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 .
Status of the Application
Receipt of the Response and Amendment after Non-Final Office Action filed 8 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant has overcome the following by virtue of amendment of the claims: (1) the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of claim 4 has been withdrawn; (2) the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1 and 14 over Imai et al. has been withdrawn.
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1, 5-9, 11, 14, 20-21, and 23-24
Withdrawn claims: 20-21 and 23-24
Previously canceled claims: 2-3, 10, 13, 15-19, 22 and 25-29
Newly canceled claims: 4 and 12
Amended claims: 1, 5-9, 11, 14, 20, and 23
New claims: None
Claims currently under consideration: 1, 5-9, 11, and 14
Currently rejected claims: 1, 5-9, 11, and 14
Allowed claims: None
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 5-9, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michel-Salaun et al. (US 2019/0380372 A1, cited on the IDS filed on 23 March 2023).
Regarding claim 1:
Claim Interpretation:
Claim 1 requires that the hydroxytyrosol source and the tannin source are in present in the core and the carnosic acid source is in the coating, but does not exclude carnosic acid from the core and does not exclude hydroxytyrosol and tannin from the coating. As such, prior art teaching or suggesting a coated food product comprising a carnosic acid source, a hydroxytyrosol source, and a tannin source in both the core and the coating falls within the scope of the claim.
Claim Rejection:
Michel-Salaun teaches a coated dry companion animal food product comprising: (i) a carnosic acid source in an amount of about 3 ppm to about 35 ppm; (ii) a hydroxytyrosol source in an amount of from about 0.1 ppm to about 35 ppm; and (iii) a tannin source in an amount of about 3 ppm to about 35 ppm – In Example 1, Michel-Salaun teaches that nutritionally balanced dry kibbles were prepared by coating at 6% poultry fat comprising antioxidants, as shown in Table 1, onto dry kibbles ([0278]). Experimental diet no3 in Table 1 (p. 13) comprises 500 ppm of tocopherols, 100 ppm of carnosic acid, 200 ppm of hydrolyzable gallotannins, and 200 ppm of hydroxytyrosol in the poultry fat. At 6% poultry fat, the kibbles (i.e. the coated dry companion animal food product) contain 6 ppm carnosic acid, 12 ppm of hydrolyzable gallotannins, and 12 ppm of hydroxytyrosol. These amounts lie inside the claimed ranges.
wherein the hydryxytyrosol source and the tannin source are present in the core and the carnosic acid source is present in the coating – Michel-Salaun discloses various combinations of the invention, including the antioxidant composition directly into a food composition, into a coating, into a fat-containing composition which is included directly into a food composition, or into a fat-containing composition which is included in a coating ([0171]-[0194]). At paragraph [0195], Michel-Salaun states the following:
Said particular embodiments are clearly combinable. For example one or more antioxidated fat-containing food ingredients can be added by inclusion and/or by coating in food composition, in particular an antioxidated food composition (which was advantageously previously incorporated with a combination of the invention).
As such, Michel-Salaun teaches including an antioxidated fat-containing food ingredient both as an inclusion and as a coating in the same product. Such an embodiment of a coated food product comprising an antioxidated fat-containing food ingredient (e.g., the poultry fat comprising the antioxidants of Experimental Diet no3 as described in Example 1) as an inclusion in the food composition (i.e., in the “core”) the and in the coating falls within the scope of the amended claim because hydroxytyrosol and tannin are present in the core and carnosic acid is present in the coating, even if each the core and the coating comprise hyroxytyrosol, tannin, and carnosic acid.
Michel-Salaun does not explicitly discuss that the coated dry companion animal food product does not comprise tocopherol.
However, MPEP § 2141(II)(C) states, “‘A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.’ KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. ‘[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.’ Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account ‘the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.’ Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.”
Data in Table 2 of Michel-Salaun ([0279]) demonstrate that an antioxidant composition comprising carnosic acid alone (Comparative Diet no1, see Table 1 ([0278])) outperforms an antioxidant composition comprising 5 times the amount of tocopherols alone (Comparative Diet no3, see Table 1 ([0278])), having lower hexanal values (HV) and peroxide values (PV). Additionally, carnosic acid alone also outperforms an antioxidant composition comprising the combination of carnosic acid and tocopherols (Comparative Diet no6, see Table 1 ([0278])), suggesting that tocopherols, even at 5 times the amount of carnosic acid, have little to no effect on the HV and PV. An antioxidant composition comprising hydrolysable gallotannins alone (Comparative Diet no2, see Table 1 ([0278])) outperforms an antioxidant composition comprising 2.5 times the amount of tocopherols alone (Comparative Diet no3, see Table 1 ([0278])) in terms of HV and has only slightly higher PV at 40% of the amount of tocopherols. An antioxidant composition comprising hydroxytyrosol alone (Comparative Diet no5, see Table 1 ([0278])) performs similarly to an antioxidant composition comprising 2.5 times the amount of tocopherols alone (Comparative Diet no3, see Table 1 ([0278])) in terms of HV and shows less than 50% higher PV at only 40% of the amount of tocopherols. An antioxidant composition comprising the combination of hydroxytyrosol and tocopherols (Comparative Diet no7, see Table 1 ([0278])) performs slightly better than when these components are added alone (Comparative Diets no2 and no3, see Table 1 ([0278])) in terms of PV and HV. An antioxidant composition comprising the combination of tocopherols, carnosic acid, and hydrolysable gallotannins, (Experimental Diet no1, see Table 1 ([0278])) performs similarly to carnosic acid alone, with only slightly elevated PV and HV (Comparative Diet no1, see Table 1 ([0278])), outperforms tocopherols alone (Comparative Diet no3, see Table 1 ([0278])), and performs similarly in terms of PV and HV and with a slight improvement in total HV and total PV compared to tocopherols and carnosic acid together, (Comparative Diet no6, see Table 1 ([0278])). Finally, an antioxidant composition comprising the combination of tocopherols, carnosic acid, hydrolysable gallotannins, and hydroxytyrosol (Experimental Diet no3, see Table 1 ([0278])) performs the best out of all compositions tested in terms of PV and HV. However, this improvement cannot be directly attributed to tocopherols. Carnosic acid appears to have the strongest effect, and hydrolysable gallotannins and hydroxytyrosol perform similarly to or better than tocopherols in terms of HV and show less than 50% higher PV at only 40% of the amount of tocopherols.
In considering the totality of the data presented in Table 1 and Table 2 of Michel-Salaun ([0278], [0279]), one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that similar, or even the same, antioxidative effects could be attained by an antioxidant composition comprising carnosic acid, hydrolysable gallotannins, and hyrdoxytyrosol without the need to add tocopherols (the antioxidant used in the greatest amount) and by merely adjusting the amounts of the other antioxidants, principally increasing the relative amount of carnosic acid, which appears to have the strongest antioxidative effect with regard to reducing the HV and PV. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to omit tocopherols from the antioxidant composition of Michel-Salaun and adjust the relative amounts of carnosic acid, hydrolyzable gallotannins, and hyrdoxytyrosol such that the composition has a similar or the same antioxidant effect as a composition comprising tocopherols by routine experimentation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to remove the antioxidant used in the highest amount, while still obtaining substantial reductions in HV and PV, and thereby, would have arrived at the claimed invention. These are basic inferences within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Even though the invention of Michel-Salaun comprises tocopherols, one of ordinary skill in the art would have noticed from data presented by Michel-Salaun that positive effects on reducing the HV and PV were attainable without tocopherol. Therefore, omitting tocopherol would have been obvious.
Claim 1 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Michel-Salaun teaches the coated dry companion animal food product according to claim 1.
Michel-Salaun also teaches that the tannin source is a hydrolysable tannin source – Experimental Diet no3 comprises “Hydrolysable gallotannins” (Table 1, [0278]).
Therefore, claim 5 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Michel-Salaun teaches the coated dry companion animal food product according to claim 1.
Michel-Salaun also teaches that the tannin source is a gallotannin source – Experimental Diet no3 comprises “Hydrolysable gallotannins” (Table 1, [0278]).
Therefore, claim 6 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 7, Michel-Salaun teaches the coated dry companion animal food product according to claim 1.
Michel-Salaun also teaches that the tannin source is a tannic acid source, a gallic acid source, or a combination thereof – The hydrolyzable gallotannins used to prepare the compositions were gallic acid and tannic acid ([0214], [0229]).
Claim 7 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 8, Michel-Salaun teaches the coated dry companion animal food product according to claim 1.
Michel-Salaun also discloses, “In a preferred embodiment, hydrolysable gallotannins are gallic acid and/or tannic acid.” ([0117]), thereby disclosing the combination of a tannic acid source and a gallic acid source.
Therefore, claim 8 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 9, Michel-Salaun teaches the coated dry companion animal food product according to claim 8.
Michel-Salaun discloses, “In a preferred embodiment, hydrolysable gallotannins are gallic acid and/or tannic acid.” ([0117]), thereby disclosing the combination of a tannic acid source and a gallic acid source.
Michel-Salaun does not discuss a tannic acid:gallic acid ratio ranging from about 1:5 to about 1:50.
However, in Example 6 ([0316]) Michel-Salaun carries out a comparative example of tocopherols combined with carnosic acid and a tannin source, wherein the tannin source is either gallic acid or tannic acid, and concludes that either gallic acid or tannic acid is suitable for the antioxidant composition – “These results clearly show that a combination of tocopherols with carnosic acid and hydrolysable gallotannins, whatever the type of hydrolysable gallotannins (tannic acid or gallic acid), can enhance the antioxidant effect of tocopherols.” ([0327], Table 8). The data in table 8 indicate that there is not a significant difference between using tannic acid or gallic acid as shown by the overlapping standard deviations between Experimental Diet no21 and Experimental Diet no 22.
Therefore, Michel-Salaun teaches that tannic acid and gallic acid are both effective for the same purpose ([0327, Table 8]), and that tannic acid and gallic acid can be used in combination ([0017]). As such, absent any evidence of criticality, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine tannic acid and gallic acid in any ratio, including a tannic acid:gallic acid ratio ranging from about 1:5 to about 1:50 as claimed. It is considered, absent any evidence to the contrary, that a combination of tannic acid and gallic acid would be effective as antioxidants even in the absence of tocopherols.
Therefore, claim 9 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 11, Michel-Salaun teaches the coated dry companion animal food product according to claim 1.
Michel-Salaun also teaches that the food product is characterized in that it is a food additive, a supplement, a foodstuff, or a nutritionally complete food composition – Michel-Salaun teaches, “‘food composition’ as used herein means a product or composition containing at least one fat which is oxidizable and that is intended for ingestion by a subject and provides at least one nutrient to the subject…A combination according to the present invention may be added to any food products (containing at least one fat as defined above). Non limiting examples of food compositions are nutritional formulas…pet food products…food additives, food supplements…” ([0061]). “In the particular food technical field, the antioxidated fat-containing composition of the invention can either be a food composition as defined above (see [0061], [0062]), or a fat-containing food ingredient which may in turn be incorporated into a food composition” ([0147]). “Nutritionally balanced dry kibbles…were prepared …by coating poultry fat (6%) comprising antioxidants onto dry kibbles ‘VV’.” ([0232]). Nutritionally balanced foods are also nutritionally complete.
Therefore, claim 11 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 14:
Claim Interpretation:
Claim 14 recites the phrases “for the preparation of a coated dry companion animal food product, comprising a core surrounded by a coating, wherein the coated dry companion animal food product comprises an antioxidant combination of: (i) a carnosic acid source in an amount of less than 35 ppm; (ii) a hydroxytyrosol source in an amount of from about 0.1 ppm to about 35 ppm; and (iii) a tannin source in an amount of less than 35 ppm; wherein the hydroxytyrosol source and the tannin source are present in the core and the carnosic acid source is present in the coating, and wherein the companion animal food product does not comprise tocopherol.” These phrases are directed to an intended use of the kit. A statement with regard to intended use is not further limiting insofar as the structure of the product is concerned. In order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. See MPEP § 2111.02(II). It is noted that the recitations of claim 14 state that the hydroxytyrosol source and the tannin source are in present in the core and the carnosic acid source is in the coating, but this does not exclude carnosic acid from the core and does not exclude hydroxytyrosol and tannin from the coating. As such, these recitations do not further limit the structure of the composition.
The claim is toward a kit, and not a companion animal food composition. The clauses regarding the companion animal food composition are therefore not limiting. See MPEP § 2111.04(I).
The limitations of the kit are:
(i) a carnosic acid source in an amount of less than 35 ppm
(ii) a hydroxytyrosol source in an amount of from about 0.1 ppm to about 35 ppm; and
(iii) a tannin source in an amount of less than 35 ppm
Claim Rejection:
In Example 1, Michel-Salaun teaches that nutritionally balanced dry kibbles were prepared by coating at 6% poultry fat comprising antioxidants, as shown in Table 1, onto dry kibbles ([0278]). Experimental diet no3 in Table 1 (p. 13) comprises 100 ppm of carnosic acid, 200 ppm of hydrolyzable gallotannins, and 200 ppm of hydroxytyrosol in the poultry fat. At 6% poultry fat, the kibbles (i.e. the coated dry companion animal food product) contain 6 ppm carnosic acid, 12 ppm of hydrolyzable gallotannins, and 12 ppm of hydroxytyrosol. These amounts lie inside the claimed ranges.
Michel-Salaun also teaches that another aspect of the invention concerns a kit comprising, in one or more containers in a single package, at least one fat-containing pet food ingredient and an antioxidant combination according to the invention ([0205] – [0207]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the poultry fat and the antioxidant combination of Experimental diet no3 of Example 1 in one or more containers as a kit as taught by Michel-Salaun.
Omission of tocopherols from the antioxidant combination would have been obvious in view of the data presented in Table 1 and Table 2 of Michel-Salaun ([0278], [0279]) as discussed regarding claim 1 hereinabove. The same reasons and expectation of success apply to the antioxidant combination of the kit disclosed by Michel-Salaun.
Claim 14 is therefore rendered obvious.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant’s arguments filed on 8 June 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argued that Michel-Salaun fails to teach the composition of amended claim 1, which includes a coated dry companion animal food product comprising a core and a coating, where the carnosic acid source is in the coating and the hydroxytyrosol source and tannin source are in the core (p. 6, ¶ 6). Applicant argued that there is no disclosure in Michel-Salaun as to a composition that includes part of the antioxidant composition in a core and the remaining components in a coating, and instead Michel-Salaun discloses various combinations of including the antioxidant composition directly into a food composition, into a coating, into a fat-containing composition which is included directly into a food composition, or into a fat-containing composition which is included in a coating (p. 6, ¶ 7 – p. 7, ¶ 2). Applicant asserted that the antioxidant ingredients can be included in the food product, coating or both, but cannot be split between the core and the coating (p. 7, ¶ 2).
Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but they are not persuasive. Amended claim 1 requires that the hydroxytyrosol source and the tannin source are in present in the core and the carnosic acid source is in the coating, but does not exclude carnosic acid from the core and does not exclude hydroxytyrosol and tannin from the coating. As stated by Applicant, Michel-Salaun discloses tocopherols and the required carnosic acid, hydroxytyrosol, and tannin in an antioxidant composition (pp. 6-7, bridging ¶), and has acknowledged that the antioxidant ingredients can be included in the food product and the coating (p. 7, ¶ 2). Michel-Salaun states the following:
Said particular embodiments are clearly combinable. For example one or more antioxidated fat-containing food ingredients can be added by inclusion and/or by coating in food composition, in particular an antioxidated food composition (which was advantageously previously incorporated with a combination of the invention).
See Michel-Salaun at paragraph [0195] (emphasis added). As such, embodiments of Michel-Salaun’s coated food product comprising an antioxidated fat-containing food ingredient as an inclusion in the food composition (i.e., in the “core”) the and in the coating fall within the scope of the amended claim because hydroxytyrosol and tannin are present in the core and carnosic acid is present in the coating, even if each the core and the coating comprise hyroxytyrosol, tannin, and carnosic acid.
Applicant next argued that Michel-Salaun demonstrates throughout the examples that the combination of at least tocopherols, carnosic acid, and gallotannins decreases the hexanal and peroxide values, providing no motivation for a skilled artisan to pick and choose components of this composition to include in the coating and in the core of the food composition or to create an antioxidant composition with hydroxytyrosol and hydrolysable gallotannins only to arrive at a core with an antioxidant composition containing hydroxytyrosol and hydrolysable gallotannins and a coating containing carnosic acid (pp. 7-8, bridging ¶).
Applicant’s argument has been considered, but it is moot in view of the discussion above that amended claim 1 does not does not exclude carnosic acid from the core and does not exclude hydroxytyrosol and tannin from the coating.
Applicant next argued, regarding tocopherol, that in citing Comparative Diet 1 as showing that the peroxide and hexanal values for a diet comprising only carnosic acid are less than Comparative Diets 2-7 and Experimental Diets 1-2 as a reason for the obviousness of removing tocopherols from the composition of Michel-Salaun, the Examiner has failed to consider the totality of Michel-Salaun’s disclosure (p. 8, ¶ 2 – p. 9, ¶ 1). Applicant argued that Comparative Diets 2 and 5, which contain only hydrolysable gallotannins and hydroxytyrosol, respectively, perform worse than when these components are combined with tocopherols (e.g., in Comparative Diet 7), and when tocopherols, carnosic acid, hydrolysable gallotannins, and hydroxytyrosol are combined in Experimental Diet 3, the lowest hexanal and peroxide values of all diets shown in Tables 1-2 are observed (pp. 8-9, bridging ¶). Applicant asserted, therefore, that a skilled artisan would look at the results showing that hydroxytyrosol and hydrolysable gallotannins perform better when combined with tocopherols, in addition to the diet with only carnosic acid, and when considering all of these results, the skilled artisan would not be motivated to remove tocopherols from the disclosure of Michel-Salaun (Id.).
Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but they are not persuasive. MPEP § 2141(II)(C) states, “‘A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.’ KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. ‘[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.’ Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account ‘the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.’ Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.”
Data in Table 2 of Michel-Salaun ([0279]) demonstrates that an antioxidant composition comprising carnosic acid alone (Comparative Diet no1, see Table 1 ([0278])) outperforms an antioxidant composition comprising 5 times the amount of tocopherols alone (Comparative Diet no3, see Table 1 ([0278])), having lower hexanal values (HV) and peroxide values (PV). Additionally, carnosic acid alone also outperforms an antioxidant composition comprising the combination of carnosic acid and tocopherols (Comparative Diet no6, see Table 1 ([0278])), suggesting that tocopherols, even at 5 times the amount of carnosic acid, have little to no effect on the HV and PV. An antioxidant composition comprising hydrolysable gallotannins alone (Comparative Diet no2, see Table 1 ([0278])) outperforms an antioxidant composition comprising 2.5 times the amount of tocopherols alone (Comparative Diet no3, see Table 1 ([0278])) in terms of HV and has only slightly higher PV at 40% of the amount of tocopherols. An antioxidant composition comprising hydroxytyrosol alone (Comparative Diet no5, see Table 1 ([0278])) performs similarly to an antioxidant composition comprising 2.5 times the amount of tocopherols alone (Comparative Diet no3, see Table 1 ([0278])) in terms of HV and shows less than 50% higher PV at only 40% of the amount of tocopherols. As stated by Applicant, an antioxidant composition comprising the combination of hydroxytyrosol and tocopherols (Comparative Diet no7, see Table 1 ([0278])) performs slightly better than when these components are added alone (Comparative Diets no2 and no3, see Table 1 ([0278])) in terms of PV and HV. An antioxidant composition comprising the combination of tocopherols, carnosic acid, and hydrolysable gallotannins, (Experimental Diet no1, see Table 1 ([0278])) performs similarly to carnosic acid alone, with only slightly elevated PV and HV (Comparative Diet no1, see Table 1 ([0278])), outperforms tocopherols alone (Comparative Diet no3, see Table 1 ([0278])), and performs similarly in terms of PV and HV and with a slight improvement in total HV and total PV compared to tocopherols and carnosic acid together, (Comparative Diet no6, see Table 1 ([0278])). Finally, an antioxidant composition comprising the combination of tocopherols, carnosic acid, hydrolysable gallotannins, and hydroxytyrosol (Experimental Diet no3, see Table 1 ([0278])) performs the best out of all compositions tested in terms of PV and HV. However, this improvement cannot be directly attributed to tocopherols. Carnosic acid appears to have the strongest effect, and hydrolysable gallotannins and hydroxytyrosol perform similarly to or better than tocopherols in terms of HV and show less than 50% higher PV at only 40% of the amount of tocopherols.
In considering the totality of the data presented in Table 1 and Table 2 of Michel-Salaun ([0278], [0279]), one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that similar, or even the same, antioxidative effects could be attained by an antioxidant composition comprising carnosic acid, hydrolysable gallotannins, and hyrdoxytyrosol without the need to add tocopherols (the antioxidant used in the greatest amount) and by merely adjusting the amounts of the other antioxidants, principally increasing the relative amount of carnosic acid, which appears to have the strongest antioxidative effect with regard to reducing the HV and PV. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to omit tocopherols from the antioxidant composition of Michel-Salaun and adjust the relative amounts of carnosic acid, hydrolyzable gallotannins, and hyrdoxytyrosol such that the composition has a similar or the same antioxidant effect as a composition comprising tocopherols by routine experimentation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to remove the antioxidant used in the highest amount, while still obtaining substantial reductions in HV and PV. These are basic inferences within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Even though the invention of Michel-Salaun comprises tocopherols, one of ordinary skill in the art would have noticed from data presented by Michel-Salaun that positive effects on reducing the HV and PV were attainable without tocopherol. Therefore, omitting tocopherol would have been obvious.
Applicant further argued that the Examiner’s reliance on MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(C) is misplaced as this section relates to changes in sequence of adding ingredients, and the concept is that the same product is formed regardless of the order in which the steps of the method are performed (p. 9, ¶ 2).
In response, the rejection no longer cites MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(C).
For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not found to be persuasive, and claims 1, 5-9, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as presented hereinabove.
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 James Shellhammer whose telephone number is (703) 756-5525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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.
/JAMES P. SHELLHAMMER/Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights