DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed November 7, 2025 has been entered. Claim 26 is cancelled. Claims 57 and 58 are new. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-10, 16, 19-23, 25, 34, 36, 37, 57 and 58 are pending examination.
The previous rejection of claim 37 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment filed November 7, 2025.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claims 38 and 39 have been renumbered claims 57 and 58 respectively. Claims 38-56 were previously cancelled.
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.
Claim 58 is 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 39 recites the limitation "the flavor component, the color component and a combination thereof" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, from which claim 39 depends, does not require a flavor or color component.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3, 5, 7-10, 16, 19-23, 25, 26 and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nair et al. (“Mycelial pellet formation by edible ascomycete filamentous fungi, Neurospora intermedia”, AMB Express, 6:31, (2016), pp. 1-10) in view of Wei (CN 108902295 – Translation as provided by Applicant in the IDS filed February 6, 2024).
Regarding claims 1, 10, 20, and 21, Nair et al. disclose edible filamentous fungus, Neurospora intermedia, in pellet form (Abstract, p. 2/Introduction, p. 2/Materials and methods).
Nair et al. disclose the active cultivation and growth of Neurospora intermedia spores and no steps to inactivate the fungus (p. 2-3/Materials and methods.
Nair et al. is silent with respect to an edible film coating.
Wei teaches edible fungi, i.e., mushrooms or macrofungi, coated with an edible composite coating (Abstract, [0008]-[0023]). Wei teaches the coating preserves the edible fungi (Abstract, [0028]). Here macrofungi are considered filamentous fungus.
Wei teaches a method of coating the edible fungi comprising the steps of: (a) preparing a first coating of sodium alginate, calcium chloride and cinnamic acid in water; (b) immersing the edible fungi in the first coating; (c) preparing a second coating of chitosan and acetic acid in water; (d) uniformly spraying the second coating on the first coating; (e) preparing a third coating of sodium carboxymethylcellulose in water; (f) immersing the edible fungi with the second coating in the third coating; (g) preparing a fourth coating of chitosan, acetic acid in water; (h) immersing the edible fungi with the third coating in the fourth coating; and (i) removing the edible fungi with the fourth coating and drying to obtain a coated and preserved edible fungi ([0044]-[0054]/Example 2).
Nair et al. and Wei are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely, edible filamentous fungus compositions. 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 coated the edible filamentous fungus pellets of Nair et al. with a coating as taught by Wei to obtain filamentous fungus pellets which are preserved.
Regarding claims 3 and 5, modified Nair et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. The combination of references are silent with respect to the filamentous fungus extending through at least the first film.
Given Nair et al. disclose coating materials (i.e., edible polymers) as presently claimed, e.g., alginate, methylcellulose and/or chitosan, intrinsically, the filamentous fungus would extend, to some extent through at least the first coating (i.e., first film). Therefore, at least the first coating layer of Nair et al. (i.e., first film) would comprise the filamentous fungus.
Regarding claims 7-9, modified Nair et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Nair et al. focus on the formation of pellets by edible filamentous fungi, Neurospora intermedia, the reference clearly disclose pellet formation of filamentous fungal species such as Aspergillus, Rhizopus or Penicillium strains is known (p. 2/Introduction). Nair et al. specifically disclose the Penicillium chrysogenum (p. 2/Introduction) and Aspergillus oryzae (p. 1/Introduction).
Regarding claim 16, modified Nair et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Wei teaches the first coating comprises cinnamic acid (i.e., flavoring agent – [0012], [0046]/Example 2).
Regarding claim 19, modified Nair et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Given Nair et al. disclose an active filamentous fungal culture, the limitations of claim 19 are satisfied. Claim 1 only requires one of an active or an inactive filamentous fungal culture.
Regarding claim 22, modified Nair et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Wei teaches each of the first, second, third and fourth coating comprise water ([0044]-[0054]).
Regarding claim 23, modified Nair et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Nair et al. disclose the filamentous fungus, N. intermedia, has a protein content of 56% (w/w) (p. 1/Introduction).
Regarding claim 25, modified Nair et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Nair et al. disclose filamentous fungus pellets having a sugar content of less than 10% (w/w) (see p. 4/Table 1, p.7/Fig 5).
Regarding claim 36, Nair et al. disclose a method of preparing an edible filamentous fungal pellet, the method comprising the steps of: (a) culturing edible filamentous fungus, Neurospora intermedia in a potato dextrose medium for at least 24 hours (wherein samples were taken every 24 hours) to obtain pellets (p. 2/Materials and methods/Standard cultivation).
Nair et al. is silent with respect to contacting the pellets with a first edible film whereby the pellets are coated with the first edible film.
Wei teaches edible fungi, i.e., mushrooms or macrofungi, coated with an edible composite coating (Abstract, [0008]-[0023]). Wei teaches the coating preserves the edible fungi (Abstract, [0028]). Here macrofungi are considered filamentous fungus.
Wei teaches a method of coating the edible fungi comprising the steps of: (a) preparing a first coating of sodium alginate, calcium chloride and cinnamic acid (i.e., a flavor component) in water; (b) immersing the edible fungi in the first coating; (c) preparing a second coating of chitosan and acetic acid in water; (d) uniformly spraying the second coating on the first coating; (e) preparing a third coating of sodium carboxymethylcellulose in water; (f) immersing the edible fungi with the second coating in the third coating; (g) preparing a fourth coating of chitosan, acetic acid in water; (h) immersing the edible fungi with the third coating in the fourth coating; and (i) removing the edible fungi with the fourth coating and drying to obtain a coated and preserved edible fungi ([0044]-[0054]/Example 2).
Nair et al. and Wei are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely, edible filamentous fungus compositions. 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 coated the edible filamentous fungus pellets of Nair et al. with a coating as taught by Wei to obtain filamentous fungus pellets which are preserved.
Claims 30, 34 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nair et al. (“Mycelial pellet formation by edible ascomycete filamentous fungi, Neurospora intermedia”, AMB Express, 6:31, (2016), pp. 1-10) in view of Wei (CN 108902295 –Translation as provided by Applicant in the IDS filed February 6, 2024) as applied to claim 1 and 36, and further in view of Kozubal et al. (US 2019/0059431).
Regarding claims 30 and 34, modified Nair et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Nair et al. is silent with respect to a liquid composition.
Kozubal et al. teaches edible foodstuffs, including beverages, smoothies and milk analogues comprising filamentous fungi biomass (claims 7 and 10, [0022], [0093]). Kozubal et al. teach foods augmented with the filamentous fungal biomass have high protein content ([0024],[0092],[0094]).
Nair et al., Wei and Kozubal et al. are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely filamentous fungal biomass. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the edible filamentous fungi pellets of Nair et al., as modified by Wei, to supplement a beverage with protein.
Given Kozubal et al. teach beverages generally, absent evidence to the contrary, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add the edible filamentous fungi pellets of Nair et al., as modified by Wei, to any beverage, including a boba-like beverage with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 37, modified Nair et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Nair et al. is silent with respect to inactivating the growth of the edible filamentous fungus after culturing and before coating.
Kozubal et al. teach growing filamentous fungi biomass for use in foodstuff. Kozubal et al. disclose inactivating the growing biomass after cultivation by heating to destroy the vast majority of the organism’s RNA without adversely affecting the organism’s protein composition ([0079]-[0081]).
Nair et al. and Kozubal et al. are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely forms of edible filamentous fungi. 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 inactivated the growing filamentous fungi culture of Nair et al. by heating, as taught by Kozubal et al. in order to provide a form of edible filamentous fungi ready for incorporation into a foodstuff.
Claim 57 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nair et al. (“Mycelial pellet formation by edible ascomycete filamentous fungi, Neurospora intermedia”, AMB Express, 6:31, (2016), pp. 1-10) in view of Wei (CN 108902295 –Translation as provided by Applicant in the IDS filed February 6, 2024) and Kozubal et al. (US 2019/0059431).
Regarding claim 57, Nair et al. disclose edible filamentous fungus, Neurospora intermedia, in pellet form (Abstract, p. 2/Introduction, p. 2/Materials and methods).
Nair et al. disclose the active cultivation and growth of Neurospora intermedia spores and no steps to inactivate the fungus (p. 2-3/Materials and methods.
Nair et al. is silent with respect to an edible film coating.
Wei teaches edible fungi, i.e., mushrooms or macrofungi, coated with an edible composite coating (Abstract, [0008]-[0023]). Wei teaches the coating preserves the edible fungi (Abstract, [0028]). Here macrofungi are considered filamentous fungus.
Wei teaches a method of coating the edible fungi comprising the steps of: (a) preparing a first coating of sodium alginate, calcium chloride and cinnamic acid in water; (b) immersing the edible fungi in the first coating; (c) preparing a second coating of chitosan and acetic acid in water; (d) uniformly spraying the second coating on the first coating; (e) preparing a third coating of sodium carboxymethylcellulose in water; (f) immersing the edible fungi with the second coating in the third coating; (g) preparing a fourth coating of chitosan, acetic acid in water; (h) immersing the edible fungi with the third coating in the fourth coating; and (i) removing the edible fungi with the fourth coating and drying to obtain a coated and preserved edible fungi ([0044]-[0054]/Example 2).
Nair et al. and Wei are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely, edible filamentous fungus compositions. 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 coated the edible filamentous fungus pellets of Nair et al. with a coating as taught by Wei to obtain filamentous fungus pellets which are preserved.
Both Nair et al. and Wei are silent with respect to an edible filamentous fungus, Neurospora intermedia, in pellet form wherein the pellet of edible filamentous fungus or the coating comprises a fruit flavor component, a fruit color component or a combination thereof.
Kozubal et al. teach edible filamentous fungal biomass particles comprising add flavors and/or color additives ([0087], [0095]). Kozubal et al. teach the flavors are selected to meet the demands of a particular population ([0095]). Kozubal et al. teach the edible filamentous fungal biomass particles are used to augment the protein content of foodstuff edible foodstuff including beverages, smoothies and milk analogues comprising filamentous fungi biomass (claims 7 and 10, [0022], [0093], [0095]).
Nair et al., Wei and Kozubal et al. are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely edible filamentous fungal biomass. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have add flavor as taught by Kozubal et al. to the edible filamentous fungal pellets of Nair et al., to obtain pellets with a desired flavor. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to choose a particular flavor, for example a fruit flavor, depending on the type of foodstuff the pellets are added to or a personal preference for flavor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 7, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue “there is no motivation to combine Nair and Wei.” Applicant submit “Nair is silent regarding any processing methods of the end cell culture product to convert it into a novel edible composition.”
Here, Nair et al. is directed to edible filamentous fungi in pellet form (Abstract, p. 2-3/Materials and methods). Nair et al. disclose filamentous fungi are known to be used in human foodstuff (p. 1/Introduction). Clearly, Nair et al. disclose an edible composition intended to be used as an ingredient or alone as human food.
Wei provides the motivation to combine the references. Wei teaches edible fungi, i.e., mushrooms or macrofungi, coated with an edible composite coating (Abstract, [0008]-[0023]). Wei teaches the coating preserves the edible fungi (Abstract, [0028]). Here macrofungi are considered filamentous fungus.
Wei teaches a method of coating the edible fungi comprising the steps of: (a) preparing a first coating of sodium alginate, calcium chloride and cinnamic acid in water; (b) immersing the edible fungi in the first coating; (c) preparing a second coating of chitosan and acetic acid in water; (d) uniformly spraying the second coating on the first coating; (e) preparing a third coating of sodium carboxymethylcellulose in water; (f) immersing the edible fungi with the second coating in the third coating; (g) preparing a fourth coating of chitosan, acetic acid in water; (h) immersing the edible fungi with the third coating in the fourth coating; and (i) removing the edible fungi with the fourth coating and drying to obtain a coated and preserved edible fungi ([0044]-[0054]/Example 2).
Nair et al. and Wei are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely, edible filamentous fungus compositions. 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 coated the edible filamentous fungus pellets of Nair et al. with a coating as taught by Wei to obtain filamentous fungus pellets which are preserved.
However, note that while Wei does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Wei is used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, namely preserving forms of filamentous fungi by coating, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Regarding claim 16, Applicants submit “[t]he combination of Nair and Wei fails to disclose or suggest providing additives to the fungal pellet or its coating to impart flavor, color, nutritional properties, etc.
Claim 16 requires that the pellet of filamentous fungus, the first edible film, the second edible film or any combination thereof comprise an added flavor component, a color component, a vitamin, a nutritional mineral, an amino acid, branched chain amino acid, or any combination thereof. Wei teaches the first coating comprises cinnamic acid (i.e., flavoring agent – [0012], [0046]/Example 2). Cinnamic acid is a known flavoring agent. Claim 16 does not require, for example, the flavor impart flavor. While Wei teaches the addition of cinnamic acid as a preservation agent, the flavor qualities of the cinnamic acid cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious.
Regarding claim 19, Applicants argue “[t]he Office has not identified this claim element in the proposed amendment.” Given claim 1 only requires one of an active or inactive filamentous fungal culture, since Nair et al. disclose an active filamentous fungal culture, the limitation of claim 19 is satisfied. Claim 19 does not recite “wherein the filamentous fungal culture is inactive.
Regarding claims 20-22, Applicants find “[t]he Office has not identified where in the proposed combination these claimed morphologies are expressly disclosed or suggested. Here, claim 20 requires the composition comprises three layers and claim 21 requires the composition comprises at least 4 layers, and wherein the outer layer is coated with one or more layers of a third edible film. Applicants are directed to the rejections set forth above which cites Example 2 of Wei. Example 2 discloses an edible filamentous fungus coated with 4 layers of coating. Claim 22 requires wherein the third edible film comprises the same material as a member selected from the first edible film, the second edible film and a combination thereof. Wei teaches each of the first, second, third and fourth coating comprise water ([0044]-[0054]).
Regarding claim 30, Applicants submit “[a]s there is no disclosure or suggestion in the proposed combination to form a cultured, edible fungus particle, there can be no suggestion to format such as a beverage.”
The Examiner does not suggest including the “coated fruiting bodies of Wei” in a beverage, rather Wei is used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). The reference teaches a certain concept, namely preserving forms of filamentous fungi by coating, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Kozubal et al. teaches edible foodstuffs, including beverages, smoothies and milk analogues comprising filamentous fungi biomass (claims 7 and 10, [0022], [0093]). Kozubal et al. teach foods augmented with the filamentous fungal biomass have high protein content ([0024],[0092],[0094]).
Regarding claim 37, Applicants submit the combination of “Nair and Wei fails to disclose or suggest a heat-treated deactivated fungal pellet coated with one or more coating.”
Applicants are directed to the rejection of claim 37 set forth above.
Applicants argue “the proposed combination is improper and cannot form the basis of a prima facie case of obviousness because the proposed combination destroys or alters the purpose and function of both Nair and Wei.” Applicants submit “Wei provides no motivation to coat any material other than a mushroom fruiting body and is silent with respect to coating a cultured pellet of filamentous fungi.”
Wei teaches edible fungi, i.e., mushrooms or macrofungi, coated with an edible composite coating (Abstract, [0008]-[0023]). Macrofungi are a type of filamentous fungi. Therefore, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably considered the teaching of Wei, i.e., coating macrofungi to preserve them, applicable to other forms of filamentous fungi, including pellets.
Applicants argue “[t]here is no evidence of record that the art recognized that such a pellet could be coated or that such coating or the resulting coated pellet would be desirable.”
In this case, Wei provides the motivation (i.e., why a coated pellet would be desirable) for an edible filamentous fungi pellet comprising a coating. Wei teaches the coating preserves the edible fungi ([0028]). 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 coated the edible filamentous fungus pellets of Nair et al. with a coating as taught by Wei to obtain filamentous fungus pellets which are preserved.
Applicants argue neither Nair et al. or Wei disclose or suggest “an edible, cultured fungal pellet with an edible coating with variation in product color and flavor.”
Claims 16, 38 and 39 only require “wherein at least one pellet or at least one edible film comprises a flavor component or a color component.” With respect to claim 16, Wei teaches the first coating comprises cinnamic acid (i.e., flavoring agent – [0012], [0046]/Example 2). With respect to claim 38, Kozubal et al. is applied to teach added flavors and or color to the pellet. Kozubal et al. teach edible filamentous fungal biomass particles comprising add flavors and/or color additives ([0087], [0095]). Kozubal et al. teach the flavors are selected to meet the demands of a particular population ([0095]). Kozubal et al. teach the edible filamentous fungal biomass particles are used to augment the protein content of foodstuff edible foodstuff including beverages, smoothies and milk analogues comprising filamentous fungi biomass (claims 7 and 10, [0022], [0093], [0095]).
Nair et al., Wei and Kozubal et al. are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely edible filamentous fungal biomass. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have add flavor as taught by Kozubal et al. to the edible filamentous fungal pellets of Nair et al., to obtain pellets with a desired flavor. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to choose a particular flavor, for example a fruit flavor, depending on the type of foodstuff the pellets are added to or a personal preference for flavor.
Applicants argue the coating methods taught by Wei are not disclosed or suggested for coating the fungal pellets claimed in the present invention.
Wei teaches a method of coating the edible fungi comprising the steps of: (a) preparing a first coating of sodium alginate, calcium chloride and cinnamic acid in water; (b) immersing the edible fungi in the first coating; (c) preparing a second coating of chitosan and acetic acid in water; (d) uniformly spraying the second coating on the first coating; (e) preparing a third coating of sodium carboxymethylcellulose in water; (f) immersing the edible fungi with the second coating in the third coating; (g) preparing a fourth coating of chitosan, acetic acid in water; (h) immersing the edible fungi with the third coating in the fourth coating; and (i) removing the edible fungi with the fourth coating and drying to obtain a coated and preserved edible fungi ([0044]-[0054]/Example 2). Nair et al. and Wei are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely, edible filamentous fungus compositions. 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 coated the edible filamentous fungus pellets of Nair et al. with a coating as taught by Wei to obtain filamentous fungus pellets which are preserved. There is no evidence on the record demonstrating that steps of Wei to coat macrofungi could not be applied to other forms of filamentous fungi such as pellets.
Applicants submit Wei teaches against flavor and color alternations of the coated product. Applicants submit “Wei discloses methods for maintaining the freshness of the mushroom bodies without influencing the flavor of the mushroom.”
In this case, Wei disclose a coating comprising cinnamic acid, a known flavoring agent.
Applicants argue the Office Action “does not provide a reference indicating that those of skill in the art believed solid mushroom fruiting bodies and cultured fungi pellet to be in any way exchangeable alternative as substrates for coating.”
The Office has established a prima case of obviousness. Applicants have not presented evidence show there is no reasonable expectation of success. Nair et al. teach the formation of edible filamentous fungi pellets. Wei teaches a method of coating a type of filamentous fungi. While the filamentous fungi of Nair et al. are different in size and configuration to those of Wei, both reference teach forms with some sort of discernable structure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully coating filamentous fungi pellets of Nair et al. using the coating and methods described by Wei for macrofungi.
Applicants argue “[t]he Office has not examined the claimed invention “as a whole” and has engaged in impermissible hindsight.”
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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