DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
The amendment filed March 9, 2025 has been entered. Claim 24 has been cancelled and claims 41-45 are new. Claims 1-23 and 25-45 are pending examination.
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.
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 34 is 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.
As amended, claim 34 requires where during the protein-containing particle size reducing step (b), at least 75% of the protein-containing particles are reduced to a particle size of less than 45 microns. Paragraph [0055] of the present specification states the particles are processed by the particle size reduced until more than 75% of the particles have a size of between 10 microns and 30 microns. The specification does not state the that at least 75% of the protein-containing particles are reduced to a particle size of less than 45 microns.
Claims 3-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 3, the recitation “substantially all of the protein-containing particles are reduced to a particle size of less than 45 microns” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear what proportion of the particles is represented by the term “substantially all.”
Claims 4-17 are rejected because they are dependent from a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-23 and 15-45 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Player et al. (US 4,748,041).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5, 28 and 29, Player et al. disclose a method of making a squeezable composition that is shelf-stable, stable against phase separation, squeezable at room temperature and having a pasty consistency and stand-up similar to a cheese dip (Abstract, C2/L30-59). Player et al. disclose the composition comprises an oil carrier (C3/L44-C5/L22), emulsifier (C5/L23-C6/L9) and a bulking ingredient wherein the bulking ingredient can include freeze-dried fruit powder, dried cheese powder and/or other bland, friable, non-hydroscopic bulking ingredients including non-fat dry milk, non-fat buttermilk solids, defatted soy protein, caseinate and starch (C2/L37-59, C6/L11-C8/L16).
Player et al. disclose a method A comprising the steps of: (a) mixing the bulking ingredients together to obtain a mixture of dry solids; (b) milling the mixture of dry solids using a ball mill to obtain dry solid having an average particle size less than about 50 microns (C9/10-15); and (c) mixing the milled dry solids with the lipid portion in a commercial mixer to a homogenous state (C9/L5-36). In the alternative, Player et al. disclose a method B comprising the steps of: (a) mixing all of the ingredients, including oil carrier, emulsifier and bulking ingredients, together to obtain a mixture; (b) subjecting the mixture to roll refining in a 3-roll mill (reducing the size of the dry solids to a size less than about 50 microns -i.e., reducing the size of protein-containing particles); and mixing the refined mixture to a homogenous state (C9/L5-35).
While Player et al. disclose a method A wherein the size of the protein-containing particles (i.e., bulking ingredients such as dried cheese powder, non-fat dry milk, non-fat buttermilk solids, defatted soy protein and caseinate) are reduced in size by milling, the reference does not disclose milling the protein-containing particles with the fat-containing carrier (i.e., oil carrier).
However, selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP §2144.04 IIIC).
Moreover, while Player et al. disclose in methods A and B, adding starch as one of the bulking ingredients, the reference does not disclose adding the starch after protein-containing particles have been reduced in size.
However, selection of any order of adding ingredients in prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP §2144.04 IIIC).
Given Player et al. disclose a method of making a composition substantially similar to that presently claimed, intrinsically the oil carrier would be absorbed by the starch and form a matrix wherein the reduced-sized bulking ingredients (i.e., protein-containing particles) would be suspended in the oil carrier.
Regarding claim 2, Player et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Given Player et al. disclose a composition comprising the components of the present application, having the ability to be squeezed from a deformable plastic bottle through an opening as small as about two millimeters in diameter, and having the consistency of a dip that can be picked up from a container with a substrate as frangible as a chip, it necessarily follows the composition would be pumpable and display a viscosity greater than 250,000 centipoise.
Regarding claim 4, Player et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Given in methods A and B, Player et al. disclose a process where the emulsifier combined with the bulking ingredients (i.e., protein-containing particles) before refining or after milling, it necessarily follows the reduced sized dry ingredients (i.e., protein-containing particles) would become coated with the emulsifier.
Regarding claims 6-9, Player et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Player et al. disclose a composition comprising less than 2% of a lipophilic ester (e.g., mono-glycerides) and 0.3 to 0.5% lecithin as emulsifiers in the entire composition (C5/L31-C6/L9).
Given Player et al. disclose emulsifiers in amounts greater than 1.5% of the entire composition, intrinsically the emulsifier would be in excess wherein the excess would act as a humectant within the composition.
Regarding claim 10, Player et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Given Player et al. disclose the composition is anhydrous and has a moisture content of about 3.5% by weight and requires no refrigeration (C1/L17-20), intrinsically the composition would exhibit the claimed water activity without use of any preservative in the filling. Player et al. does not disclose preservative in the composition.
Regarding claims 11-13, Player et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Player et al. disclose emulsifier is mixed with the bulking ingredients (i.e., protein-containing particles) before or after particle size reduction, the reference does not disclose adding additional emulsifier at the particle reduction step. However, selection of any order of adding ingredients in prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP §2144.04 IIIC).
Regarding claim 14, Player et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Given Player et al. disclose the composition is anhydrous and has a moisture content of about 3.5% by weight and requires no refrigeration (C1/L17-20), intrinsically the composition would exhibit the claimed water activity without use of any preservative in the filling. Player et al. does not disclose preservative in the composition.
Regarding claim 15-17, Player et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Player et al. disclose reducing the size of the bulking ingredients (i.e., protein-containing particles-C9/L10-15). Player et al. is silent with respect to temperature. However, given Player et al. does not disclose operating the particle reduction at a specific temperature, it necessarily follows the process is conducted at room temperature (i.e., about 20°C or about 68°F).
Regarding claim 18, Player et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Player et al. disclose a composition comprising less than 2% of a lipophilic ester (e.g., mono-glycerides) and 0.3 to 0.5% lecithin as emulsifiers in the entire composition (C5/L31-C6/L9). Here, lecithin and lipophilic esters are considered both emulsifiers and humectants.
Regarding claim 19, Player et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Player et al. disclose emulsifier is mixed with the bulking ingredients (i.e., protein-containing particles) before or after particle size reduction, the reference does not disclose adding additional emulsifier at the particle reduction step. However, selection of any order of adding ingredients in prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP §2144.04 IIIC).
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Player et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Player et al. disclose a composition comprising less than 2% of a lipophilic ester (e.g., mono-glycerides) and 0.3 to 0.5% lecithin as emulsifiers in the entire composition (C5/L31-C6/L9).
Given Player et al. disclose emulsifiers in amounts greater than 1.5% of the entire composition, intrinsically the emulsifier would be in excess wherein the excess would act as a humectant within the composition.
Regarding claims 22-23, Player et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Player et al. disclose emulsifier is mixed with the bulking ingredients (i.e., protein-containing particles) before or after particle size reduction, the reference does not explicitly disclose adding emulsifier during the particle reduction step, during the mixing step (c) However, selection of any order of adding ingredients in prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP §2144.04 IIIC).
Regarding claims 25-26, Player et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Player et al. disclose a composition comprising less than 2% of a lipophilic ester (e.g., mono-glycerides) and 0.3 to 0.5% lecithin as emulsifiers in the entire composition (C5/L31-C6/L9).
Regarding claim 27, Player et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Given Player et al. disclose adding lecithin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have added lecithin for any food grade source, including soy and arrive at the present invention with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 30-33, Player et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Player et la. disclose a bland, hydrolyzed, non-hygroscopic, friable starch, the reference does not disclose wherein the starch is a flour, a refined flour or one having a mesh size of between 50 and 100. However, given starch and starch hydrolysates can be in the form a flour, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have used any form of a starch hydrolysate including a refined or unrefined flour having a mesh size of between 50 and 100 mesh with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 34, Player et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Player et al. disclose reducing the size of the dry solids to a size less than about 50 microns -i.e., reducing the size of protein-containing particles-C9/L5-35).
Regarding claim 35,, Player et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Player et al. disclose a composition comprising less than 2% of a lipophilic ester (e.g., mono-glycerides) and 0.3 to 0.5% lecithin as emulsifiers in the entire composition (C5/L31-C6/L9).
Given Player et al. disclose emulsifiers in amounts greater than 1.5% of the entire composition, intrinsically the emulsifier would be in excess wherein the excess would act as a humectant within the composition.
Regarding claims 36, 39 and 40, Player et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Player et al. disclose the composition comprises between 30 and 75% bulking ingredient (C2/L38-40). Given Player et al. disclose the bulking ingredient can be protein-containing ingredients, for example soy protein, and hydrolyzed starch, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have used both types of bulking ingredients in any proportion within the disclosed 30 to 75% range, and arrive at the present invention with a reasonable expectation of success.
Player et al. also disclose the composition may comprise sugar, such as lactose, sucrose or dextrose depending on the amount of sweetness desired (C8/L19-27). Player et al. does not require sugar.
Regarding claim 37, Player et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Player et al. disclose the composition comprises from about 25% to about 70% oil carrier (C2/L38-39).
Regarding claim 38, Player et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Given Player et al. disclose a method of making a composition substantially similar to the claimed invention, intrinsically the composition would exhibit the claimed storage stability properties.
Moreover, Player et al. disclose the composition is stable against phase separation while shelf stored at room temperature (C3/L1-5).
Regarding claims 41-43, Player et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Player et al. disclose adding emulsifier at step (a) wherein the emulsifier comprises 0.3 to 0.5% lecithin and less than 2% of a lipophilic ester (e.g., mono-glycerides) (C5/L31-C6/L9). Therefore, when the amount of lipophilic ester is 1% and the amount of lecithin is 0.5%, the total amount of emulsifier added is 1.5% which overlaps the claimed range of between 1.5% and 3%. 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).
Regarding claim 44, Player et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Given Player et al. disclose the composition is anhydrous and has a moisture content of about 3.5% by weight and requires no refrigeration (C1/L17-20), intrinsically the composition would exhibit the claimed water activity.
Regarding claim 45, Player et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Given Player et al. disclose a composition comprising an oil carrier (C3/L44-C5/L22), emulsifier (C5/L23-C6/L9) and bulking ingredients wherein the bulking ingredients include starch (C2/L37-59, C6/L11-C8/L16); and a method of making the composition wherein the bulking ingredients, oil carrier, and emulsifier are subjected to roll refining in a 3-roll mill (reducing the size of the dry solids to a size less than about 50 microns -i.e., reducing the size of protein-containing particles); and mixing the refined mixture to a homogenous state (C9/L5-35), inherently a starch-fat matrix would be formed in which the protein particles would remain suspended for an extended storage period of at least six months without any of the fat migrating out of the edible filling.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b)-
Regarding the rejection of claim 3, Applicant notes paragraphs [0031]-[0032] of the originally filed application disclose “the particles of protein-containing solids in the pre-mix suspension are particle size reduced by the particle size reducer during the particle size reduction step 40 until substantially all of the particles of protein-containing solids are reduced to a size less than 45 microns . . .”. Applicant argues a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “substantially all” would mean that slight less than 100% of the particles of protein-containing solids are reduced in size during step (b) to less than 45 microns.”
While the specification states that “substantially all of the particles of protein-containing solids are reduced to a size less than 45 microns” the specification does not define “substantially all.” Is the substantially all mean 95% of the particles?
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103-
Applicant submits “[n]either Method A nor Method B of Player teaches or suggest the sequence of steps defined in amended claim 1 of performing “wet” particle size reduction in step (b) then then adding starch after particle size reduction in step (c) to absorb the free fat-containing carrier.
Player et al. disclose method B comprising the steps of: (a) mixing all of the ingredients, including oil carrier, emulsifier and bulking ingredients, together to obtain a mixture (i.e., wet milling); (b) subjecting the mixture to roll refining in a 3-roll mill (reducing the size of the dry solids to a size less than about 50 microns -i.e., reducing the size of protein-containing particles); and mixing the refined mixture to a homogenous state (C9/L5-35). Moreover, while Player et al. disclose in method B, adding starch as one of the bulking ingredients, the reference does not disclose adding the starch after protein-containing particles have been reduced in size. However, selection of any order of adding ingredients in prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP §2144.04 IIIC). Here, there is no evidence on the record demonstrating the criticality of adding starch after the particle size reduction step.
Applicant submits the claimed sequence is not merely a matter of obvious step ordering. Applicant explains in “Player’s Method A, the dry solids are milled separately from the fat, and the starch is milled together with all the other bulking ingredients” and in “Player’s Method B, starch is present during roll refining along with all other ingredients.” Applicant argues “[i]n neither method does Player teach the functional interrelationship between steps (b) and (c) recited in amended claim 1. Applicant finds “[t]his is not a simple reordering of steps but a fundamentally different process with a different structural result.”
There is no evidence on the record demonstrating how the structure of the claimed composition differs from that of Player’s made by Method B. Player et al. disclose combining all of the ingredients together to obtain a mixture and subjecting the mixture to roll refining to reduce the particle sizes. It is not clear that the protein particles would be devoid of emulsifier; or that the starch would not adsorb the free oil carrier of the mixture.
Applicant submits the claimed method produces unexpected results. Applicant explain that by adding starch after particle size reduction to absorb the free fat-containing carrier, the claimed method produced a filling that can remain stored in a sealed container for at least six months without any of the fat migrating out of the filling.
As discussed above, there is no evidence on the record demonstrating how the order of adding starch to the mixture impacts the functionality of the final edible filling.
Moreover, Applicant explains the claimed method prevents denaturing of proteins during filling manufacture and subsequent processing, including co-extrusion because during step (b) the protein-containing particles are reduced in size while mixed with the fat-containing carrier and emulsifier; the emulsifier coats the reduced-size protein particles as they are being produced.
In this case, it is not clear that the emulsifier in Player et al. (method B) would not coat the particles of protein as they are being reduced in size. The protein is mixed with emulsifier and oil carrier prior to be introduced to roll refining.
Applicant submits that by performing wet particle size reduction while the protein-containing particles are mixed with the fat-containing carrier and emulsifier enables the use of the emulsifier as a viscosity control agent during particle size reduction.
In this case, Player et al. (method B) discloses combining the protein, oil carrier and emulsifier. It is not clear how the emulsifier would not be used as a viscosity control agent during particle size reduction.
Applicant submits the “combination of properties-protein protection, fat stabilization, low water activity and long shelf life without preservatives – represents an unexpected synergistic results that is not disclosed or suggested by Player.”
It is not clear how the results are synergistic. Synergistic means that two or more elements are combined to produce an outcome that is greater than the sum of the separate parts. Regardless, it is not clear the method of Player et al. would not result in a filling exhibiting the claimed results.
Applicant submits “the Examiner’s inherency arguments are no supported by sufficient evidence.” Applicant explains “the specification teaches that the starch absorbs the free fat-containing carrier only when the starch is added after particle size reduction and after the emulsifier has coated the reduced-size protein particles.” Applicant explains the properties of the claimed filling are not merely the result of the components used but are the result of the specific sequence of processing steps defined in the claimed method.
Here, there is no evidence on the record demonstrating the properties of the claimed filling are a results of the specific sequence of steps defined in the claimed method.
Applicants submits “Player’s emulsifiers serve different functions – they are lipid stabilizers and dispersion aids – and Player nowhere teaches or suggests that the emulsifiers would be present in excess of what is needed for emulsification nor that they would function as humectants.”
Applicants submit “Player’s composition is fundamentally different in function and utility.”
While Player et al. may disclose a filling composition that has different utility than that of the present invention, only the method of making the filling composition is claimed.
Regarding claims 15-17, Applicant find Player’s method requires mixing at a temperature “ at which all of the lipid ingredients are in a molten state, e.g., 150°F.” In contrast, Applicant explains claims 15-17 recited cold-processed particle size reduction at temperatures preventing protein denaturing, specifically below 130°F.
Claims 15-17 require “cold-processed” particle size reduction (i.e., less than 130F). Player is silent with respect to the refining (i.e., particle size reduction step) temperature. However, given Player et al. is silent with respect to temperature, it necessarily follows the temperature would be at or near room temperature (i.e., about 20°C or about 68°F). Player et al. disclose mixing or conching when the ingredients are in a molten state.
Regarding the claim limitations requiring excess emulsifier, Applicant finds Player does not disclose a composition comprising “at least 1.5% emulsifier by filling weight.”
Player et al. disclose adding emulsifier at step (a) wherein the emulsifier comprises 0.3 to 0.5% lecithin and less than 2% of a lipophilic ester (e.g., mono-glycerides) (C5/L31-C6/L9). Therefore, when the amount of lipophilic ester is 1% and the amount of lecithin is 0.5%, the total amount of emulsifier added is 1.5% which overlaps the claimed range of between 1.5% and 3%. 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).
Regarding claims 10, 14 and 44, Applicant submit “Player’s composition do not necessarily exhibit a water activity of no more than about 0.5.”
Given Player et al. disclose the composition is anhydrous and has a moisture content of about 3.5% by weight and requires no refrigeration (C1/L17-20), intrinsically the composition would exhibit the claimed water activity without use of any preservative in the filling.
Regarding claims 30-33, Applicants submit Player does not disclose starch in the form of a flour. Specifically, Player discloses hydrolyzed starches like maltodextrin. Applicant submits that intact starch granules found in flour can absorb fat whereas Player’s maltodextrin would not form a comparable fat-absorbing matrix.
There is no evidence on the record demonstrating that intact starch granules are required.
Regarding claim 38 and 45, Applicants submit the requirement that the filling can remain stored for at least six months without any fat migrating out is different that Player’s composition being described as “stable against phase separation.”
While Player et al. may describe a different property, given Player et al. disclose a composition and method substantially similar to the claimed invention, it necessarily follows the filling would display the claimed storage properties.
Regarding new claims 41-43, Applicants submit Player does not teach or suggest this staged emulsifier addition at these specific amounts, nor does Player’s composition contain total emulsifier levels of 1.5-3% by composition weight.
Player et al. disclose adding emulsifier at step (a) wherein the emulsifier comprises 0.3 to 0.5% lecithin and less than 2% of a lipophilic ester (e.g., mono-glycerides) (C5/L31-C6/L9). Therefore, when the amount of lipophilic ester is 1% and the amount of lecithin is 0.5%, the total amount of emulsifier added is 1.5% which overlaps the claimed range of between 1.5% and 3%. 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).
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 ELIZABETH A GWARTNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3874. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. EST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
ELIZABETH A. GWARTNEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/ELIZABETH GWARTNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights