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 .
DETAILED ACTION
2. Applicants’ arguments and amendments filed on 2/09/2026, overcomes the rejections of record, however, the new grounds of rejection as set forth below are necessitated by applicants’ amendment and therefore, the following action is Final.
Any objections and/or rejections made in the previous action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
Status of the application
3. Claims 1-6,8-11, 16-24 are pending in this office action.
Claims 1, 16 and 22 have been rejected.
Claim 7 is further cancelled.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, 16-24 have been rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 1-6, 8-11, 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redl. et al. (BE 1023560 B1) in view of Piispa et al. EP 2692238 A1 (alternatively), Sassen et al. WO 95/07620 A1 in view of NPL Mensink et al. ( in Lipids Vol 40: no 12, 2005) in view of Cleenewerck et al. (EP 2340720 A1 and further in view of Rhule et al. USPN 3165416.
8. Regarding claims 1-4, 11, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23, 24, Redl et al. discloses a meat substitute food (page 9, paragraph 4) can be used for cats and dogs (i.e. pet) (page 5, fifth paragraph, page 7 mid-section) which comprises vegetable protein as textured protein (at least on page 8, paragraphs second from bottom e.g. 15-20% vegetable protein having more than 60% wheat gluten protein i.e. texturized protein) and fat which includes triglycerides or triglycerides formed by esterification (page 8 last paragraph).
Redl. et al. also discloses that the product can be grounded to make ground meat substitute product or ground vegetaria protein product (at least paragraph above Example 6 as claimed in claims 10, 23. It is known that cats and dogs are pet animals (in Redl. et al. page 5, fifth paragraph, page 7 mid-section). Therefore, it meets claims 11, 24.
Redl. et al. is silent about specific type of fat / triglycerides in the composition.
Redl et al. also discloses that the processed food contains fat and/or oil vegetable (page 4 first two lines).
Redl. et al. is silent about (a) Palmitic plus stearic acid content and (b) the ratio of stearic acid (C18) : Palm (C16) is from 1 to 15.
Piispa et al. discloses that hardstock can be interesterified (at least in Example 1 [0043], [0044]).
Piispa et al. also discloses that a fat blend with 60-100% hard fat ([0039]), can contain 30% stearic or 40% or more stearic acid also (in Piispa et al. [0039]). Piispa et al. also discloses that 32% or less palmitic acid and 28% or more stearic acid (at least in claims 1,2,3 of Piispa et al.). Therefore, it overlaps claimed range amounts of Stearic (C18 :0 ) + Palmitic (C16:0) as claimed in claims 1, 16 and 17.
Therefore, if we consider the disclosed teaching of Piispa et al., as a whole, it overlaps the claimed ratio of C18:C16 1.0 to 15.0 with the total amount of stearic and palmitic can overlap the claimed 35 to 65 % by weight as claimed in claim 1 and 40-45% by weight as claimed in claim 17. However, the range ratio is broad. In order to select equal or higher amount of ratio between stearic and palmitic, examiner used NPL Mensink et al. and discussed below. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
NPL Mensink et al. discloses that stearic acid lowers serum total and LDL cholesterol when compared with palmitic acid (at least on page 1202, col 1 third paragraph from bottom).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art may consider higher ratio of Stearic to palmitic having 30% stearic or 40% or more stearic acid also (in Piispa et al. [0039]) with a reasonable expectation of success to have lowering effect of serum total and LDL cholesterol as taught by NPL Mensink et al. (at least on page 1202, col 1 third paragraph from bottom).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Redl et al. with the teaching of Piispa et al. having 30% stearic or 40% or more stearic acid also (in Piispa et al. [0039]) and having 32% or less palmitic acid (at least in claims 1,2,3 of Piispa et al.) which will meet claimed ratio of C18 (Stearic) : C16 (Palmitic) 1.0 to 15.0 in order to have the fat composition will have health related nutritional benefit to lower serum total and LDL cholesterol when compared with palmitic acid as disclosed by NPL Mensink et al. as discussed above (at least on page 1202, col 1 third paragraph from bottom).
(Additionally), regarding (Stearic + palmitic), and their ratio, (oleic + linoleic) Sassen et al. discloses that the glyceride fat composition contains total amount of stearic plus palmitic which meets claimed 35-65 wt.% as claimed in claim 1, 40-65 wt.% as claimed in claim 3 and 40-45 wt.% as claimed in claim 17. Sassen et al. also discloses that oleic acid 16.9%, linoleic acid 44.7% meets oleic plus linoleic 40 to 65 wt.% as claimed in claim 18 and meets claimed 70 wt.% of ‘stearic plus palmitic plus oleic plus linoleic’ as claimed in claim 16 (at least in Example 7 of Sassen et al.) and the fat blend comprises interesterified components (at least in para , above Example 1 ). Also, stearic C18: Palmitic C16 = greater than 1 (at least in e.g. example 7 of Sassen et al.) Therefore, it also meets the claimed range ratio amounts of Palmitic plus stearic acid as claimed in claim 1 and also it meets the claimed range amounts of linoleic plus oleic acid as claimed in claims 3, 18. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
NPL Mensink et al. discloses the motivation to consider higher stearic acid over palmitic acid. NPL Mensink et al. discloses that stearic acid lowers serum total and LDL cholesterol when compared with palmitic acid (at least on page 1202, col 1 third paragraph from bottom).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art may consider higher ratio of Stearic to palmitic having 30% stearic or 40% or more stearic acid also (in Piispa et al. [0039]) with a reasonable expectation of success to have lowering effect of serum total and LDL cholesterol as taught by NPL Mensink et al. (at least on page 1202, col 1 third paragraph from bottom).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Redl et al. with the teaching of Sassen et al. which will meet claimed ratio of C18 (Stearic) : C16 (Palmitic) greater than 1 as disclosed by Sassen et al. (at least in e.g. examples 1and 5 of Sassen et al.) in order to have the fat composition will have health related nutritional benefit to lower serum total and LDL cholesterol when compared with palmitic acid as disclosed by NPL Mensink et al. as discussed above (at least on page 1202, col 1 third paragraph from bottom) and also having oleic acid 16.9%, linoleic acid 44.7% which meets oleic plus linoleic 40 to 65 wt.% in order to have unsaturated fatty acid supplement as disclosed by Sassen et al. ( page 4 paragraph 2).
9. Regarding the claim limitation of “ a liquid oil in an amount of 1.0 to 7.0 wt.% on the total weight of the meat substituted product” as claimed in amended claims 1, 16, examiner is maintaining same secondary prior art by Rhule et al. in this respect.
Redl. Is silent about “further comprising a liquid oil in an amount of 1.0 to 7.0 wt.% as claimed in claim 7.
Rhule et al. discloses that meat product can be coated with coating composition having 1-10% by weight of vegetable oil (at least in claim 1). Rhule et al. also discloses that the coating agent can be up to 1% by weight of the meat (col 2 lines 28-32 e.g. no more than 1.0% by weight). Therefore, coating composition having 10% by weight vegetable oil at least in claim 1 of Rhule et al.) will have 1% by weight of vegetable oil with respect to total weight of the meat product. Therefore, it touches lower limit of 1% by weight and it meets claim limitation of “a liquid oil in an amount of from 1-7 wt.% on the total weight of the final product”. It shows prima facie case of obviousness according to MPEP 2144.05. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
It is to be noted that even if Rhule discloses the dehydrated meat product and not claimed meat substitute product, however, it is to be noted that vegetable oil in the disclosed amount is considered to be effective in producing the taste, organoleptic property etc. in meat or meat -like product to have taste and flavor which is nutritionally close to meat composition having similar organoleptic property.
According to MPEP 2143.01, “Obviousness can 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. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (discussing rationale underlying the motivation-suggestion-teaching test as a guard against using hindsight in an obviousness analysis)”.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Redl et al. in view of Blair et al. with the teaching of Rhule et al. to include the disclosed lower amount of 1% vegetable liquid oil with respect to total weight of the meat product which avoids excess amount (col 2 lines 35-36), however, this amount is effective in protecting the product and producing the taste, organoleptic property etc. in meat or meat -like product to have taste and flavor which is nutritionally close to meat composition having similar organoleptic property.
10. Redl et al. is silent about interesterification as claimed in claims 1, 16 and SUS/SSU ratio as claimed in claim 4.
Piispa et al. discloses that the method makes chemically method of interesterification (at least in [0047]).
Sassen et al. discloses enzymatic interesterification (at least in page 3 , under “Detailed Description”, second paragraph).
In order to provide motivation, examiner used Cleenewerck et al.to address claims 1, 16 also in addition to addressing SUS/SSU of claims 4, 16.
Cleenewerck et al. discloses that the interesterification reaction using such fats having Less than 5 wt.% lauric acid (Under Description of the invention, first paragraph) is preferably continued until a triglyceride composition is obtained with a redistribution of existing fatty acid groups within and between triglyceride molecules in a way so that SUS/SSU (e.g. S-Saturated and U-Unsaturated) ratio is preferably less than 3.0 which provides an optimal mouthfeel quality combined with sufficient stability towards possible recrystallisation and/or the risk to develop graininess (Under Description of the invention, 14th and 18th paragraph). This also meets claim limitation of “SUS/SSU ratio in a range from 0.5 to 1.0” as claimed in claims 4 and 16. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, Cleenewerck et al. provides motivation for interesterification as disclosed by Piispa et al. and /(additionally) Sassen et al.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art can consider this interesterification with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of having good textural attributes with good mouthfeel contributed by solid texture to provide a desired optimal mouthfeel quality combined with sufficient stability towards possible recrystallisation and/or the risk to develop graininess having “SUS/SSU ratio in a range from 0.5 to 1.0” (in Cleenewerck et al., Under Description of the invention, 14th and 18th paragraph).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Redl. et al with the teachings of Piispa et al./(additionally) Sassen et al. to perform interesterification in order to perform interesterification as a preferred superior process which modify fats for various applications, including producing trans-fat-free margarines and interesterification determines desired SSU/SUS ratio including less than 3.0 as taught by Cleenewerck et al. (in Cleenewerck et al. , page 10, Under Description of the invention, 14th and 18th paragraph) which provides an optimal mouthfeel quality combined with sufficient stability towards possible recrystallisation and/or the risk to develop graininess (in Cleenewerck et al., Under Description of the invention, 14th and 18th paragraph).
However, as discussed above, the degree of interesterification and the SUS/SSU of claim 4 is also optimizable.
Absent showing of unexpected results, the specific ratio of SUS/SSU is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the taste, texture, are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of ratio which modify fats for various applications, including producing trans-fat-free margarines, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of ratio in Redl. to amounts, including that presently claimed, in order to obtain the desired effect e.g. taste, texture to have optimal mouthfeel quality combined with sufficient stability towards possible recrystallisation and/or the risk to develop graininess (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
11. Regarding claims 5, 6, 20 and 21, the discussion made to address interesterification above , is applicable for claims 5,6, 20, 21. The rejection is addressed approaching more than one ways:
First , if we consider the teachings of modified Redl.et al., modified by Piispa et al. , Sassen et al., Cleenewerck et al., they disclose “interesterification” and it can be complete interesterification also which is discussed above. Therefore, the fat of 2-5% by weight (page 8 last two paragraph of Redl. et al.) can read on claim limitation range of “interesterified triglyceride (TG) “ of claim 5 and also total TG of claim 6 because of total interesterification. However, the claimed amount of interesterified TG and total triglyceride (TG) as claimed in claims 5, 20 and 6, 21 depends on degree of interesterification. If it is 100% interesterified, then the disclosed range amount of 2-5 wt.% (page 8 last two paragraph of Redl. et al.) can read on both the claim ranged values of “interesterified TG” of claims 5, 20 and “total TG of claims 6, 21. However, it is also to be noted that the difference of interesterified and total TG can vary depends on degree of interesterification. This is optimizable.
Absent showing of unexpected results, the specific amount of difference between interestrified TG and total TG is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the degree of interesterification is variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of interesterification process, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of difference of interesterified TG and total TG in Redl in view of Piispa et al., to amounts, including that presently claimed, in order to obtain the desired effect e.g. desired good quality fat blend with minimal trans fat, minimal lauric acid etc. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Second, however, if we consider the fat containing hardstock fat 16% as disclosed by Piispa et al. ([0047], [0052]), then upper limit of 5wt.% from disclosed 2-5 wt.% of Redl et al. will represent 0.8% by weight interesterified fat which is less than 1% by weight of claims 5, 20.
However, this difference can be addressed (i)using Ti. Case law.
The only deficiency of Redl. in view of Piispa et al. is that Redl. in view of Piispa et al. disclose the use of 0.8% by weight interesterified TG as claimed in claim 5, 20 and discussed above, while the present claims 5, 20 require 1.0 wt.%.
It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed amount of 1.0 wt.% and that taught by Redl. in view of Piispa et al. are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir. 1985) where despite a “slight” difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not “render the claims patentable” or, alternatively, that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties”.
In light of the case law cited above and given that there is only a “slight” difference between the amount of 0.8% by weight as disclosed by Redl. in view of Piispa et al. and the amount of 1.0 wt.% disclosed in the present claim 5, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the amount of 1.0 wt.% disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the amounts disclosed in Redl. in view of Piispa et al., and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
12. Regarding claims 2, 19, Piispa et al. also discloses that fat blend contains less than 3% lauric acid (at least claim 4 of Piispa et al.) which meets claim 2. Cleenewerck et al. also discloses that less than 5 wt.% lauric acid (Under Description of the invention, first paragraph)
13. Regarding claims 8, 22, Redl et al. discloses that the meat substitute contains protein 17-20% by weight which includes at least wheat gluten protein (at least on page 5, last two paragraphs and page 8, last but one paragraph).
14. Regarding claims 9, 10, 23, Redl et al. discloses that the meat substitute product can be finally cut and ground to have desired final shape of the product (at least on page 11, paragraph, above Example 6). Redl et al. also discloses that the meat substitute containing protein can be from wheat gluten powder (page 9, paragraph below Examples, first line of example 1).
Response to arguments
15. Applicants primarily argued on third page first and second paragraph that “Separately, Rhule teaches that this coating composition is applied to the meat in a limited amount by stating that "the desirable proportion will range from 4 to 8 parts by weight of the coating composition per 100 parts of the meat." See Rhule at column 2, lines 31-33. This means that the coating is applied at approximately 4 to 8 parts per 100 parts meat.
Accordingly, the actual vegetable oil contribution to the overall product in Rhule is calculated as follows: (1-10 wt. % vegetable oil in coating) X (about 4-8 wt.% coating on product) = about 0.04 wt.% (minimum) to about 0.8 wt.% (maximum) vegetable oil on the meat product. This calculated range of 0.04 wt.% to 0.8 wt.% falls entirely below the claimed range of "from 1.0 wt.% to 7.0 wt.%" recited in amended independent claims 1 and 16. Therefore, even accepting all of the Examiner's other assertions, Rhule fails to teach or suggest liquid oil in an amount within the claimed range”.
In response, it is to be noted that Rhule et al. discloses that meat product can be coated with coating composition having 1-10% by weight of vegetable oil (at least in claim 1). Rhule et al. also discloses that the coating agent can be up to 1% by weight of the meat (col 2 lines 28-32 e.g. no more than 1.0% by weight). If 10% vegetable oil is considered in the coating composition (at least col 4 lines 45-47 i.e. claim 3 of Rhule et al.), it is 1% by weight vegetable liquid oil on the total weight of meat substitute product.
However, the disclosed phrase “it is usually not necessary, however, to employ more than 1 part of the coating composition per 10 parts by weight of meat (i.e. no more than 10% by weight of meat)” (col 2 lines 28-32) can be interpreted as it can be 1% or very close to 1% by weight and therefore, it is also addressed using Ti case law below.
Applicants allegations that “the desirable proportion will range from 4 to 8 parts by weight of the coating composition per 100 parts of the meat” is for preferred “In most applications”. However, we have to consider the disclosure as a whole. To facilitate evenness of coating, the meat pieces may be turned or agitated during the spraying step. Rhule et al. also discloses that any large excesses of the coating composition should be avoided (col 2 lines 28-36).
As mentioned above, Rhule et al. also discloses that the coating agent can be up to 1% by weight of the meat (col 2 lines 28-32). The disclosed phrase “no more than 1% vegetable liquid oil (col 2 lines 28-32) can be interpreted as “up to 1% by weight. Therefore 10% vegetable oil in coating composition (claim 3 of Rhule et al.) will contribute 1% or very close to 1% by weight vegetable oil on the total weight of the meat product.
The examiner also notes that the disclosed phrase “usually not necessary” ( col 2 line 29) is not a teaching away but merely states that there are other embodiments that are used more often.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to consider the teaching of Rhule et al. to include the disclosed lower amount of “no more than 1% vegetable liquid oil with respect to total weight of the meat product” which avoids excess amount (col 2 lines 35-36), because the lower range amount is also effective in protecting the product and producing the taste, organoleptic property etc. in meat or meat -like product to have taste and flavor which is nutritionally close to meat composition having similar organoleptic property.
Based on the discussions above, it can be interpreted as liquid oil is very close to 1% by weight (i.e. 0.999 % by weight) on the total weight of the meat product.
Therefore, it can be addressed using Ti Metals Corp V Banner case law.
The only deficiency of Rhule et al. is that Rhule et al. disclose the use of about 0.990% % by weight, while the present claims require 1% by weight.
It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed amount of 1.0% by weight and that taught by Rhule et al. are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir. 1985) where despite a “slight” difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not “render the claims patentable” or, alternatively, that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties”.
In light of the case law cited above and given that there is only a “slight” difference between the amount of 0.999 % by weight of the vegetable oil in the final meat product disclosed by Rhule et al. and the amount of 1.0% by weight of the liquid vegetable oil disclosed in the present claims, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the amount of 1.0 wt.% disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the amounts disclosed in Rhule et al., and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
16. Applicants also argued on third page last paragraph that “Rhule et al. teaches away from incorporating higher amounts of fat and oil into the product”.
In response, as discussed above, it is understood that the disclosed amount of up to 1.0% by weight vegetable liquid oil (col 2 lines 29-31 and col 4 lines 46-48 ; claim 3 of Rhule et al.) meets the claimed 1.0wt.% liquid oil on the total weight of the meat which avoids incorporating higher amounts of fat and oil into the product and will not interfere with the rehydration because of the presence of fat from meat (col 1 lines 35-42, col 2 lines 35-36).
Applicants do not have any further arguments. As because, there is no further arguments, therefore, the rejection is made as final.
Conclusion
17. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning the communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bhaskar Mukhopadhyay whose telephone number is (571)-270-1139.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, examiner’s supervisor Erik Kashnikow, can be reached on 571-270-3475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571 -272-1000.
/BHASKAR MUKHOPADHYAY/
Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights