stearoyl lactylate of from about 0.002 wt% (23 wt% of the 6 wt% of emulsifier in a premix as 1 wt% of a fermented milk, based on the amount of fermented milk as in claim 19) to about 0.215 wt% (43 wt% of the 10 wt% of emulsifier in a premix as 5 wt% of a fermented milk, based on the amount of fermented milk), which the disclosed range the claimed at least 0.06 wt% of the raw or fermented milk overlaps. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", the Office considers that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.I. The ordinary skilled artisan in Kahn would have found it obvious to use the claimed amount of a stearoyl lactylate in a fermented milk because Kahn discloses that such amounts of stearoyl lactylate make a desirable fermented milk product.
Regarding instant claim 5, the Office considers the recited polyglycerol fatty acid ester to be optional. While the Office considers optional claim limitations, the claims themselves do not require them.
Regarding instant claims 7-8, 21-22 and 26, the fermented milk of Example 2 of Kahn comprises a food emulsifier in the amount of (0.056 + 0.042 - from the Table in Example 1) or 0.098 wt% of the total fermented milk g/100g (claim 7 and 21). The Office considers the emulsifier content in claims 7 and 21 as including the amount of any emulsifier or mixture of emulsifiers comprising any of the claimed food emulsifiers in any amount. Further, Table 1 of Kahn on col. 4 discloses that fermented milk made from the milk product comprises 1.17 wt% fat (claims 8 and 22) and 3.15 wt% protein (claim 26), based on the weight of the fermented milk.
Regarding instant claims 9, 24-25 and 27-29, the Office considers the fermented milk product of Example 2 of Kahn that comprises 5 wt% of a yogurt culture incubated at 43 °C for 16 hours to be substantially the same thing as the claimed fermented milk. Also, Table 1 at col. 4 of Kahn discloses its fermented nonfat milk as having 10.47 wt% solids. Further, Kahn discloses no material in its fermented milk of Example 2 that contains phytosterols (claim 9) or iron, and discloses (in the Table at the top of col. 4) 0.3 wt% of the fermented milk as tri-calcium phosphate or about 0.12 wt% of calcium, which is a calcium content of 0.12/10.47 or about 1.2 wt% on nonfat milk solids (claim 28). Accordingly, absent a clear showing as to how the phytosterol content of the fermented milk or food emulsifier, the bacteria count and the calcium and iron content of the fermented milk of Example 2 of Kahn differs from that of the fermented milk as claimed, the Office considers the fermented milk of Example 2 of Kahn to comprise a food emulsifier that has not been pre-treated with any phytosterol (claim 9), to comprise Lactobacillus bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophilus in bacteria counts of at least 1X 106 cfu/ml (claim 24), to exhibit an increase (y%) in acidity after storage at x°C (4 < x < 35) for 14 days that satisfies a relational expression: y < 0.0115x + 0.025 (claim 25), to be substantially free of phytosterols (claim 27), and to have an iron content of 0.001 wt% less of the weight of the fermented milk (claim 29). See MPEP 2112.01.I.
Regarding instant claim 20, the Office considers the recited sucrose fatty acid ester to be optional. While the Office considers optional claim limitations, the claims themselves do not require them.
Regarding instant claim 30, the claimed “method of modifying a flavor and/or texture of fermented milk, comprising blending a food emulsifier into a raw material composition during production of fermented milk” includes the homogenizing of the skim milk disclosed in Kahn at Example 1 at col. 4, lines 1-19 followed by in Example 2 of Kahn inoculating the milk product and incubating it.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5175015 to Kahn et al. (Kahn) as applied to claim 3, above, and further in view of WO2014148633 A1 to Matsuura et al. (Matsuura), of record.
All references to Matsuura refer to the machine translation submitted by Applicants.
As applied to claim 3, Kahn discloses at Example 2 and the Table on the top of col. 4 a method for producing fermented milk comprising viable lactic acid bacteria, the method comprising preparing a raw material composition containing a food emulsifier and adding a lactic acid bacteria starter to the raw material composition for fermentation, wherein the food emulsifier comprises at least one fatty acid ester selected from the group consisting of sucrose fatty acid esters, monoglycerides, organic acid monoglycerides, polyglycerol fatty acid esters having an average 20 polymerization degree of 3 or less and having palmitic acid as a constituent fatty acid, and stearoyl lactylates in the amount of at least 0.06 wt%.
Kahn does not disclose a polyglycerol fatty acid ester having palmitic acid as a constituent fatty acid wherein the polyglycerol has an average polymerization degree of less than 3. Be advised that claim 5 does not actually require any polyglycerol fatty acid ester but rather recites the same list of food emulsifiers as in claim 1, from which it depends, including a polyglycerol fatty acid ester.
Matsuura in the Abstract at page 1 discloses an emulsified milk drink or food product having (at [0007]) good emulsion stability and flavor over a long storage time and comprising (at [0029]) on page 8 a polyglycerol fatty acid ester having an average degree of polymerization of 2-3 for high efficacy against bacteria and, as constituent fatty acids, 16 carbon atom fatty acids because of high efficacy against bacteria. Further, at [0049] Matsuura discloses lactic acid bacteria beverages and yogurt as emulsion compositions (“fermented milk”). The Office considers the 16 carbon fatty acid constituent in the polyglycerol fatty acid ester of [0029] of Matsuura to include palmitic acid.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Matsuura for Kahn to use as its food emulsifier a polyglycerol fatty acid ester that has an average polymerization degree of less than 3 and a palmitic acid as a constituent fatty acid. Both references disclose fermented milk and milk emulsion compositions comprising food emulsifiers and having stability properties. The ordinary skilled artisan working in Kahn would have desired to include as its food emulsifier a polyglycerol fatty acid ester that has an average polymerization degree of less than 3 and a palmitic acid as a constituent fatty acid to make its fermented milk product more resistant to bacteria upon storage and over time.
Claims 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 26 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 98/18337 A1 to Pingel et al. (Pingel) as applied to claims 11, 19 and 31, above.
All references to Pingel refer to the Clarivate machine translation, a copy of which is included with this Office action.
Unless otherwise stated, the Office considers any disclosure of whole milk or milk, as in Pingel, to be whole cow’s milk which has a fat content of about 3-4 wt%.
As applied to claims 11, 19 and 31, Pingel discloses in the paragraph bridging pages 3 and 4 and in Example 1 on page 7 a fermented milk comprising viable lactic acid bacteria and a method for producing the fermented milk and suppressing an increase in the acidity of the fermented milk during storage, the method comprising adding a lactic acid bacteria starter to a raw material milk, fermenting the milk and adding a food emulsifier to the resulting fermented milk, wherein the food emulsifier comprises at least one fatty acid ester selected from the group consisting of sucrose fatty acid esters, monoglycerides, organic acid monoglycerides, polyglycerol fatty acid esters having an average polymerization degree of 3 or less and having palmitic acid as a constituent fatty acid, and stearoyl lactylates in the amount of at least 0.06 wt%.
The Office interprets claims 11 and 19 as reciting a wt% of the food emulsifier, based on any of the weight of the fermented milk or the weight of a raw material milk composition containing it.
Regarding instant claims 14 and 21, Pingel does not disclose an example in which a fermented milk or method of making a fermented milk has a food emulsifier in the amount of 0.06 to 0.45 wt%, based on the weight of a raw material milk, the fermented milk or a food composition comprising them. However, at page 4, 4th to last full paragraph, Pingel discloses food compositions having from 0.1 to 2.0 wt% of a sucrose fatty acid ester, within which lies the claimed 0.06 to 0.45 wt%, based on the weight of a fermented milk or a food composition containing it. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", the Office considers that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.I. The ordinary skilled artisan in Pingel would have found it obvious to use the claimed amount of a food emulsifier in a fermented milk or food composition comprising a fermented milk because Pingel discloses that such amounts of sucrose fatty acid esters make a desirable fermented milk product which is (at page 4, 2nd full paragraph) a stable emulsion.
Regarding instant claims 16 and 24, Pingel does not disclose a total number of viable of Lactobacillus bulgaricus and S. thermophilus bacteria in its fermented milk of counts of at least 1X 106 cfu/ml (“comprises lactic acid bacteria”). However, in the paragraph bridging pages 3 and 4, Pingel discloses sowing a milk based raw material with lactic acid bacteria and (at page 4, 1st full paragraph), Pingel discloses several bacterium of the genus Lactobacillus, including Lactobacillus bulgaricus as well as S. thermophilus as lactic acid bacteria to yield bacteria counts of at least 1X 105 cfu/ml (“comprises viable lactic acid bacteria”), within which the claimed at least 1X 106 cfu/ml in claims 16 and 24 lies. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", the Office considers that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.I. The ordinary skilled artisan in Pingel would have desired to ferment its raw material milk with Lactobacillus bulgaricus and S. thermophilus as lactic acid bacteria to produce the claimed bacterial count in its fermentation because Pingel discloses that Lactobacillus bulgaricus S. thermophilus give desirable fermented milk products and discloses that a number of bacteria including the claimed total number of viable bacteria provide a desirable fermented milk product.
Regarding instant claims 18, 26 and 32, Pingel at page 4, 1st full paragraph discloses whole or skimmed raw material milk as a desirable fodder or starting material. The Office considers the claimed fermented milk having a protein content of at least 2.7 wt%, based on the weight of the fermented milk to include the whole milk or skimmed milk of Pingel. Accordingly, the ordinary skilled artisan in Pingel would have desired to make a fermented milk having the claimed protein content and formulate its product as a fermented milk to have the claimed protein content, including from fermenting the whole or skim milk of Pingel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-31 and the art of Lv have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In view of the amendment dated August 13, 2025, the following rejections have been withdrawn as moot:
The rejections of claims 1, 3-6 and 18 as being indefinite in regard to the claim 1 the recited “method for producing a fermented milk comprising adding a food emulsifier” and the claim 3 and claim 4 recited term “monoglycerides, organic acid monoglycerides”;
The rejections of claims 1-10 and 19-30 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5175015 to Kahn et al;
The rejections of claims 1, 11-17 and 19-25 and 27-31 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN107927170 A to Lv et al.; and,
The rejections of claims 18 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by CN107927170 A to Lv et al.
Regarding the position taken in the remarks accompanying the amendment dated August 13, 2025 (Reply), the positions have been fully considered but are not found persuasive for the following reasons:
Regarding the position taken that the claims do not recite mono and diglycerides, respectfully the claims are open ended; and, accordingly, art such as Kahn disclosing food emulsifiers other than those claimed can still read on or render obvious the claims.
Regarding the position taken that the art of Kahn does not disclose at least 0.06 wt% of stearoyl lactylates as in claim 1, respectfully, the claims recite an amount of food emulsifiers comprising stearoyl lactylates, sucrose fatty acid esters and a polyglycerol fatty acid aster having an average polymerization degree of 3 or less and having palmitic acid as a constituent fatty acid and other food emulsifier. The claims are open ended. Accordingly, Kahn in disclosing food emulsifiers other than those claimed would still read on the claims so long as the food emulsifier includes some of the recited food emulsifiers and tie total amount of food emulsifier is at least 0.06 wt%. Moreover, claim 1 does not limit a raw material composition, for example so that it comprises milk. Still further, claims 1 and 19 do not provide a basis for the recited amount of food emulsifier; and each claim is interpreted broadly to include at least 0.06 wt% of the food emulsifier, based on any of the weight of a raw material composition not comprising milk, a fermented milk, or a product food composition.
Regarding the position taken that the art of Kahn do not disclose other embodiments aside from its Examples 1 and 2, respectfully the facts show otherwise. Kahn at col. 4, lines 4-60 discloses a raw material as a premix containing a range of amounts of food emulsifiers, wherein the claimed stearoyl lactylate is present in a range of amounts and wherein the emulsifiers themselves can comprise a number of the emulsifiers including a genera of the claimed polyglycerol esters of palmitic acid.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment reciting fermented milk comprising viable lactic acid bacteria 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 ANDREW E MERRIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-H 8:00A-5:30P and alternate Fridays 8:30A-5P.
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 on (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.
/A.E.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791