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 18 June 2026 and the Supplemental Response filed 29 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant has overcome the following by virtue of amendment of the specification and the claims: (1) the objections to the specification and the claims have been withdrawn; (2) the 112(b) rejections of the claims have been withdrawn.
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1-6, 8-12, and 15-16
Withdrawn claims: None
Previously canceled claims: None
Newly canceled claims: 7 and 13-14
Amended claims: 1, 10, and 15
New claims: 16
Claims currently under consideration: 1-6, 8-12, and 15-16
Currently rejected claims: 1-6, 8-12, and 15-16
Allowed claims: None
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (KR 101710660 B1 (see provided translation), also published as KR 20150087556 A, cited on the IDS filed on 27 October 2023).
Claim Interpretation:
The instant specification at paragraph [13] provides:
The term “instant rice” used herein means a Bap made in the form of an instant food. The instant rice is a processed food that its able to be eaten itself without a separate cooking process, or eaten through a simpler cooking process than a conventional method of preparing and cooking Bap, and prepared for convenient storage, reposition, transportation, and portability.
Therefore, the recited parts by weight in claim 1 are interpreted to include water in the weight of the rice and mushrooms because the instant rice is able to be eaten without a separate cooking process.
Claim Rejections:
Regarding claim 1, Hong teaches an instant rice – “The present invention relates to a method for manufacturing an improved instant cooked rice and an instant cooked rice produced by the method.” ([0001]).
comprising: a sealed container and a mushroom rice made from grains and mushrooms contained in the container – “…mixing raw rice, water, raw materials and sauces washed and dehydrated into a retort container and packing and packing inert gas…” ([0006]). Packing ingredients into a retort container implies that the container is sealed to undergo retort cooking. Rice is a grain. The raw materials may be mushrooms ([0022]).
and the instant rice is sterile for microorganisms within a shelf life – Hong teaches that the process includes “a second step of simultaneously treating sterilization and cooking of the contents in the retort container at a predetermined temperature.” ([0006]). Therefore, the instant rice is sterilized (i.e., contains no viable microorganisms).
Hong does not explicitly state that the rice in the mushroom rice is included in an amount of 60 parts by weight to 90 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of contents contained in the container, mushrooms in the mushroom rice are included in an amount of 10 parts by weight to 30 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the contents contained in the container, and a chromaticity of the mushrooms in the mushroom rice has an L value of 50 to 70, an a value of 3 to 5, and a b value of 15.5 to 16.5.
However, Hong does teach that “…10 to 40 parts by weight of the washed and dehydrated rice cake, water, high-quality raw materials and sauces can be incorporated into the retort container, respectively.” ([0008]). In other words, the components of rice, water, raw ingredients (which may be mushrooms (see [0022])), and sauce may each be present in amounts of 10 to 40 parts by weight. Upon cooking, the majority of the water would necessarily absorb into the rice. As such, the water and rice amounts are considered to constitute the cooked rice. It is well known that the amount of water with respect to the amount of rice is a result-effective variable contributing to the texture of cooked rice; Too much water results in soft, soggy rice, and too little water results in rice that is too hard.
MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A) states, “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 of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adjust the amounts of rice, water, mushrooms, and sauce within the amounts of 10 to 40 parts by weight of each by routine experimentation to arrive at a texture of the rice and a ratio of rice to mushrooms according to desired organoleptic properties in the final instant rice product, including 60-90 parts by weight of rice and 10-30 parts by weight of mushrooms based on 100 parts by weight of contents contained in the container, as claimed.
Regarding that the chromaticity of the mushroom has L value of 50 to 70, a value of 3 to 5, and b value of 15.5 to 16.5, Hong teaches that “…the contents in the retort container are preferably sterilized and cooked at a temperature of 100 °C to 125 °C for 10 minutes to 40 minutes.” ([0009]). As evidenced by the instant specification, the king oyster mushrooms of instant rice of Example 1 have an L value of 59.60, an a value of 3.39, and a b value of 16.08 ([96], Table 2). These values lie inside the claimed ranges. The instant rice of Example 1 was prepared by retort sterilization at 115 °C for 20 minutes ([87]). These values for sterilization temperature and time lie inside the range disclosed by Hong.
It is widely known that cooking time and temperature affects the color of mushrooms (i.e., cooking time and temperature are result-effective variables), and the instant specification provides evidence that the claimed chromaticity values are obtainable within the range of temperatures and times disclosed by Hong. Furthermore, consumers have varying preferences based on the color of food products, some preferring more similar colors among food components, others preferring differing colors among food components.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine the optimal values for the cooking temperature and time used to prepare the instant rice product of Hong, through routine experimentation, to impart the mushrooms with the desired chromaticity values to provide an instant rice product that is appealing to consumers, including an L value of 50 to 70, an a value of 3 to 5, and a b value of 15.5 to 16.5, as claimed.
Claim 1 recites the wherein clause, “wherein the instant rice is prepared by sterilizing the grains and mushrooms contained in the container under the conditions of an F0 value of 4 or higher before sealing the container; and heating the sealed container to a temperature of 90 °C to 125 °C for 10 minutes to 25 minutes”. This clause is a product-by-process limitation.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP § 2113.
In the present case, the claimed product is obvious in view of Hong. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process steps and given that Hong meets the requirements of the claimed composition, Hong clearly meets the requirements of the present claim.
Moreover, Hong teaches that “…the contents in the retort container are preferably sterilized and cooked at a temperature of 100 °C to 125 °C for 10 minutes to 40 minutes.” ([0009]). The claimed heating temperature and time sterilization of a temperature of 90 °C to 125 °C and 10 minutes to 25 minutes overlap or lie inside the disclosed ranges of a temperature of 100 °C to 125 °C for 10 minutes to 40 minutes. 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).
Therefore, claim 1 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Hong teaches that the grains comprise rice, and the rice includes at least one selected from the group consisting of white rice, black rice, brown rice, non-glutinous rice, and glutinous rice – “The rice cake may be any one or a mixture of two or more selected from the group consisting of white rice, brown rice, black rice…” ([0020]). It is noted that rice is either non-glutinous or glutinous, so any rice meets this limitation.
Claim 2 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 3, Hong teaches the instant rice of claim 2, wherein the grains are mixed grains other than rice, and further comprise at least one selected from the group consisting of barley and red beans – “in addition to the rice, barley, , Kidney beans, peanuts. It may be a mixed mixture of grains such as red beans and mung bean sprouts.” ([0020]).
Claim 3 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 4, Hong teaches that the grains comprise at least one selected from the group consisting of white rice and black rice – “The rice cake may be any one or a mixture of two or more selected from the group consisting of white rice, brown rice, black rice…” ([0020]).
Claim 4 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Hong teaches that the grains comprise at least one selected from the group consisting of non-glutinous rice and glutinous rice. Rice is either non-glutinous or glutinous, so any rice meets this limitation. Where Hong teaches that the product is instant rice ([0001]), the product meets this limitation.
Claim 5 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Hong teaches that the mushrooms comprise at least one selected from the group consisting of king oyster mushroom, shiitake mushroom, and oyster mushroom – Paragraph [0022] reads, “For example, the famous materials include vegetables such as green onion, garlic, onion, green onion, green pepper, carrot and cucumber, ginseng, mushrooms such as mushroom, mushroom, mushroom, oyster, nuts such as chestnut…”.
PNG
media_image1.png
767
1429
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Translation of the original text of paragraph [0022] of Hong using Google Lens indicates that the mushrooms are shiitake mushrooms, oyster mushrooms, and king oyster mushrooms (see screenshot below).
Claim 6 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 8, Hong teaches the instant rice of claim 6, wherein the raw materials, such as mushrooms, “may be in the form of a powder or a stalk cut to a predetermined size.” ([0022]).
Hong does not specifically discuss that the king oyster mushroom is comprised in the form having a length of 3 cm or more and a thickness of 6.5 mm or more.
However, MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A) discusses that changes in size or proportion are not sufficient to patentably distinguish a claimed product over the prior art. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.)
Therefore, where Hong teaches that the mushrooms may be in the form of a powder or a stalk cut to a predetermined size, the size of the mushroom pieces is not a distinguishing feature.
Claim 8 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 9, Hong teaches the instant rice of claim 6.
The phrase, “wherein the king oyster mushroom, compared to the thickness of the king oyster mushroom in raw ingredients before preparing, has 25% or less of a thickness shrinkage of the king oyster mushroom measured after heating in a 700 W microwave for 2 minutes” requires knowing the thickness of the king oyster mushroom before preparing. The claim is toward the final instant rice product (before heating in a microwave). One of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the thickness of the king oyster mushroom before preparing based on the final product. The phrase therefore cannot patentably distinguish the claim from the prior art.
In the present case, there is no patentable distinction between the instant rice in the prior art and the claimed instant rice. The patentable subject matter of claim 9 is the instant rice as recited in claim 6.
Therefore, where claim 6 is obvious, so too is claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Hong teaches the instant rice of claim 1.
Hong does not specifically discuss that the moisture content of mushrooms in the mushroom rice is 70% to 85%.
However, Hong teaches that “…the contents in the retort container are preferably sterilized and cooked at a temperature of 100 °C to 125 °C for 10 minutes to 40 minutes.” ([0009]). It is widely known that cooking time and temperature affects the moisture content, and therefore texture, of mushrooms. Furthermore, consumers have varying preferences based on the texture of food products, some preferring more similar textures among food components, others preferring differing textures among food components. The moisture content of the mushrooms is therefore a result-effective variable in relation to the texture, and thus, consumer preference.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine the optimal moisture content of the mushrooms used in the instant rice product of Hong, through routine experimentation within the disclosed cooking temperatures and times, to impart the mushrooms with the desired moisture content to provide an instant rice product that is appealing to consumers, including 70% to 85% as claimed.
Therefore, claim 10 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 11, Hong teaches the instant rice of claim 6.
Hong does not discuss that the king oyster mushroom has at least one of the following physical properties obtained by measuring the king oyster mushroom using a physical property analyzer, after heating the instant rice in a 700 W 45 microwave for 2 minutes: (i) tissue strength (max stress, dyn/cm2) value of 160,000 to 220,000; and (ii) area value (erg/cm3) of 18,000 to 28,000.
However, Hong teaches that “…the contents in the retort container are preferably sterilized and cooked at a temperature of 100 °C to 125 °C for 10 minutes to 40 minutes.” ([0009]). As evidenced by the instant specification, the king oyster mushrooms of instant rice of Example 1 have a max stress of 181,250 dyn/cm2 and an area value of 22,975 erg/cm3 ([104], Table 4). These values lie inside the claimed ranges. The instant rice of Example 1 was prepared by retort sterilization at 115 °C for 20 minutes ([87]). These values for sterilization temperature and time lie inside the range disclosed by Hong.
It is widely known that cooking time and temperature affects the texture of mushrooms. Furthermore, consumers have varying preferences based on the texture of food products, some preferring more similar textures among food components, others preferring differing textures among food components. The texture of the mushrooms is therefore a result-effective variable in relation to consumer preference.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine the optimal texture of the king oyster mushrooms used in the instant rice product of Hong, through routine experimentation within the disclosed cooking temperatures and times, to impart the king oyster mushrooms with the desired textural properties, including tissue strength and area values, to provide an instant rice product that is appealing to consumers, including (i) a tissue strength (max stress, dyn/cm2) value of 160,000 to 220,000; and (ii) area value (erg/cm3) of 18,000 to 28,000, as claimed.
Claim 11 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 12, Hong teaches the instant rice product of claim 1, further comprising: sauces, wherein the sauces comprise a shiitake hot water extract – “…mixing raw rice, water, raw materials and sauces washed and dehydrated into a retort container and packing and packing inert gas…” ([0006]). The raw materials may be mushrooms ([0022]). Translation of the original text of paragraph [0022] of Hong using Google Lens indicates that the mushrooms may be shiitake mushrooms, oyster mushrooms, and king oyster mushrooms (see screenshot below).
PNG
media_image1.png
767
1429
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hong further teaches that “…the contents in the retort container are preferably sterilized and cooked at a temperature of 100 °C to 125 °C for 10 minutes to 40 minutes.” ([0009]). Where Hong teaches that the composition can comprise sauces, shiitake mushrooms and water, and the composition is heated, Hong teaches that the sauces comprise a shiitake hot water extract as claimed.
Claim 12 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 15, Hong teaches the instant rice of claim 1. The wherein clause of claim 15, “wherein the instant rice is prepared so that heat of 90 °C or higher is not applied before sealing of the container after the sterilizing” is a product-by-process limitation.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP § 2113.
In the present case, the claimed product is obvious in view of Hong. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process step and given that Hong meets the requirements of the claimed composition, Hong clearly meets the requirements of present claim 15.
Claim 15 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 16, Hong teaches an instant rice – “The present invention relates to a method for manufacturing an improved instant cooked rice and an instant cooked rice produced by the method.” ([0001]).
comprising: a sealed container and a mushroom rice made from grains and mushrooms contained in the container – “…mixing raw rice, water, raw materials and sauces washed and dehydrated into a retort container and packing and packing inert gas…” ([0006]). Packing ingredients into a retort container implies that the container is sealed to undergo retort cooking. Rice is a grain. The raw materials may be mushrooms ([0022]).
and the instant rice is sterile for microorganisms within a shelf life – Hong teaches that the process includes “a second step of simultaneously treating sterilization and cooking of the contents in the retort container at a predetermined temperature.” ([0006]). Therefore, the instant rice is sterilized (i.e., contains no viable microorganisms).
Hong does not explicitly state that the rice in the mushroom rice is included in an amount of 60 parts by weight to 90 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of contents contained in the container, mushrooms in the mushroom rice are included in an amount of 10 parts by weight to 30 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the contents contained in the container, and a chromaticity of the mushrooms in the mushroom rice has an L value of 50 to 70, an a value of 3 to 5, and a b value of 15.5 to 16.5.
However, Hong does teach that “…10 to 40 parts by weight of the washed and dehydrated rice cake, water, high-quality raw materials and sauces can be incorporated into the retort container, respectively.” ([0008]). In other words, the components of rice, water, raw ingredients (which may be mushrooms (see [0022])), and sauce may each be present in amounts of 10 to 40 parts by weight. Upon cooking, the majority of the water would necessarily absorb into the rice. As such, the water and rice amounts are considered to constitute the cooked rice. It is well known that the amount of water with respect to the amount of rice is a result-effective variable contributing to the texture of cooked rice; Too much water results in soft, soggy rice, and too little water results in rice that is too hard.
MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A) states, “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 of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adjust the amounts of rice, water, mushrooms, and sauce within the amounts of 10 to 40 parts by weight of each by routine experimentation to arrive at a texture of the rice and a ratio of rice to mushrooms according to desired organoleptic properties in the final instant rice product, including 60-90 parts by weight of rice and 10-30 parts by weight of mushrooms based on 100 parts by weight of contents contained in the container, as claimed.
Regarding that the chromaticity of the mushroom has L value of 50 to 70, a value of 3 to 5, and b value of 15.5 to 16.5, Hong teaches that “…the contents in the retort container are preferably sterilized and cooked at a temperature of 100 °C to 125 °C for 10 minutes to 40 minutes.” ([0009]). As evidenced by the instant specification, the king oyster mushrooms of instant rice of Example 1 have an L value of 59.60, an a value of 3.39, and a b value of 16.08 ([96], Table 2). These values lie inside the claimed ranges. The instant rice of Example 1 was prepared by retort sterilization at 115 °C for 20 minutes ([87]). These values for sterilization temperature and time lie inside the range disclosed by Hong.
It is widely known that cooking time and temperature affects the color of mushrooms, and the instant specification provides evidence that the claimed chromaticity values are obtainable within the range of temperatures and times disclosed by Hong. Furthermore, consumers have varying preferences based on the color of food products, some preferring more similar colors among food components, others preferring differing colors among food components.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine the optimal value for the L value, a value, and b value of the mushrooms used in the instant rice product of Hong, through routine experimentation, to impart the mushrooms with the desired chromaticity values to provide an instant rice product that is appealing to consumers, including an L value of 50 to 70, an a value of 3 to 5, and a b value of 15.5 to 16.5, as claimed.
Therefore, claim 16 is rendered obvious.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant’s arguments filed on 29 June 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argued that Hong fails to disclose any rice in which the chromaticity of mushrooms has an L value of 50 to 70, an a value of 3 to 5, and a ab value of 15.5 to 16.5 as set forth in the claims (p. 4, ¶ 7), and Office personnel must provide a reasoned explanation as to why the invention as claimed would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time (pp. 4-5, bridging ¶).
In response, regarding that the chromaticity of the mushroom has L value of 50 to 70, a value of 3 to 5, and b value of 15.5 to 16.5, Hong teaches that “…the contents in the retort container are preferably sterilized and cooked at a temperature of 100 °C to 125 °C for 10 minutes to 40 minutes.” ([0009]). As evidenced by the instant specification, the king oyster mushrooms of instant rice of Example 1 have an L value of 59.60, an a value of 3.39, and a b value of 16.08 ([96], Table 2). These values lie inside the claimed ranges. The instant rice of Example 1 was prepared by retort sterilization at 115 °C for 20 minutes ([87]). These values for sterilization temperature and time lie inside the range disclosed by Hong.
It is widely known that cooking time and temperature affects the color of mushrooms (i.e., cooking time and temperature are result-effective variables), and the instant specification provides evidence that the claimed chromaticity values are obtainable within the range of temperatures and times disclosed by Hong. Furthermore, consumers have varying preferences based on the color of food products, some preferring more similar colors among food components, others preferring differing colors among food components.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine the optimal values for the cooking temperature and time used to prepare the instant rice product of Hong, through routine experimentation, to impart the mushrooms with the desired chromaticity values to provide an instant rice product that is appealing to consumers, including an L value of 50 to 70, an a value of 3 to 5, and a b value of 15.5 to 16.5, as claimed.
Applicant further argued that, in light of additional experimental data presented in the Response filed on 29 June 2026, the instant rice prepared by the method of Hong does not possess the mushroom chromaticity characteristics as set forth in the present claims, and instead exhibited average chromaticity values of L=43.82, a=2.79, and b=11.38, which fall below the claimed chromaticity ranges (p. 5, ¶2; Table). Applicant asserted that the claimed product is, therefore, structurally and functionally distinguishable from the product obtained by Hong’s method (p. 5, ¶ 3).
Applicant’s argument has been considered, but it is not persuasive. The Examiner appreciates the additional experimental data. However, there is insufficient information provided about the parameters used to obtain the data for Applicant’s conclusions to be persuasive with regard to the alleged non-obviousness of instant claims. In the least, Hong teaches that “…the contents in the retort container are preferably sterilized and cooked at a temperature of 100 °C to 125 °C for 10 minutes to 40 minutes.” ([0009]). Applicant has not provided the cooking parameters used to obtain the experimental data, and has only tested one condition of the ranges disclosed by Hong. As evidenced by the instant specification, the king oyster mushrooms of instant rice of Example 1 have an L value of 59.60, an a value of 3.39, and a b value of 16.08 ([96], Table 2). These values lie inside the claimed ranges. The instant rice of Example 1 was prepared by retort sterilization at 115 °C for 20 minutes ([87]). These values for sterilization temperature and time lie inside the range disclosed by Hong. It is therefore expected that the claimed chromaticity is achievable by cooking within the parameters disclosed by Hong. Applicant’s experimental evidence is insufficient to support the assertion that the claimed product is structurally and functionally distinguishable from the product of Hong.
Applicant next argued that the claimed product possesses unexpectedly superior properties over Hong, which showed swollen rice grains and differences in the appearance of the rice grains between the front and back sides of the pouch in Applicant’s experiment (p. 5, ¶ 4 – p. 6, ¶ 2).
Applicant’s assertion of unexpected technical results is acknowledged. Applicant’s argument has been considered, but it is not found to be persuasive. Again, there is insufficient information provided about the parameters used to obtain the data for Applicant’s conclusions to be persuasive with regard to the alleged non-obviousness of instant claims. It is therefore unclear whether the differences in appearance persist over the conditions disclosed by Hong. Moreover, nothing in the instant claims or specification indicates that Applicant’s invention does not also exhibit differences in the appearance of the rice grains. Applicant’s evidence is therefore insufficient to support an assertion of unexpected results.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, and 15-16 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
/ELIZABETH GWARTNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights