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 .
The amendment filed June 4, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-16 are pending in the application. Claim 16 has been withdrawn from consideration.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aird et al. US 20040224069 (hereinafter “Aird”) in view of Zoltai et al. US 7700145 (hereinafter “Zoltai”).
With respect to claim 1, Aird teaches a process of making a dairy additive for food (Abstract and paragraphs [0021], [0116], and [0117]).
Regarding the recitation “for producing a dairy creamer …” in the preamble of claim 1, it is noted that this recitation is a statement of intended use or field of use. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to the claim construction. See MPEP 2111.02.
Regarding “comprising : a) providing a volume of skim milk having a protein content ranging from 2.5 to 4.5 wt% and a carbohydrate content ranging from 4.5 to 5.5 wt%” in claim 1, Aird teaches providing a volume of skim milk having a protein content ranging from 2-6 wt% and encompasses the presently claimed range of protein (paragraphs [0029], [0096], [0136], and [0148]). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In rzoe Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
However, Aird does not expressly disclose the carbohydrate content of the skim milk.
Zoltai teaches a method of making a dairy product. The product comprises skim milk. The skim milk comprises a carbohydrate content of approximately 5% (Abstract; C4, L52-57; and C4, L67-C5, L2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any portions of the disclosed range, including the instantly claimed carbohydrate content, from the range disclosed in the prior art reference with the expectation of successfully preparing a functional product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Aird and Zoltai similarly teach the preparation of dairy based products comprising skim milk and Zoltai teaches the skim milk provides dairy flavor and protein to the dairy product (C4, L65-66). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success. "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages " In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549,533 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding the recitation of b) concentrating the skim milk by ultrafiltration and collecting the obtained protein-enriched retentate in claim 1, Aird teaches concentrating the skim milk by ultrafiltration and obtaining a retentate. Ultrafiltration concentrates the total protein content in the skim milk (paragraphs [0016], [0027], [0044], [0072], [0080], [0096], [0098], [0137] and [0149]; and Fig. 1).
Regarding the recitation of c) diluting the protein-enriched retentate with enough water to reach at least 80 vol% of the initial volume of skim milk to obtain a diluted fraction having a reduced carbohydrate content in claim 1, Aird teaches adding water to the ultrafiltration retentate. Aird also teaches ultrafiltration is used to remove lactose (carbohydrate) (paragraphs [0016], [0027], [0044], [0059], [0063], [0073], and [0138]; and Fig. 1).
Aird does not expressly disclose adding enough water to reach at least 80 vol% of the initial volume of skim milk. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the quantity of water added in the method of Aird with the expectation of successfully preparing a functional product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Aird teaches the moisture content may be adjusted upwards by the addition of water in order to contribute to the nutritional composition, functionality and/or flavor characteristics of the final food product (paragraphs [0063] and [0073]) and it is understood that, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success. “[W]here 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) (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding the recitation of d) optionally repeating one or more times steps b) and c) on the diluted fraction resulting from step c) to further reduce the carbohydrate content of the diluted fraction in claim 1, Aird teaches modifying the protein containing material by concentrating by ultrafiltration, obtaining a retentate, and adding water to the retentate in order to alter the lactose content of the protein containing material and performing the modifications at any step in the process (paragraphs [0016], [0027], [0059], [0063], [0072], [0073], and [0080]).
Regarding the recitation of e) concentrating the diluted fraction resulting from step c) or d) by ultrafiltration and collecting the obtained protein-enriched retentate in claim 1, Aird teaches concentrating the diluted retentate by ultrafiltration and obtaining a retentate. Ultrafiltration concentrates the total protein content in the material (paragraphs [0016], [0027], [0077], [0079], and [0080]); and Fig. 1).
Regarding the recitation of f) diluting the protein-enriched retentate resulting from step e) with enough water to provide a diluted fraction having a protein content ranging from 2.5 to 4.5 wt% in claim 1, Aird teaches diluting the obtained retentate with water to obtain a protein content ranging from 2-6 wt% and encompasses the presently claimed protein range (paragraphs [0016], [0027], [0063], and [0074]; and Fig. 1). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Regarding the recitation of g) adding cream to the diluted fraction resulting from step f) to provide a dairy creamer that has a fat content not lower than 10.5% by weight in clam 1, Aird teaches adding cream to diluted product to obtain a dairy based food product with a fat content that does not exceed 55% (paragraphs [0016], [0021], [0027], [0054], [0082], and [0085]; and Fig. 1). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Regarding the recitation of h) optionally adding a stabilizing salt and/or a flavor to the dairy creamer; i) heat treating the dairy creamer; j) optionally homogenizing the dairy creamer; and k) packaging the dairy creamer in claim 1, Aird teaches optionally adding flavor to the dairy based product, heat treating the dairy based product, optionally homogenizing the product, and packaging the product (paragraphs [0038], [0085], [0087], [0100], [0102], [0113], and Fig. 1).
Regarding the recitation of for producing a dairy creamer that has a fat content not lower than 10.5 wt% and a carbohydrate content equal to or lower than 3.3 wt% in claim 1, it is noted that this recitation relates the resulting effect of practicing the claimed method. Applicant is reminded that language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect: (A) statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble, (B) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses, (C) "wherein" or "whereby" clauses, (D) contingent limitations, (E) printed matter, or (F) terms with associated functional language. See MPEP 2103 and 2111.04. Additionally, the court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)) and MPEP 2111.04.
Absent any clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, the method would naturally arrive at these claimed features since modified Aird teaches a method that is substantially similar to the presently claimed method as addressed above and Aird teaches ultrafiltration removes the lactose (carbohydrate) content of the composition (removal to achieve less than 6 wt% lactose in the final product) as well as increasing the fat content with the addition of cream to obtain a product with a fat content that does not exceed 55% (paragraphs [0016], [0021], [0053], [0054], [0058], [0059], [0080], [0082], and [0085]; and Fig. 1).
With respect to claims 2 and 3, modified Aird teaches the process of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein the carbohydrate content of the dairy creamer ranges from 0 wt% to 3.0 wt% or 0 wt% to 0.5 wt% in claims 2 and 3, respectively, Aird does not expressly disclose these limitations.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the quantity of carbohydrate in the method of Aird with the expectation of successfully preparing a functional dairy based product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Aird teaches ultrafiltration removes the lactose (carbohydrate) content of the composition (removal to achieve less than 6 wt% lactose in the final product) (paragraphs [0058], [0059], and [0080]) and it is understood that, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success. “[W]here 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) (MPEP 2144.05 II).
With respect to claim 4, modified Aird teaches the process of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein the fat content of the dairy creamer ranges from 10.5 wt% to 18 wt% in claim 4, modified Aird teaches this limitation since Aird teaches adding cream to diluted product to obtain a product with a fat content that does not exceed 55% (paragraphs [0016], [0027], [0053], [0054], [0082], [0085], and Fig. 1). The range of Aird encompasses the presently claimed range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
With respect to claim 5, modified Aird teaches the process of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein the concentrating step b and/or e) is performed by ultrafiltration at a temperature ranging from 30 to 55°C and at a pressure ranging from 0.5 to 10 bar in claim 5, Aird teaches ultrafiltration is performed at a temperature range of from 0 to 60⁰C (paragraph [0079]) and encompasses the presently claimed range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Additionally, it is reasonable to assert that ultrafiltration in Aird is performed at standard pressure of 1 bar since Aird is silent with respect to adjusting the pressure during ultrafiltration (paragraph [0079]). Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the pressure during ultrafiltration with the expectation of successfully preparing a functional product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Aird teaches modifications, such as pressure conditions, can be used to produce a final product of desired nutritional composition, functional, and/or flavor characteristics (paragraphs [0015]-[0016]), and it is understood that, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success. “[W]here 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) (MPEP 2144.05 II).
With respect to claim 6, modified Aird teaches the process of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein the concentrating step b and/or e) is performed with a concentration factor of 2 to 4 in claim 6, modified Aird teaches this limitation since Aird teaches concentrating with a concentration factor of approximately 4.2 in one embodiment (paragraphs [0122] and [0173]). 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) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)
With respect to claims 7 and 8, modified Aird teaches the process of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein the diluted fraction obtained in step f) has a carbohydrate content ranging from 0 wt% to 3.0 wt% or 0 wt% to 0.5 wt% in claims 7 and 8, respectively, Aird does not expressly disclose these limitations.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the quantity of carbohydrate in the method of Aird with the expectation of successfully preparing a functional dairy based product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Aird teaches ultrafiltration removes the lactose (carbohydrate) content of the composition (removal to achieve less than 6 wt% lactose in the final product) (paragraphs [0058], [0059], and [0080]) and it is understood that, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success. “[W]here 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) (MPEP 2144.05 II).
With respect to claims 9 and 10, modified Aird teaches the process of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein the diluted fraction obtained in step f) contains from 0 to 1.0 wt% or 0 to 0.10 wt% fat in claims 9 and 10, respectively, modified Aird teaches these limitation since Aird teaches the fat content of the diluted material is between 0.05 and 5% in one embodiment (paragraphs [0016], [0027], [0063], and [0074]; and Fig. 1). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
With respect to claim 11, modified Aird teaches the process of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein the diluted fraction obtained in step f) contains from 5 to 15 wt% of total solids in claim 11, modified Aird teaches this limitation since Aird teaches the material has a total solids of up to 28% (paragraph [0079]) and encompasses the presently claimed range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
With respect to claims 12 and 13, modified Aird teaches the process of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein the cream has a fat content of at least 30 wt% or ranging from 30 wt% to 40 wt% in claims 12 and 13, respectively, modified Aird teaches these limitations since Aird teaches the cream has a fat content of 35-80% (paragraph [0082]) and overlaps with the presently claimed ranges. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
With respect to claim 14, modified Aird teaches the process of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein the stabilizing salt is selected from the group consisting of sodium or potassium salt of citrate, sodium or potassium salt of phosphate, sodium or potassium salt of di- or poly-phosphate, and combinations thereof in claim 14, modified Aird meets the claimed limitation since Aird is silent with respect to the salts listed in claim 14, and the stabilizing salt is an optional component in claim 1.
With respect to claim 15, modified Aird teaches the process of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein the heat treating step comprises performing pasteurization and/or ultra-high temperature (UHT) procedures n claim 15, modified Aird teaches this limitation since Aird teaches pasteurization and heat treating the product at a suitable temperature above 50⁰C to reduce microorganism activity (paragraphs [0079] and [0102]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed June 4, 2026 are acknowledged.
Due to the amendment to claim 1, the 35 USC 112 rejection in the previous Office Action has been withdrawn (P5). (paragraphs [0016], [0021], [0027], [0054], [0082], and [0085]; and Fig. 1)
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues steps f and g require dilution with water followed by addition of cream to provide a dairy creamer. The Examiner attempts to address these features in paragraphs 26 and 27 of the outstanding Office Action but does not account for the fact that the process is adding water and cream to provide a dairy creamer. Thus, the feature of providing a dairy creamer should be given full patentable weight. The claimed invention and Aird et al. '069 are different since the Aird et al. '069 reference is not just directed to a generic dairy based food product as implied in the outstanding Office Action. While Aird et al. '069 use the expression "dairy based food," paragraph [0026] of Aird et al. '069 discloses "a 'natural' cheese product, having flavour and texture characteristics of a conventionally produced product." Aird et al. '069 allow for other dairy products, such as yogurt, mousse, dessert, or dressing, but never mention or even suggest a creamer. See paragraph [0116]. However, Aird et al. '069 reiterate, "Desirably, the product is a formable, stable cheese product which has a composition similar to a traditionally made cheese as opposed to a processed cheese.” The outstanding Office Action does not address the purpose of Aird et al. '069. Applicant respectfully submits that not all dairy products react the same to changes in macronutrient levels by, among other things, dilution with water, concentration by ultrafiltration, and addition of cream. In addition, Aird et al. '069 fail to disclose or suggest that its method primarily directed to a cheese product would also apply to a creamer. In fact, the modification proposed in the outstanding Office Action destroys the intended purpose of Aird et al. '069. Indeed, if the process of Aird et al. '069 is modified to add sufficient water and cream to provide a dairy creamer, as suggested by the Examiner, then it would no longer have the flavor and texture characteristics of a conventionally produced cheese product. The suggested modification changes the fundamental principle of operation of Aird et al. '069 and renders Aird et al. '069 inoperable for its intended purpose. One of ordinary skill in the art would have no proper reason, rationale, or motivation to make such a modification to Aird et al. '069. In other words, if a proposed modification would render the cited reference being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. Zoltai et al. '145 fail to overcome the deficiencies of Aird et al. '069, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have no proper reason, rationale, or motivation to modify the cited references in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Aird et al. '069 in view of Zoltai et al. '145 fail to disclose all of the claim limitations of independent claim 1, and those claims dependent thereon. Furthermore, the cited references or the knowledge in the art provide no proper reason or rationale that would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention (P5-P9).
Examiner disagrees. The Examiner recognizes that obviousness may 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 found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation to combine is found within the references themselves as well as in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As previously addressed, the claimed invention is obvious in view of Aird and Zoltai. Aird relates to dairy based food products. Although Aird teaches cheese and other dairy products, such as yogurt, mousse, dessert, or dressing, Aird is not limited to these embodiments since the reference also teaches preparing a broad range of end products including dairy additive for use as a food ingredient (paragraphs [0021], [0027], [0116], and [0117]). Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). Aird does not expressly disclose the carbohydrate content of the skim milk. However, Zoltai is relied upon for this teaching (Abstract; C4, L52-57; and C4, L67-C5, L2). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select any portions of the disclosed range, including the instantly claimed carbohydrate content, from the range disclosed in the prior art reference with the expectation of successfully preparing a functional product because Aird and Zoltai similarly teach the preparation of dairy based products comprising skim milk and Zoltai teaches the skim milk provides dairy flavor and protein to the dairy product (C4, L65-66). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages " In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549,533 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.
Additionally, Applicant appears to have mistaken the recitation of “to provide a dairy creamer” in step g with the recitation of “for producing a dairy creamer…” in the preamble of claim 1. It is noted that the recitation of “for producing a dairy creamer …” is a statement of intended use or field of use. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to the claim construction. See MPEP 2111.02. It is Examiner’s position that “to provide a dairy creamer” as recited in step g has been given patentable weight. As previously discussed, Aird teaches diluting the obtained retentate with water to obtain a protein content ranging from 2-6 wt% and adding cream to diluted product to obtain a dairy based food product with a fat content that does not exceed 55% (paragraphs [0016], [0021], [0027], [0054], [0063], [0074], [0082], and [0085]; and Fig. 1).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TYNESHA L. MCCLAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1153. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 AM - 6:30 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.
/JEFFREY P MORNHINWEG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/T.L.M/Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights