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 24 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant has overcome the following by virtue of amendment of the claims: (1) the objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1-3 and 5
Withdrawn claims: None
Previously canceled claims: None
Newly canceled claims: 4 and 6
Amended claims: 1-3 and 5
New claims: None
Claims currently under consideration: 1-3 and 5
Currently rejected claims: 1-3 and 5
Allowed claims: None
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 14 October 2025 was filed after the mailing date of the First Action on 30 September 2025 to provide a partial English translation for “Veggy Online”. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 2, “in preparing an ingredient dough,” should be deleted for conciseness.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Legally et al. (provisional U.S. application No. 63/118,597, published as US 2022/0159994 A1. See MPEP § 2154.01(b)) in view of Altemueller (WO 2008/036836 A1), Baba et al. (JP 2017-163908 A, cited on the IDS filed on 11 July 2023. See provided translation), Zhao et al. (Zhao, H., Yu, B., Hemar, Y., Chen, J., & Cui, B. (2020). Improvement of calcium sulfate-induced gelation of soy protein via incorporation of soy oil before and after thermal denaturation. LWT, 117, 108690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2019.108690), Mahawanich et al. (Mahawanich, T., Lekhavichitr, J., & Kuangmal, K. (2010). Gel properties of red tilapia surimi: effects of setting condition, fish freshness, and frozen storage. Int J Food Sci Technol, 45(9), 1777-1786. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2010.02317.x), and Ajami et al. (US 2017/0105438 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Claim Interpretation:
Applicant is reminded that the claim language “for a fish-fry like food” is a statement of intended use. A statement with regard to intended use is not further limiting insofar as the structure of the invention 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). As detailed hereinbelow, there is no difference between the method suggested in the prior art and the claimed method of preparing an ingredient dough.
It is noted that the conditions of the limitation, “where the gel strength is a breaking load measured under the following conditions: a sample having a φ3 cm cylindrical shape, a sample thickness of 1 cm, a plunger width of 30 mm (wedge shape), a speed of 1mm/sec, and room temperature measurement” are not claimed as a positively recited method step in the method claim. Thus, only the gel strength of 50 gf or higher and 800 gf or lower as a breaking load is required by claim 1.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 is therefore: A method for preparing an ingredient dough comprising, binding a textured plant protein material with a binding dough, the textured plant protein material having a crude protein content of 60 wt.% or more in a dried material, and the binding dough having a gel strength after gelation of 50 gf or higher and 800 gf or lower, where the gel strength is a breaking load, wherein a powdered soy protein isolate is used in an amount of 5 to 30 wt.% in the binding dough, and an oil and/or fat is used in an amount of 5 to 15 wt.% in the binding dough.
Claim Rejection:
Regarding claim 1, Legally teaches a method for producing a plant-based meat product, the method comprising forming a binding oil-in-water emulsion and mixing with hydrated protein to form a mixed dough (i.e., ingredient dough) (claim 1). The protein may be a textured protein (claim 6). The method is for the production of plant-based meat, such as, e.g., plant-based, meatless burgers, chicken nuggets, and other similar vegetarian or vegan foodstuff which does not contain meat ([0015]). The mixed dough may be formed into a chicken nugget, burger patty, or other suitable shape or form as desired, and may be fried ([0038]).
Legally does not teach that the textured plant protein material has a crude protein content of 60 wt.% or more in a dried material, or that the binding dough has a gel strength after gelation of 50 gf or higher and 800 gf or lower, where the gel strength is a breaking load, or that a powdered soy protein isolate is used in an amount of 5 to 30 wt.% in the binding dough, and an oil and/or fat is used in an amount of 5 to 15 wt.% in the binding dough.
However, Altemueller teaches a simulated seafood composition comprising a structured soy protein product, wherein the structured soy protein product comprises protein fibers that are substantially aligned (i.e., a textured soy protein product), an omega-3 fatty acid, and an appropriate colorant ([0008]). The simulated seafood composition generally has the flavor, texture, and smell of seafood meat ([0012]). Example 5 of Altemueller teaches that the structured plant protein product comprises 1000 kg soy isolate, 440 kg wheat gluten, 171 kg wheat starch, 34 kg soy cotyledon fiber, 9 kg dicalcium phosphate and 1 kg L-cysteine ([0099]). The total weight of the dry ingredients is 1655 kg. Soy isolate comprises at least 90% protein by definition. Therefore, the soy isolate amounts to at least 900 kg protein. The total amount of protein (soy isolate and wheat gluten) is then 1340 kg. Therefore, the total crude protein content is 1340 kg / 1655 kg = 81 wt.%. This amount lies within the claimed range of at least 60%.
Regarding the textured plant protein material, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Legally with the teachings of Altemueller to provide a textured plant protein material with a crude protein content of 81 wt.%, which is greater than 60 wt.%, as claimed, in producing a plant-based meat that simulates seafood. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to consult Altemueller to determine a suitable crude protein content for the textured protein material to produce a meat analogue. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Legally and Altemueller both teach methods of making meat analogue products, and Altemueller demonstrates that a textured protein material having 81 wt.% crude protein results in a simulated seafood composition generally having the texture of seafood meat ([0012]).
Regarding the gel strength of the binding dough, Legally teaches that the binding dough is an oil-water emulsion comprising oil, water, and one or more binding agents (claim 1), and that the binding agent may be methylcellulose, citric acid, or any other suitable form of emulsification agent associated with plant-based meat ([0024]).
Baba teaches that powdered soybean protein is a known emulsifying agent in various foods; particularly, in marine products, powdered soybean protein is mixed with water and oil to form an emulsion dough ([0003]). Baba teaches that isolated soybean protein is used more frequently than extracted soybean protein in the field of marine products because the protein content is as high as 90% by weight and gives strong gelling power ([0014]). Therefore, Baba teaches that it was known to use soybean protein isolate as an emulsifying agent in a binding dough for a marine/seafood meat analogue, and that more protein content results in a stronger gel.
Additionally, Zhao teaches, in relation to soy protein-based foods, that factors including the final elastic modulus, G’ (relating to rigidity), gel hardness, and water holding capacity were increased in soy protein isolate emulsion containing 10-70 mL/L of soy oil as a function of the amount of oil added upon gelation with calcium sulfate (Abstract). The emulsions are oil-in-water emulsions comprising 7.5 % (w/v) soy protein isolate and 1-7 % (v/v) soy oil (p. 2, col. 1, final ¶). Thus, Zhao teaches an oil-in-water emulsion gel of soy protein isolate, soy oil, and water in which the properties of the gel can be modulated based on the amount of oil in the emulsion.
Additionally, Mahawanich teaches that surimi (minced fish meat from which most of the fat and water-soluble components have been removed) (p. 1777, col. 1, ¶ 1) has a breaking force of about 292 gf to about 786 gf, depending on its gel setting conditions (p. 1780, Table 1). Therefore, Mahawanich teaches a range for the breaking force/gel strength that one of ordinary skill in the art would provide to a binding gel of a fish meat analogue product. The disclosed range lies inside the claimed range of 50 gf to 800 gf.
Given these teachings, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Legally as modified by Altemueller with the teachings of Baba, Zhao, and Mahawanich such that the binding dough has a gel strength after gelation of about 292 gf to about 786 gf.
First, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use soy protein isolate as the binding agent in the emulsion of Legally as taught by Baba to prepare an emulsion dough that is suitable for making a seafood meat analogue. MPEP § 2144.07 states, “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use support[s] a prima facie obviousness determination”. Since Baba discloses that the claimed plant protein isolate (i.e., soy protein isolate) is a suitable emulsifying agent for use in a marine/seafood meat analogue product, it would have been prima facie obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected soy protein isolate as the emulsifier in the binding emulsion of the method of producing a plant-based meat product of Legally.
Second, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the method of Legally as modified by Altemueller and Baba with the teachings of Mahawanich and Zhao to provide the binding emulsion dough with a gel strength of about 292 gf to about 786 gf after gelation by routine optimization of the amounts of soy protein isolate and oil in the emulsion. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to provide a binder for the seafood meat analogue with the texture of a known seafood gel (i.e., surimi). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Mahawanich teaches that gel strength of a known seafood gel (i.e., surimi) is about 292 gf to about 786 gf, Baba teaches that it was known to use soybean protein isolate as an emulsifying agent in a binding dough for a marine/seafood meat analogue and that more protein content results in a stronger gel, and Zhao teaches an oil-in-water emulsion gel of soy protein isolate, soy oil, and water in which the properties of the gel can be modulated based on the amount of oil in the emulsion. As such, Baba and Zhao teach that the amounts of protein and oil, respectively, in the emulsion are known result-effective variables that one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified to achieve a desired gel strength for the binding emulsion, including about 292 gf to about 786 gf as disclosed by Mahawanich.
Regarding the amounts of soy protein isolate and oil and/or fat in the binding dough, Zhao teaches that the emulsions are oil-in-water emulsions comprising 7.5 % (w/v) soy protein isolate and 1-7 % (v/v) soy oil (p. 2, col. 1, final ¶). These amounts are not expressed as wt.%, as such it is unclear whether the amounts disclosed by Zhao overlap with the claimed ranges.
However, Ajami discloses “agent release systems” that have several advantages when used in meat-like food products ([0126]). The agent release systems can be distributed uniformly throughout the meat-like food products ([0129]). Ajami further discloses that the agents to be released in the agent release systems impart or enhance meat-like cohesiveness and/or binding, and in some such embodiments, the agents to be released are binding agents ([0148]). Ajami further discloses types of agent release systems, comprising oil-in-water emulsions ([0158] – [0159]) comprising protein isolates ([0164]), as well as gels ([0198]) comprising soy protein ([0201]). That is, Ajami discloses an oil in water emulsion comprising a plant protein that is used as a binding composition. Ajami teaches that the emulsions include an emulsifier, including protein isolates from plants including soy, in a range between 0.1% to about 10.0% by weight ([0164]). This range overlaps the claimed range of 5 to 30 wt.%. Ajami also teaches that the oil-in-water emulsions comprise lipid in an amount of between about 5% and 10% ([0239]). This range lies inside the claimed range.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the method of Legally with the teachings of Ajami include soy protein isolate in an amount of about 0.1% to about 10% in the binding dough, and lipid in an amount of between about 5% and 10% in the binding dough. First, Legally teaches the method of producing a plant-based meat product comprising mixing a binding oil-water emulsion and textured plant material to form a mixed dough (claim 1), but does not specify amounts of the emulsifier or lipid in the binding emulsion, and Zhao does not express the amounts of soy protein isolate and oil as wt.%. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to consult Ajami to determine suitable amounts of emulsifier and lipid to include in the binding emulsion. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Legally and Ajami both teach methods of making meat analogue products, and Ajami discloses a meat-like food product comprising an oil-in-water emulsion comprising between about 0.1% to about 10% of protein isolate. This range overlaps the claimed range of 5 to 30 wt.%. In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP § 2144.05(I). Ajami also teaches that the oil-in-water emulsions comprise lipid in an amount of between about 5% and 10%. This range lies inside the claimed range.
Claim 1 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Legally, Altemueller, Baba, Zhao, Mahawanich, and Ajami teach the method according to claim 1.
Legally teaches that the binding dough is an oil-water emulsion (claim 1).
Legally does not discuss that the binding dough comprises a plant protein isolate.
However, as described regarding claim 1 above, Baba and Zhao teach oil-in-water emulsions comprising soy protein isolate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Legally with the teachings of Baba and/or Zhao to provide a binding dough that is an oil-in-water emulsion comprising soy protein isolate and oil with the same motivation and with the same expectation of success as described regarding claim 1.
Claim 2 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 3, Legally, Altemueller, Baba, Zhao, Mahawanich, and Ajami teach the method according to claim 2.
Legally does not discuss that the textured plant protein material is in an amount of 5 to 40 wt.% in terms of dry matter in the ingredient dough, and the binding dough is in an amount of 20 to 40 wt.% in the ingredient dough.
However, Ajami teaches “meat-like food products that comprise at least about 25% by weight of one or more meat structured protein products bound together by one or more binding agents so as to produce food products that have one or more similar or superior attributes compared to animal meat” ([0099]). Ajami further defines the range as between about 25% and about 60% by weight of meat structured protein products ([0113]). The meat structured protein products have protein fiber networks and/or aligned protein fibers that confer meat-like textures (i.e., are textured) ([0115]). Plant sources are suitable for the meat structured protein products ([0259] – [0261]). Therefore, Ajami discloses a meat-like food product comprising between about 25% and 60% by weight of textured plant protein. This range overlaps the claimed range of 5 to 40 wt.%.
Additionally, Ajami discloses “agent release systems” that have several advantages when used in meat-like food products ([0126]). The agent release systems can be distributed uniformly throughout the meat-like food products ([0129]). Ajami further discloses that the agents to be released in the agent release systems impart or enhance meat-like cohesiveness and/or binding, and in some such embodiments, the agents to be released are binding agents ([0148]). Ajami further discloses types of agent release systems, comprising oil-in-water emulsions ([0158] – [0159]), comprising protein isolates ([0164]), as well as gels ([0198]) comprising soy protein ([0201]). That is, Ajami discloses an oil in water emulsion comprising a plant protein isolate. Ajami teaches that the meat-like food products comprise “between about 20% and about 30%, between about 30% and about 35%, between about 35% and about 40%” by weight of agent release systems ([0127]). This effectively discloses the claimed range of 20 to 40 wt.% of binding dough in the ingredient dough as claimed.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the method of Legally with the teachings of Ajami include textured plant protein material in an amount of about 25% to about 60% in terms of dry matter in the ingredient dough, and binding dough in an amount of 20% to 40% in the ingredient dough. First, Legally teaches the method of producing a plant-based meat product comprising mixing a binding oil-water emulsion and textured plant material to form a mixed dough (claim 1), but does not specify amounts of the binding emulsion or plant material in the mixed dough. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to consult Ajami to determine suitable amounts of textured plant material and binding emulsion to include in the mixed dough. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Legally and Ajami both teach methods of making meat analogue products, and Ajami teaches a meat-like food product comprising between about 25% and 60% by weight of textured plant protein. This range overlaps the claimed range of 5 to 40 wt.%. In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP § 2144.05(I). Ajami also teaches the claimed range of 20 to 40 wt.% of binding dough in the ingredient dough.
Claim 3 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Legally, Altemueller, Baba, Zhao, Mahawanich, and Ajami teach the method according to claim 1.
Legally does not teach the method wherein a raw material comprising an ω-3 fatty acid oil is blended.
However, Altemueller teaches a simulated seafood composition comprising a structured soy protein product, wherein the structured soy protein product comprises protein fibers that are substantially aligned (i.e., a textured soy protein product), an omega-3 fatty acid, and an appropriate colorant ([0008]). The simulated seafood composition generally has the flavor, texture, and smell of seafood meat ([0012]). Altemueller teaches that, “[t]he simulated seafood composition may further comprise a flavoring agent to impart the flavor and smell of seafood meat. The flavoring agent may be seafood oil or SDA. Generally, seafood oil contains high amounts of EPA and DHA…” ([0069]). SDA, EPA, and DHA are examples of omega-3 fatty acids ([0055]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the method of Legally with the teachings of Altemueller to comprise blending in an omega-3 fatty acid oil. First, Legally teaches that the method can be used to prepare any plant-based meat product ([0015]). Since Altemueller teaches a method of preparing a simulated seafood composition comprising adding an omega-3 fatty acid to impart the flavor and smell of seafood meat ([0069]), one of ordinary skill in the art, when seeking to prepare a plant-based seafood product, would have been motivated to add a step of blending in an omega-3 fatty acid to the method of Legally to impart the plant-based meat product with seafood flavor and smell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Legally and Altemueller both teach methods of making meat analogue products, and Altemueller teaches that omega-3 fatty acids impart seafood flavor and aroma to simulated meat products ([0069]).
Claim 5 is therefore rendered obvious.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections:
Applicant has overcome the objections to the claims by amendment and/or cancelation. Accordingly, the objections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant’s arguments filed 24 December 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, Applicant’s argument that there is a significant technical gap in attempting to directly and obviously apply the physical properties of fish surimi from Mahawanich to the meat product of Legally, and as such, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have a reasonable expectation that the dough having exactly the same gel strength properties as the final food products of fish surimi could be easily prepared using plant proteins (p. 9, ¶ 2). Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Legally, Altemueller, Baba, Zhao, Mahawanich, and Ajami.
Response to Applicant’s unpersuasive arguments is as follows:
Applicant argued that the physical properties of surimi (fish paste, disclosed by Mahawanich) and kirimi (sliced fish) are distinctly different, thus a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have a reasonable expectation that the physical properties (gel strength) of a homogenous fish paste (surimi) in Mahawanich would be applicable to the heterogeneous mixture of textured plant protein and binding dough of the present invention (p. 9, ¶ 3).
In response, Applicability to the present invention is not at hand. Obviousness to apply the gel strength of surimi as taught by Mahawanich to the composition taught by Legally is at hand. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant next asserted that the claimed invention achieves the unexpected result of being “recognized as approximating to a fish meat-like texture in the mouth and enabled the completion of a fish fry-like food as a fish meat alternative food” by combining a “textured protein material with a high protein content” and a “binding dough having a gel strength within a specific range” (p. 10, ¶ 1).
Applicant’s assertion of a unexpected results is acknowledged. Applicant is reminded that “[w]hether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the ‘objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.’ In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980)”. See MPEP § 716.02(d).
In the present case, it cannot be ascertained whether the alleged unexpected result occurs over the entire claimed range from the data provided in the specification (i.e., [0018], Table 1). The data support that 17.2 wt.% protein isolate and 13.8 wt.% oil result in a maximum load of 570.8 gf, 14.7 wt.% soy protein isolate and 11.6 wt.% oil result in a maximum load of 247.5 gf, and 12.8 wt.% protein isolate and 10.4 wt.% oil result in a maximum load of 82.3 gf. This does not include the addition of other components to the oil-in-water emulsion comprising soy protein isolate, which is within the scope of claim 1, and the disclosed data do not cover the breadth of the claimed ranges for the soy protein isolate of 5 to 30 wt.% and oil and/or fat of 5 to 15 wt.%. For at least these reasons, Applicant’s assertion of unexpected results is not persuasive.
Applicant asserted that the claimed gel strength of 50 gf or higher and 800 gf or lower is critical (p. 10, ¶ 4).
In response, Mahawanich teaches a gel strength that lies inside the claimed range. As provided in the rejection hereinabove, one of ordinary skill would have been able to arrive at the disclosed range by routine experimentation.
Applicant argued that Ajami relates to ground meat analogues and fails to teach the formulation for a fish fry-like food, that Ajami teaches food products that have properties comparable to those of animal meat and that may therefore serve as substitutes for animal meat (p. 11, final ¶ – p. 12). Applicant argued that the texture required for animal meat and ground meat products disclosed by Ajami are structurally distinct from the fish fry-like food of the amended claim 1, and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to use Ajami as a reference and adopt its ingredient ratios as is (Id.)
Applicant’s argument has been considered, but it is not persuasive. Ajami defines “animal meat” as “flesh derived from skeletal muscle or from other organs (e.g., kidney, heart, liver, gallbladder, intestine, stomach, bone marrow, brain, thymus, lung, tongue), or parts thereof, derived from an animal…Suitable animals from which the animal meat can be derived include but are not limited to cattle, lamb, mutton, horse, poultry (e.g., chicken, duck, goose, turkey), fowl (any bird species, pigeon, dove, grouse, partridge, ostrich, emu, pheasant, quail), fresh or salt water fish (e.g., catfish, tuna, spearfish, shark, halibut, sturgeon, salmon, bass, muskie, pike, bowfin, gar, eel, paddlefish, bream, carp, trout, walleye, snakehead, crappie…). Clearly fish is within the scope of animal meat disclosed by Ajami. Additionally, as described in the “claim interpretation” regarding claim 1, the phrase “for a fish fry-like food” is an intended use, and is not limiting. The textural properties given by the binding emulsions disclosed by Ajami are considered to be relevant to the plant-based meat products of Legally alone and as modified by the other cited references.
Claims 1-3 and 5 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