DETAILED ACTION
Background
The amendment dated March 02, 2026 (amendment) amending claim 1, canceling instant claims 2-5, 7-8 and 10-17 and adding new claims 18-36 has been entered. Claims 1 and 18-36 as filed with the amendment have been examined. Claims 2-17 have been canceled. In view of the amendment, all outstanding objections to the claims and all outstanding rejections of canceled claims 2-5, 7-8 and 10-17 have been withdrawn.
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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
At [058] on page 12, at line 3 after “polyoxyethylene” replace [[(2)]] with --(20)--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, at line 2, before “micellar casein” insert --of --;
at line 4, before “dipotassium phosphate” insert --of --;
at line 6, before “mono and diglycerides” insert --of --;
at line 8, after “glyceryl distearate” insert -- are--;
at line 10, before “polysorbate 80” insert --of --;
at line 13, before “palm oil” insert --of --;
at line 18, before “sodium stearoyl lactylate” insert --of --;
at line 20, before “carrageenan” insert --of --; and,
at line 21, before “sucrose” insert --of --; and,
at line 26 before “its foam characteristics” replace [[retaining]] with --retains--; and,
In claim 29, at line 2, before “palm oil” insert --of --;
at line 3, before “micellar casein” insert --of --;
at line 5, before “mono- and diglycerides” insert --of --;
at line 8, before “polysorbate 80” insert --of --;
at line 10, before “sodium stearoyl lactylate” insert --of --;
at line 12, before “carrageenan” insert --of --;
at line 13, before “dipotassium phosphate” insert --of --; and,
at line 15, before “sucrose” insert --of --; and,
at line 18 before “its foam characteristics” replace [[retaining]] with --retains--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 18-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The recited “glyceryl monostearate and glyceryl distearate present in amount of about 60 percent by weight to about 80 percent by weight based on the total weight of the mixture of mono and diglycerides” in claim 1 at lines 7-9 and in claim 29 at lines 6-7 the recited “glyceryl monostearate and glyceryl distearate comprise 60 to 80 weight percent of the mono- and diglycerides” do not have support in the written description. The instant specification at [0107] discloses the mono and diglycerides as being glyceryl monostearate and glyceryl distearate, or 100% of glyceryl monostearate and glyceryl distearate. The instant specification at [0110] discloses a range glyceryl monostearate to glyceryl distearate of from about 60 to about 80 weight percent (wt%), or 60 to 80 wt% as much glyceryl monostearate as glyceryl distearate. None of those disclosures provides a written description of the claimed subject matter.
In view of the disclosure in the instant specification at [0110], the Office interprets the claimed mixture of glyceryl monostearate and glyceryl distearate as comprising 60 to 80 wt% of glyceryl monostearate, based on the total weight of glyceryl distearate.
Claims 18-28 and 30-36 are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
Be advised that upon an amendment to overcome the written description rejection presented above, a previous art rejection may apply against the claims as they are amended.
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 20 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. Claim 20, which depends from claim 1 recites from 0.1 to 0.5 weight percent of sodium stearoyl lactylate, based on the total weight of the composition; claim 1 recites the same sodium stearoyl lactylate in the same amount. 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 Office 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, 18-20 and 22-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2013/0108770 A1 to LaFirenza (LaFirenza) in view of US2016/0374360 A1 to Merrill et al. (Merrill), US4853243 to Kahn et al. (Kahn), of record, and US4415600 to Miller et al. (Miller).
Unless otherwise disclosed, the Office considers a disclosure of any % without units to mean a weight % (wt%), and considers wt% to be interchangeable with mass %.
The Office considers a disclosure sugar as including table sugar or sucrose; further, the Office considers any disclosure of a salt in a food, without more, as including sodium chloride.
In view of the disclosure in the instant specification at [0110], the Office interprets the claimed mixture of glyceryl monostearate and glyceryl distearate as comprising 60 to 80 wt% of glyceryl monostearate, based on the total weight of glyceryl distearate.
Regarding instant claims 1, 19-20, 22 and 29, LaFirenza at Abstract discloses non-dairy creams (a “composition” in claim 1 and a “liquid non-dairy composition” as in claim 29) comprising a non-dairy base and stabilizers, the compositions including products as (at [0010]) creamers or whiteners for hot beverages and whipped toppings. In Table 1 and [0032], LaFirenza discloses a creamer which comprises 0.5 to 15 weight % (wt%) of palm oil, within which range the claimed 7.5 to 8.5 wt% in claims 1 and 29 lies; from 1 to 35 wt% of sugar (“sucrose”), within which range the claimed 15 to 18 wt% in claims 1 and 29 lies; from 0.1 to 2 wt% of a caseinate, within which range the claimed 0.75 to 1.25 wt% of micellar casein lies; from 0.01 to 1 wt% of polysorbate 60, within which range the claimed 0.2 to 1 wt% in claims 1 and 29 lies and within which range the claimed 0.5 to 1 wt% in claim 19 lies; from 0.1 to 1 wt% of sodium stearoyl lactylate, within which range the claimed 0.1 to 0.5 wt% in claims 1, 20 and 29 lies; from 0.1 to 1 wt% of salt (claim 22) from 0.01 to 1 wt% of carrageenan (a “gum”), within which range the claimed 0.2 to 1.0 wt% in claims 1 and 29 lies; from 0.01 to 1.0 wt% of dipotassium phosphate, within which range the claimed 0.1 to 2.0 wt% in claims 1 and 29 lies; from 0.01 to 1 wt% of mono and diglycerides, within which range the claimed 0.5 to 0.8 wt% in claims 1 and 29 lies; and water. 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 LaFirenza would have found it obvious to use the claimed amounts of sucrose, palm oil, casein containing materials, mono and diglycerides, polyglycerol esters of fatty acids, sodium stearoyl lactylate, dipotassium phosphate and carrageenan in its non-dairy liquid creamer composition because LaFirenza discloses that the claimed amounts of all such ingredients make a desirable creamer composition.
Further and regarding instant claim 18, LaFirenza does not disclose a composition comprising from 0.75 to 1.25 wt% of micellar casein; LaFirenza does not disclose as an emulsifier a mixture of mono and diglycerides of edible fatty acids comprising 60 to 80 wt% of the glyceryl monostearate based on the total weight of glyceryl distearate; and, LaFirenza does not disclose polysorbate 80 (polyoxyethylene (20) sorbitan monooleate). However, LaFirenza at [0026] discloses polysorbates generally as suitable emulsifier; and, at Table 1 LaFirenza discloses from 0.1 to 2 wt% of a caseinate as a non-dairy base. In addition, LaFirenza does not disclose its mono and diglycerides as consisting essentially of glyceryl monostearate and glyceryl distearate as in claim 18.
Merrill at [0007] discloses a coffee creamer or other dairy product comprising micellar casein in the amount of (at [0011]) from 1 to 15 wt% of solids and providing enhanced mouthfeel, wherein (at [0039]), the micellar casein fully or in part replaces casein salts. Further, the creamer of Merrill comprises (at [0041]) palm oil, (at [0042]) sucrose, (at [0043]) dipotassium phosphate, and (at [0044]) a stabilizer including mono and diglycerides and polysorbates. At [0049], Merrill discloses viscosity improvers such as carrageenan. Finally, at Table 1, on page 8 Merrill discloses a liquid coffee creamer comprising about 80 wt% water.
Kahn at col. 2, lines 11-20 and col. 2, lines 54-56 discloses a whippable water in oil emulsion as a liquid composition, wherein at col. 3, lines 1-9 the fats can comprise palm oil as an oil melting at from 85 to 120 °F and containing saturated fats. At Example 3 on col. 9, line 63 to col. 10, line 15 in the Table discloses whey containing premixes comprising oil, and carrageenan (SEAKEM C at col. 2, lines 55-60) and 6.7 wt%, based on the total weight of the premix, of ICE II (at col. 9, lines 5-7), which is a blend of 20 wt% of polysorbate 80 (polyoxyethylene (20) sorbitan monooleate), and 80 wt% of mono- and diglycerides of stearic acids. Further, at col. 10, lines 25-35 (in the Table) and 54-57, Kahn discloses stable whipped products comprising water and 3 wt% of the emulsion as a premix with sweeteners including sucrose, corn syrup and dairy ingredients. The ordinary skilled artisan in Kahn would have desired to use as an emulsifier a mixture of mono and diglycerides of edible fatty acids comprising glyceryl monostearate and glyceryl distearate and polysorbate 80 (polyoxyethylene (20) sorbitan monooleate) because Kahn discloses that the claimed emulsifiers makes a desirable stable whipped emulsion composition.
Miller at Abstract discloses coffee whiteners which require less caseinate or protein for stability wherein (at col. 3, line 65 to col. 4, line 35) suitable emulsifiers having an HLB of not more than 5 that comprise mono and diglycerides sold as DUR-em 117 and Dur-em 114 wherein the minimum monoglyceride content is 40 wt%, or at least about 66 wt%, based on the total weight of diglyceride, which the claimed range of 60 to 80 wt% monoglyceride, based on the total weight of diglycerides overlaps. See MPEP 2144.05.I. The ordinary skilled artisan in Miller would have found it obvious to use the claimed mono and diglycerides wherein the mono and diglycerides present in amount of about 60 percent by weight to about 80 percent by weight based on the total weight of the diglyceride because Miller discloses that such a mono and diglyceride emulsifier provides a stable coffee creamer.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Merrill for LaFirenza to use micellar casein as its non-dairy base. Both references disclose stable non-dairy liquid creamers comprising proteins isolated from milk, as well as oil, sucrose, mono and diglycerides, sodium stearoyl lactylate, dipotassium phosphate and carrageenan. The ordinary skilled artisan in LaFirenza would have desired to use the micellar casein of Merrill as its non-dairy base to provide an improved mouthfeel and dairy flavor as compared with caseinates.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Kahn for LaFirenza to select as its emulsifier a mixture of mono and diglycerides of edible fatty acids, including glyceryl stearate and glyceryl distearate and polysorbate 80 (polyoxyethylene (20) sorbitan monooleate), and, further wherein, the mono and diglycerides consist essentially of glyceryl monostearate and glyceryl distearate as in claim 18. Both references disclose stabilized whippable or foamable cream or creamer compositions and both disclose emulsifiers comprising a blend of emulsifiers including mono and diglycerides and polysorbates. The ordinary skilled artisan reading LaFirenza would have desired to use the ICE II blend of 20 wt% of polysorbate 80 and 80 wt% of mono- and diglycerides of stearic acids of Kahn in to make whippable emulsion products (as disclosed at col. 3, lines 10-18 of Kahn) that form stable dispersions and enhance the aeration of those emulsions.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Miller for LaFirenza as modified by Kahn to use the claimed glyceryl monostearate in amount of about 60 percent by weight to about 80 percent by weight based on the total weight of glyceryl distearate in its cream or creamer composition. All references disclose milk protein containing cream or creamer compositions comprising mono and diglycerides. The ordinary skilled artisan in LaFirenza as modified by Kahn would have desired to use the claimed ratio of glyceryl monostearate, based on the amount of glyceryl distearate to insure the stability of its composition containing a reduced protein content.
Still further, and regarding instant claims 23-28 and 31-35, LaFirenza at [0035] discloses its compositions as dispersions of water insoluble ingredients formed by mixing or mechanical agitation and that (at [0036]) are homogenized. The Office considers a homogenized composition of LaFirenza at Table 1 as modified by Merrill at [0007], Kahn at Example 3 and col. 9, lines 5-7 and Miller at Abstract and col. 3, line 65 to col. 4, line 35 to be substantially the same thing as the claimed oil in water emulsion. Accordingly, absent a clear showing as to how the composition of LaFirenza as modified by Merrill, Kahn and Miller differs from that as claimed, the Office considers the composition of LaFirenza at Table 1 and [0036] as modified by Merrill at [0007], Kahn at Example 3 and col. 9, lines 5-7 and Miller at Abstract and col. 3, line 65 to col. 4, line 35 to be a composition wherein, after shaking, 60 mL of the composition added to 8 ounces of hot coffee forms a foam layer having a height of at least 5 cm and retaining its foam characteristics for at least 5 minutes without the use of steam or compressed gas as in claims 1 and 29; and, further, the Office considers the composition to be each of:
an oil-in-water emulsion as in claims 23 and 31; an emulsion having a volume-weighted mean particle size D[4,3] of less than 1 µm as measured by laser diffraction as in claims 24 and 32; an emulsion wherein more than 90 percent by volume of the particles have a diameter below 1 µm as in claims 25 and 33;
a composition wherein the foam layer comprises closely packed bubbles as in claims 26 and 34; a composition wherein the foam layer is retained for greater than 5 minutes as in claim 27; and, a composition that remains physically stable at refrigerator temperature without phase separation as in claims 28 and 35.
Regarding instant claim 36, LaFirenza at Table 1 discloses a creamer composition containing no milk fat and which is “substantially free of milk fat”.
.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2013/0108770 A1 to LaFirenza (LaFirenza) in view of US2016/0374360 A1 to Merrill et al. (Merrill), US 4853243 to Kahn et al. (Kahn) and US 4415600 to Miller et al. (Miller) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US 9,101,149 B2 to Napolitano et al. (Napolitano).
As applied to claim 1, above LaFirenza at Table 1 and [0036] as modified by Merrill at [0007], Kahn at Example 3 and col. 9, lines 5-7 and Miller at Abstract and col. 3, line 65 to col. 4, line 35 discloses a foaming composition comprising a micellar casein, dipotassium phosphate, mono and diglycerides of edible fatty acids glyceryl monostearate and glyceryl distearate, polysorbate 80 (Polyoxyethylene (20) sorbitan monooleate), a gum, palm oil, sodium stearoyl lactylate, carrageenan and water.
LaFirenza as modified by Merrill, Kahn and Miller does not disclose a composition comprising kappa carrageenan as its carrageenan.
Napolitano at Abstract discloses a creamer comprising oil. At col. 3, line 13 to col 4, lines 12, Napolitano discloses its composition comprising a suitable protein from milk, emulsifiers as mono and diglycerides and/or sorbitan monooleate, dipotassium phosphate, sucrose and water. Further, at col. 4, lines 27-33 Napolitano discloses its composition as a homogenized oil-in-water emulsion. As disclosed at col. 2, lines 60-64, Napolitano discloses its creamer comprising a hydrocolloid including kappa-carrageenan.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Napolitano for LaFirenza to make its creamer comprising kappa carrageenan. Both references disclose stabilized vegetable oil in water emulsions comprising proteins and carrageenan as stable cream or creamer compositions. The ordinary skilled artisan in LaFirenza as modified by Merrill, Kahn and Miller would have desired to use the kappa carrageenan of Napolitano as its carrageenan to provide a desirable stability in its oil-in-water emulsion product.
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendment dated March 02, 2026, the following rejections have been withdrawn as moot:
The rejections of claims 1-5, 7-8 and 10-11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in regard to the recited percent by weight of glyceryl monostearate and glyceryl distearate in claim 1 as lacking a basis for the percent by weight;
The rejections of claims 1-5, 7 and 10-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 103315071 A to Chen et al. in view of US 4853243 to Kahn et al.; and,
The rejections of 1 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 103315071 A to Chen et al. in view of US 4853243 to Kahn et al. and WO 2020099234 A to Fu et al.
Regarding the position taken in the remarks accompanying the amendment dated March 02, 2026 (Reply) at page 6 that the basis for the amount of glyceryl monostearate in the claims is now definite, the Office agrees and appreciates the Applicants’ effort in addressing the rejection. However, the Office respectfully disagrees with position taken that the amended claim 1 now complies with the patent laws. The instant specification at [0110] and [0111] does not provide a proper written description to support the language “glyceryl monostearate in amount of about 60 percent by weight to about 80 percent by weight based on the total weight of mono and diglycerides”. The instant specification at [0110] recites an amount of glyceryl monostearate relative only to the amount of glyceryl distearate. Moreover, the 10-20 wt% amount of polysorbate 80 disclosed in the instant specification at [0111] would lead to a total emulsifier mixture having 80-90 wt% of total mono and diglycerides and not the recited proportion of 60 to 80 wt%. Even then, the instant specification at [0110]-[0111] says nothing about the relative amount anything compared to total mono and diglycerides. Be advised that polysorbate 80 does not comprise any glycerides or other glycerol residue.
Regarding the position taken in the Reply at pages 7-13 with respect to Chen and Fu, the arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Chen or Fu as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding the position taken in the Reply at page 7 that Kahn discloses specific fats for which its emulsifier system is tailored, respectfully this position is not found persuasive. Kahn at col.3, lines 1-9 discloses a desire to use the same palm oil as is claimed.
Regarding the position taken in the Reply at pages 7-8 that Kahn is in some other “use category” from that claimed, respectfully claim 1 recites a “composition”. Even if somehow the claim could be read to recite a liquid foaming creamer, the Office will only accord weight to an intended use feature to the extent that it results in a structural difference between the claimed method and that of the art. See MPEP 2111.02.II. The composition recited is an oil in water emulsion and cannot by that fact alone be distinguished over the art.
Regarding the position taken in the Reply at pages 8-9 that the art does not disclose micellar casein, respectfully Kahn is not relied upon for this feature.
Regarding the position taken in the Reply at pages 8 and 9-10 that the art does not disclose the alleged “functional foaming limitation”, Kahn is not relied on for this feature. The claimed foaming “when… the composition is added to… hot coffee” is in fact a conditional test result. While the Office considers test results, the claim itself does not require that any composition be added to hot coffee.
Regarding the position taken in the Reply at pages 7-8 and the use of polysorbate 80 (polyoxyethylene (20) sorbitan monooleate) and that a difference in fats would discourage a skilled formulator would be discouraged from using the claimed emulsifier mixture, this position is respectfully not found persuasive. The claims and the art disclosed formulation recites nothing more than selection of an emulsifier from a known and disclosed emulsifier list in Kahn (at col. 3, lines 16-22) for use in making whipped compositions containing milk proteins with the saturated fats in each of Chen (at [0034]) and Kahn (at col. 3, lines 1-9) and for use generally with all fats disclosed in either Chen or Kahn.
Regarding the position taken in the Reply at pages 10-11 that the rejection improperly attempts to dissect the art, the rejection does not rely on any combination of Chen with Kahn. However, be advised that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Kahn may properly be used to disclose the advantages of using the same emulsifiers as mono and diglycerides and polysorbates combined in the same way with water and palm oil to make the same emulsion or dispersion with the expectation that the combination provides stability in the composition.
Regarding the position taken in the Reply at pages 12-13 and Kahn, the positions taken merely reiterate the positions taken earlier in the Reply. These positions are respectfully regarded as a general allegation of patentability and are accorded no patentable weight. See 36 CFR 1.111(b), last sentence.
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 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
Prosecution Insights