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 .
This office action is in response to the application filed on February 15, 2023. The earliest effective filing date of the application is August 28, 2020.
Status of Application
The amendment filed February 27, 2026 with the Remarks has been entered. The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1, 2, 4 – 9, 20, 25 – 35
Withdrawn claims: None
Cancelled claims: 3, 10 – 19, 21 – 24
Amended claims: 1, 2, 4, 7, and 20
New claims: 25 – 35
Claims currently under consideration: 1, 2, 4 – 9, 20, 25 – 35
By not repeating the previously presented objection/rejection(s), it is sufficiently clear that said objection/rejection(s) are withdrawn.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.
Claims 4, 20, and 25 – 35 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.
Claim 4 recites “the flax protein is 15% w/w, the pea protein is 69% w/w, the quinoa protein is 6.9% w/w, and rice protein is 9.3% w/w” which renders the claim indefinite. The sum of the recited percentages add to 100.2%, which is impossible. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted that when the true wt% of each component is rounded to two significant figures, the flax protein is 15% w/w, the pea protein is 69% w/w, the quinoa protein is 6.9% w/w, and rice protein is 9.3% w/w.
Claim 20 fails to disclose the basis (i.e., weight, volume, molar, etc) of the rice protein composition percentage of the final product. The basis of the rice protein composition percentage of the final product is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, the rice protein composition percentage of the final product is interpreted to be by weight.
Claims 27 and 35 recites “wherein the plant-based protein composition provides about 90% comparable digestibility to milk protein”, which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “comparable digestibility to milk protein” is a relative phrase that is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what objective metric is used to determine whether the composition of claims 27 or 35 provides “about 90% comparable digestibility to milk protein”, especially when digestibility depends on who or what is digesting the proteins. For the purpose of examination, “about 90% comparable digestibility to milk protein” may be determined by any comparative test.
Claims 28 – 34 are rejected as dependent on 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 1, 2, 4, 8, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ariens et al. (Nutritional value of Herbalife Nutrition protein blend. Wageningen Food & Biobased Research. 31 pages. (February 2019) – IDS Filed on August 22, 2023).
Regarding claim 1, Ariens teaches a protein blend based on four different protein sources (Triblend). Ariens teaches Triblend comprises 15 wt% flax protein powder, 69 wt% pea protein, 6.9 wt% quinoa seed powder, and 9.3 wt% rice protein isolate, when rounded to two significant figures (p. 6, Table 2.1). Ariens does not teach Triblend comprises soy or a soy-based product.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Ariens does not teach Triblend comprises dairy.
With respect to the limitation “wherein the plant-based protein composition has a protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score (PDCAAS) of 1 determined according to the FAO/WHO 2007 amino acid scoring pattern”, the instant specification states “The highly-demanding protein needs of pre-school children were used to calculate the instant invention’s PDCAAS score to assure the highest quality of the plant-based protein composition and to account for adult populations with an above average protein requirement (e.g. with high level of physical activity) (WHO, 2007)” ([0070]). Therefore, the WHO 2007 amino acid scoring pattern was used to determine the PCDAAS of the instant invention. The instant specification states “when mixed in the proper ratios, the plant-based protein composition combines to form a complete protein, achieving a PDCAAS of 1 both in theoretical calculations as well as in biochemical analyses (see Tables 1, 2 and 3). This is comparable to milk protein (mainly casein protein (-80%), the rest is whey protein) which reaches the highest PDCAAS score of 1 (Marinangeli & House, 2017).” ([0071]). The instant specification states the plant based protein analyzed in Tables 1, 2, and 3 with a PDCAAS of 1 is a mix of A mix of 20 g (69%) pea protein isolate, 4.2 g (15%) flax seed powder, 2.68 g (9.3%) rice protein isolate and 2 g (6.9%) quinoa seed powder ([0069]). Therefore, because the Triblend of Ariens has the same precisely claimed ratio of proteins as the instant composition, the Triblend of Ariens has a protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score (PDCAAS) of 1 determined according to the FAO/WHO 2007 amino acid scoring pattern.
Regarding claim 8, Ariens teaches Triblend is a powder (p. 9, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 26, Ariens teaches Triblend has an in-vitro digestibility of essential amino acids at 72.2% histidine, 82.1% isoleucine, 75.7% leucine, 77.4% lysine, 51.5% methionine, 73.1% phenylalanine, 70.8% tryptophan, and 79.7% valine (p. 20, Table 7, Triblend, Mean).
The instant specification states "about" can mean a range of up to 20% ([0084]). Therefore, the Triblend of Ariens has an in-vitro digestibility of essential amino acids at about 72.2% histidine, about 82.1% isoleucine, about 75.7% leucine, about 77.4% lysine, about 51.5% methionine, about 73.1% phenylalanine, about 72.8% tryptophan, and about 70.7% valine.
Regarding claim 27, Ariens teaches Triblend has an IVFAAS digestibility score of 59, while milk has an IVFAAS digestibility score of 65 (p. 21, Figure 11). Therefore, the Triblend of Ariens has a IVFAAS digestibility score that is 90.8% of the IVFAAS digestibility score of milk. Therefore, the Triblend of Ariens provides about 90% comparable digestibility to milk protein.
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, 2, 4 – 9, 20, and 25 – 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herbalife (Triblend Select Gusto Banana Indicazioni and Informazioni nutrzionali. Herbalife Europe Limited. (March 2019) – Google Machine Translation) in view of Ariens et al. (Nutritional value of Herbalife Nutrition protein blend. Wageningen Food & Biobased Research. 31 pages. (February 2019) – IDS Filed on August 22, 2023).
Regarding claim 1, Herbalife teaches a vegan protein blend (Tri Blend Select) comprising pea protein isolate, flaxseed powder, quinoa powder, and rice protein isolate (p. 1, bullet 1; p. 3, Nutritional Information, Ingredients). Herbalife teaches Tri Blend Select does not comprise soy or soy-based products (p. 3, Nutritional Information, Ingredients).
Herbalife does not teach the four plant-based protein sources (i.e., pea protein isolate, flaxseed powder, quinoa powder, and rice protein isolate) in the vegan protein blend (Tri Blend Select) consists of the precisely claimed ranges of pea protein isolate, flaxseed powder, quinoa powder, and rice protein isolate.
Ariens teaches a protein blend based on four different protein sources (Triblend). Ariens teaches Triblend comprises 15 wt% flax protein powder, 69 wt% pea protein, 6.9 wt% quinoa seed powder, and 9.3 wt% rice protein isolate, when rounded to two significant figures (p. 6, Table 2.1). Ariens does not teach Triblend comprises soy or a soy-based product. Ariens teaches Triblend has a good balanced amino acid composition and digestibility not significantly different from milk protein (p. 26, paragraph 1).
Herbalife and Ariens are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely, vegan protein blends. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the Triblend of Ariens as the four plant-based protein sources (i.e., pea protein isolate, flaxseed powder, quinoa powder, and rice protein isolate) in the composition of Herbalife because the Triblend of Ariens comprises pea protein isolate, flaxseed powder, quinoa powder, and rice protein isolate, like the Tri Blend Select of Herbalife, and has the additional benefit of a good balanced amino acid composition and digestibility not significantly different from milk protein.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Herbalife does not teach the vegan protein blend (Tri Blend Select) comprises dairy.
With respect to the limitation “wherein the plant-based protein composition has a protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score (PDCAAS) of 1 determined according to the FAO/WHO 2007 amino acid scoring pattern”, the instant specification states “The highly-demanding protein needs of pre-school children were used to calculate the instant invention’s PDCAAS score to assure the highest quality of the plant-based protein composition and to account for adult populations with an above average protein requirement (e.g. with high level of physical activity) (WHO, 2007)” ([0070]). Therefore, the WHO 2007 amino acid scoring pattern was used to determine the PCDAAS of the instant invention. The instant specification states “when mixed in the proper ratios, the plant-based protein composition combines to form a complete protein, achieving a PDCAAS of 1 both in theoretical calculations as well as in biochemical analyses (see Tables 1, 2 and 3). This is comparable to milk protein (mainly casein protein (-80%), the rest is whey protein) which reaches the highest PDCAAS score of 1 (Marinangeli & House, 2017).” ([0071]). The instant specification states the plant based protein analyzed in Tables 1, 2, and 3 with a PDCAAS of 1 is a mix of A mix of 20 g (69%) pea protein isolate, 4.2 g (15%) flax seed powder, 2.68 g (9.3%) rice protein isolate and 2 g (6.9%) quinoa seed powder ([0069]). Therefore, because the Triblend of Ariens has the same precisely claimed ratio of proteins as the instant composition, the modified vegan protein blend (Tri Blend Select) of Herbalife has a protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score (PDCAAS) of 1 determined according to the FAO/WHO 2007 amino acid scoring pattern.
Regarding claim 5, Herbalife teaches Tri Blend Select comprises natural flavors (i.e., flavoring agent) and sweetener (as steviol glycosides – p. 3, Nutritional Information, Ingredients).
Regarding claim 6, Herbalife teaches Tri Blend Select comprises coconut blossom nectar powder, inulin (chicory), gluten-free oat fiber, organic acerola fruit extract (i.e., acerola cherry extract), organic rice fiber, and sweetener (as steviol glycosides – p. 3, Nutritional Information, Ingredients).
Regarding claim 7, Herbalife teaches Tri Blend Select comprises vitamin C (p. 2, Vitamin C Contributes; p. 3, Nutritional Information, Vitamin); phosphorus (p. 2, Phosphorus Contributes; p. 3, Nutritional Information, Minerals); iron (p. 2, Iron Contributes; p. 3, Nutritional Information, Minerals); zinc (p. 2, Zinc Contributes; p. 3, Nutritional Information, Minerals); copper (p. 2, Copper Contributes; p. 3, Nutritional Information, Minerals); manganese (p. 2, Manganese Contributes; p. 3, Nutritional Information, Minerals); chromium (p. 2, Chromium Contributes; p. 3, Nutritional Information, Minerals); molybdenum (p. 3, Nutritional Information, Minerals); and salt (p. 3, Nutritional Information).
Regarding claim 8, Herbalife teaches Tri Blend Select is a powder (p. 3, Enjoy it at any time of the day).
Regarding claim 9, Herbalife teaches mixing 3 measuring spoons (40 g) of Tri Blend Select in 250 ml of water or an alternative beverage of your choice, such as milk or fruit juice to form a beverage (i.e., a food product – p. 2, How to Use).
Regarding claim 20, Herbalife teaches a vegan protein blend (Tri Blend Select) comprising pea protein isolate, flaxseed powder, quinoa powder, and rice protein isolate (p. 1, bullet 1; p. 3, Nutritional Information, Ingredients). Herbalife teaches Tri Blend Select does not comprise soy or soy-based products (p. 3, Nutritional Information, Ingredients). Herbalife teaches Tri Blend Select is vegan, therefore it does not comprise dairy (i.e., it is absent of dairy products).
Herbalife does not teach the vegan protein blend (Tri Blend Select) comprises the precisely claimed ranges of pea protein isolate, flaxseed powder, quinoa powder, and rice protein isolate.
Ariens teaches a protein blend based on four different protein sources (Triblend). Ariens teaches Triblend comprises 15 wt% flax protein powder, 69 wt% pea protein, 6.9 wt% quinoa seed powder, and 9.3 wt% rice protein isolate, when rounded to two significant figures (p. 6, Table 2.1). Ariens does not teach Triblend comprises soy or a soy-based product. Ariens teaches Triblend has a good balanced amino acid composition and digestibility not significantly different from milk protein (p. 26, paragraph 1).
Herbalife and Ariens are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely, vegan protein blends. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the Triblend of Ariens as the four plant-based protein sources (i.e., pea protein isolate, flaxseed powder, quinoa powder, and rice protein isolate) in the composition of Herbalife because the Triblend of Ariens comprises pea protein isolate, flaxseed powder, quinoa powder, and rice protein isolate, like the Tri Blend Select of Herbalife, and has the additional benefit of a good balanced amino acid composition and digestibility not significantly different from milk protein.
With respect to the proportions of plant-based protein composition to water, Herbalife teaches mixing 3 measuring spoons (40 g) of Tri Blend Select in 250 ml of water or an alternative beverage of your choice, such as milk or fruit juice to form a beverage (i.e., a plant-based wellness protein shake product – p. 2, How to Use). Herbalife teaches one can adjust the amount of liquid based on the desired beverage consistency (p. 2, How to Use).
While Herbalife does not teach the precisely claimed ratio of Tri Blend Select to water, one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the ratio of Tri Blend Select to water during routine optimization to find the beverage with the best consistency. MPEP §2144.05(II) states where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The claimed range of plant-based protein composition, about 90 to 99%, and range of water, about 1 to 10% would thus be obvious.
Regarding claims 25 and 32, Herbalife teaches the vegan protein blend (Tri Blend Select) provides 20g of protein per serving (p. 3, Nutritional Information, One serving; p. 3, Nutritional Information, Protein, col. 2). Given the only protein sources in the modified vegan protein blend (Tri Blend Select) are from the Triblend of Ariens, which consists of plant proteins, the modified vegan protein blend (Tri Blend Select) of Herbalife provides 20g of plant-based protein per serving.
Regarding claims 26 and 34, Ariens teaches Triblend has an in-vitro digestibility of essential amino acids at 72.2% histidine, 82.1% isoleucine, 75.7% leucine, 77.4% lysine, 51.5% methionine, 73.1% phenylalanine, 70.8% tryptophan, and 79.7% valine (p. 20, Table 7, Triblend, Mean). Given the only protein sources in the modified vegan protein blend (Tri Blend Select) are from the Triblend of Ariens, the amino acid digestibility of the modified vegan protein blend (Tri Blend Select) of Herbalife is entirely dependent on the Triblend of Ariens.
The instant specification states "about" can mean a range of up to 20% ([0084]). Therefore, the modified vegan protein blend (Tri Blend Select) has an in-vitro digestibility of essential amino acids at about 72.2% histidine, about 82.1% isoleucine, about 75.7% leucine, about 77.4% lysine, about 51.5% methionine, about 73.1% phenylalanine, about 72.8% tryptophan, and about 70.7% valine.
Regarding claims 27 and 35, Ariens teaches Triblend has an IVFAAS digestibility score of 59, while milk has an IVFAAS digestibility score of 65 (p. 21, Figure 11). Given the only protein sources in the modified vegan protein blend (Tri Blend Select) are from the Triblend of Ariens, the amino acid digestibility of the modified vegan protein blend (Tri Blend Select) of Herbalife is entirely dependent on the Triblend of Ariens. Therefore, the modified vegan protein blend (Tri Blend Select) provides has a IVFAAS digestibility score that is 90.8% of the IVFAAS digestibility score of milk. Therefore, the modified vegan protein blend (Tri Blend Select) provides about 90% comparable digestibility to milk protein.
Regarding claim 28, Ariens teaches Triblend comprises 15 wt% flax protein powder, 69 wt% pea protein, 7 wt% quinoa seed powder, and 9 wt% rice protein isolate (p. 6, Table 2.1).
Regarding claim 29, Herbalife teaches Tri Blend Select comprises natural flavors (i.e., flavoring agent) and sweetener (as steviol glycosides – p. 3, Nutritional Information, Ingredients).
Regarding claim 30, Herbalife teaches Tri Blend Select comprises coconut blossom nectar powder, inulin (chicory), gluten-free oat fiber, organic acerola fruit extract (i.e., acerola cherry extract), organic rice fiber, and sweetener (as steviol glycosides – p. 3, Nutritional Information, Ingredients).
Regarding claim 31, Herbalife teaches Tri Blend Select comprises vitamin C (p. 2, Vitamin C Contributes; p. 3, Nutritional Information, Vitamin); phosphorus (p. 2, Phosphorus Contributes; p. 3, Nutritional Information, Minerals); iron (p. 2, Iron Contributes; p. 3, Nutritional Information, Minerals); zinc (p. 2, Zinc Contributes; p. 3, Nutritional Information, Minerals); copper (p. 2, Copper Contributes; p. 3, Nutritional Information, Minerals); manganese (p. 2, Manganese Contributes; p. 3, Nutritional Information, Minerals); chromium (p. 2, Chromium Contributes; p. 3, Nutritional Information, Minerals); molybdenum (p. 3, Nutritional Information, Minerals); and salt (p. 3, Nutritional Information).
Regarding claim 33, Ariens teaches Triblend is a powder, therefore the flax protein (i.e., flax seed protein) is a powder, the rice protein (i.e., whole grain protein) is rice protein isolate, and the quinoa protein is a quinoa seed powder (p. 9, paragraph 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues claim 2, as amended, overcomes the previous 112(b) rejection (p. 7, paragraph 2).
Applicant’s argument has been fully considered and it is persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of claim 2 has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues the “about” language regarding claim 4 overcomes the previous 112(b) rejection (p. 8, paragraph 1).
Applicant’s argument has been carefully considered however the argument is not persuasive. The language in claim 1, which claim 4 depends upon states “the four plant-based protein sources consisting of:”, which renders the claim indefinite because the four plant-based protein sources must be made solely of pea, flax, rice, and quinoa protein. Even with the disclosure of the range by the “about” language, the sum of the percentages of the four proteins must add to exactly 100%.
Applicant argues claim 20, as amended, overcomes the previous 112(b) rejection (p. 8, paragraph 2).
Applicant’s argument has been carefully considered however the argument is not persuasive. While the amendments have alleviated the previous 112(b) issues in claim 20, the new amendments have introduced a new issue with respect to the percentage range of rice protein which is expounded upon above.
Applicant argues Triblend (i.e., Herbalife) does not anticipate claim 1, as amended (p. 10, paragraph 2).
Applicant’s argument has been fully considered and it is persuasive. Therefore, the previous 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1 and 5 – 9 over Herbalife has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Herbalife in view of Ariens.
Applicant argues Ariens does not qualify as a “printed publication” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and therefore cannot be relied upon as prior art (p. 10, paragraph 5).
Applicant’s argument has been carefully considered however the argument is not persuasive. The Ariens reference was made public by disclosing it on the IDS. There is no way to determine when the reference was publicly disclosed, given the date on the reference is prior to the effective filing date of the invention. Therefore, the disclosure of the reference on the IDS serves as an admission the reference was publicly available prior to the time of filing. Should Applicant desire to expunge the Ariens reference from the IDS, thereby removing it from consideration in further actions, Applicant may submit a petition under 37 CFR 1.59(b) to expunge information submitted under MPEP § 724.02. See MPEP § 724.05.II for information on filing a petition to expunge information unintentionally submitted in an application.
Applicant argues the “routine optimization” rationale regarding the adjustment of the amount of liquid in the rejection of claim 20 is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness (p. 12, paragraph 2).
Applicant’s argument has been carefully considered however the argument is not persuasive. MPEP § 2144.05.II.C states “Applicants may rebut a prima facie case of obviousness based on optimization of a variable disclosed in a range in the prior art by showing that the claimed variable was not recognized in the prior art to be a result-effective variable. Applicants must articulate why the variable at issue would not have been recognized in the prior art as result-effective.” In this case, Applicant has not articulated how adjusting the water content of the beverage of Herbalife would not reliably alter its consistency. One of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted the disclosure of Herbalife that states “adjust liquid for desired consistency” to indicate the adjustment of the liquid added to the beverage would reliably alter its consistency.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 LARK JULIA MORENO whose telephone number is (571)272-2337. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30 - 4:30 M - F.
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, Emily Le can be reached at (571) 272-0903. 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.
/L.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights