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 November 2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant has overcome the following by virtue of amendment of the specification and claims: (1) the objections to the specification have been withdrawn; (2) the 112(b) rejection of claims 5-6 and 10-11 have been withdrawn.
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1-13 and 19-23
Withdrawn claims: None
Previously canceled claims: 15-17
Newly canceled claims: 14 and 18
Amended claims: 1, 5-10, 13, and 19-21
New claims: 22-23
Claims currently under consideration: 1-13 and 19-23
Currently rejected claims: 1-13 and 19-23
Allowed claims: None
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 13 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites, “the method comprising grinding raw pistachio shells in a cooled compression milling system under conditions to provide raw ground pistachio shells…the animal nutrition product comprising the raw ground pistachio shells”. By Applicant’s own admission and definition in the specification, “[t]he term "raw" is used to refer to the pistachio shells prior to processing using the present methods. The raw pistachio shells have generally not been subjected to any prior processing technique, including any type of physical and/or chemical processing technique.” (Specification, [0006]). The term “raw ground pistachio shells” is conflicting and therefore indefinite; by Applicant’s definition, the ground pistachio shells cannot be considered to be raw having undergone grinding by the present method. Applicant may overcome this rejection by instead reciting, “grinding raw pistachio shells in a cooled compression milling system under conditions to provide ground pistachio shells…the animal nutrition product comprising the ground pistachio shells”. For purposes of examination, the claim is construed as suggested for amendment.
Claims 19-22 also recite the term “the raw ground pistachio shells” and are rejected for the same reasons stated regarding claim 13 above. Applicant may overcome these rejections by instead reciting, “the ground pistachio shells”. For purposes of examination, the claims are construed as suggested for amendment.
Claims 19-22 are also rejected due to their dependency from claim 13.
Claim 23 is also rejected due to its dependency from claim 22.
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 1-4, 7-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Bondt et al. (De Bondt, Y., Liberloo, I., Roye, C. et al. (2020). The Effect of Wet Milling and Cryogenic Milling on the Structure and Physicochemical Properties of Wheat Bran. Foods, 9(12), 1755. 16 pages. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9121755) in view of Cardullo et al. (Cardullo, N., Leanza, M., Muccilli, V, & Tringali C. (2021). Valorization of Atri-Food Waste from Pistachio Hard Shells: Extraction of Polyphenols as Natural Antioxidants. Resources, 10(5), 45. 17 pages. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources1005004).
Regarding claims 1 and 7-9, De Bondt teaches a method for processing wheat bran, the method comprising grinding wheat bran in a cryogenic (i.e., cooled compression) milling system under conditions to provide wheat bran having a D50 particle size in a range of from 10 µm to 50 µm (Abstract; Figure 2A (15-minute timepoint) & Figure 2C). Pass 1 in Figure 2C corresponds to a D50 particle size of 28 µm (p. 7, last ¶). De Bondt teaches that wheat bran is a by-product of the production process of white flour and is known to be a good source of dietary fiber and other bioactive components (p. 1, last ¶). De Bondt further teaches that particle size reduction of wheat bran has a positive impact on its nutrition- and physiology-related properties, and can increase the extractability of antioxidants, like phenolic acids and anthocyanins, thereby increasing the antioxidant capacity of the wheat bran (p. 2, ¶ 3).
De Bondt does not teach using the method to process pistachio shells. De Bondt does not teach that the ground pistachio shells have a total polyphenol content of at least 11%, or that the ground pistachio shells have a ruminant digestibility of at least 56.85%, or both.
However, Cardullo teaches that pistachio hard shells are one of the major pistachio by-products from pistachio industrial processing and are a source of natural antioxidants (Abstract). Cardullo teaches methodology for effectively recovering bioactive phenolic compounds from pistachio hard shell with potential applications in food and healthcare sectors (Abstract). Cardullo teaches that the pistachio shells were ground to give 60-mesh (250 µm) size powder (p. 2, last ¶), but does not teach that the shells were ground by cryogenic milling, and does not disclose the D50 particle size.
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 cryogenic milling method of De Bondt to replace the wheat bran with pistachio shells to produce ground pistachio shells with a D50 particle size in a range of from 10 µm to 50 µm as claimed. Where De Bondt teaches that wheat bran is a by-product rich in bio-active compounds, such as antioxidants, and that particle size reduction can increase the extractability of antioxidants, and where Cardullo teaches that pistachio shells are a by-product comprising antioxidants and methodology for extracting antioxidants from pistachio shells, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to grind pistachio shells by the method of De Bondt to increase the extractability of the pistachio shell antioxidants. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because both wheat bran and pistachio shells are fibrous plant by-products that are rich in antioxidants, and De Bondt teaches that obtaining particles of fibrous plant by-products with a D50 particle size in a range of from 10 µm to 50 µm is achievable by cryogrinding.
Regarding the ground pistachio shells having a total polyphenol content of at least 11%, Cardullo discloses that ground pistachio shells extracted with various solvents (i.e., EtOH, MeOH, H2O pH4, EtOH/H2O) exhibit a total polyphenol content (TPC) of at least 11% (i.e., at least 110 mg GAE/g, conversion factor: 1% = 10 mg/g) (p.3, Table 1, “TPC”). The pistachio shells were ground to a 60-mesh (250 µm) size, and then extracted by the various solvents (pp. 2-3, bridging ¶).
Since De Bondt teaches that the cryogenic milling method produces particles with a D50 size under 250 µm (Figure 2A&C), and that particle size reduction increases extractability of phenolic acids (p. 2, ¶ 3), and Cardullo teaches that pistachio shell particles under 250 µm have at least 11% total polyphenol content (pp. 2-3, bridging ¶, p.3, Table 1, “TPC”), De Bondt as modified by Cardullo to apply the pistachio shells of Cardullo to the cryogenic milling method of De Bondt as described above would also be expected to produce ground pistachio shells having a total polyphenol content of at least 11% based on the well-known scientific principle that reducing particle size increases surface area and therefore substrate availability and, hence, extractability. That is, since Cardullo teaches that pistachio shell particles up to 250 µm have at least 11% total polyphenol content, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that pistachio shell particles with a D50 particle size in a range of from 10 µm to 50 µm would also have at least 11% total polyphenol content.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach that the ground pistachio shells have a ruminant digestibility of at least 56.85%.
However, De Bondt teaches that cryogenic milling can achieve a D50 particle size as small as 6 µm (Abstract; Figure 2A), and teaches milling times of 2, 15, 30, and 45 min (p. 5, ¶ 1). Pass 1 in Figure 2C corresponds to a D50 particle size of 28 µm (p. 7, last ¶), which is nearly 30 µm.
As evidenced by the instant specification in Table 4 at paragraphs [0024] – [0025], cryo-ground pistachio shell particles with a D50 particle size of 30 µm have a ruminant digestibility of 56.85%.
MPEP § 2112(I) states, “‘[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.’ Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).”
MPEP § 2112.01(I) states, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).”
Therefore, in such a case where pistachio shells cryo-ground by the method of De Bondt as modified by Cardullo, as described above, achieve a D50 particle size of 30 µm or less, those pistachio shell particles would necessarily have a ruminant digestibility of at least 56.85%. Claiming the unknown property of ruminant digestibility does not make the claim patentable in view of the teachings of the prior art.
Taken together, the proposed modification of De Bondt with the pistachio shells of Cardullo renders obvious that the ground pistachio shells have a total polyphenol content of at least 11% and a ruminant digestibility of at least 56.85%.
Claims 1 and 7-9 are therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, De Bondt and Cardullo teach the method of claim 1.
De Bondt also teaches that the cooled compression milling system makes use of a cooling medium selected from liquid nitrogen, liquid carbon dioxide, liquid water, and air (re: claim 2), and that the cooling medium is liquid nitrogen (re: claim 3) – “Cryogenic milling at laboratory scale was done with a cryogenic ball mill…The sample was cooled with liquid nitrogen (-196 °C) before and during milling.” (p. 4, last ¶), and “Large-scale cryogenic milling was done with an industrially available impact whirl mill…The wheat bran was fed into a cryogenic screw (15 rpm) to cool the material with liquid nitrogen…” (p. 5, ¶ 2).
Claims 2 and 3 are therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 4, De Bondt and Cardullo teach the method of claim 1.
De Bondt also teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the conditions comprise a grinding time in a range of from 1 to 120 min – “the wheat bran was milled for 0, 2, 15, 30, and 45 min” (p. 5, ¶ 1). The time points of 2, 15, 30, and 45 min lie inside the claimed range.
Claim 4 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 12, De Bondt and Cardullo teach the method of claim 1.
De Bondt as modified by Cardullo to apply the pistachio shells of Cardullo to the cryogenic milling method of De Bondt also teaches that the raw pistachio shells are combined with a cooling medium – De Bondt teaches, “Cryogenic milling at laboratory scale was done with a cryogenic ball mill…The sample was cooled with liquid nitrogen (-196 °C) before and during milling.” (p. 4, last ¶), and “Large-scale cryogenic milling was done with an industrially available impact whirl mill…The wheat bran was fed into a cryogenic screw (15 rpm) to cool the material with liquid nitrogen…” (p. 5, ¶ 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the raw pistachio shells with a cooling medium with the same motivation and with the same expectation of success as described regarding claim 1 above.
Claim 12 is therefore rendered obvious.
Claims 5-6 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Bondt et al. and Cardullo et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hummingbird Wholesale (Pistachios, Split Shells, Raw. (2021, June 18). Hummingbird Wholesale. Retrieved August 19, 2025 from https://web.archive.org/web/20210618191734/ https://hummingbirdwholesale.com/products/pistachios-split-shells-raw-n227).
Regarding claim 5, De Bondt and Cardullo teach the method of claim 1.
The cited prior art does not discuss that the raw pistachio shells and the ground pistachio shells have a moisture content of less than 10% by weight. Cardullo teaches that the pistachio shells were dried before grinding (p. 2, last ¶), but does not disclose a moisture content.
However, Hummingbird Wholesale discloses pistachios dried in the shell at 180 °F for 4-5 hours to bring the moisture level down to 3-4% (p. 1, ¶ 2). Therefore, Hummingbird Wholesale teaches one of ordinary skill in the art that a suitable range for the moisture content of pistachio shells is 3-4%.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the method of De Bondt as modified by Cardullo to use pistachio shells dried to a moisture content of 3-4% as disclosed by Hummingbird Wholesale. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to consult Hummingbird Wholesale to determine a suitable moisture content for the dried pistachio shells disclosed by Cardullo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Hummingbird Wholesale teaches that it is common practice that pistachios in the shell are dried to a moisture level of 3-4%.
The cited prior art gives no indication that cryogenic milling changes the moisture content of the material. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the ground pistachio shells have a similar moisture content to the raw pistachio shells.
Claim 5 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 6, De Bondt and Cardullo teach the method of claim 1.
De Bondt also teaches that the conditions comprise a grinding time in a range of from 1 to 120 min – “the wheat bran was milled for 0, 2, 15, 30, and 45 min” (p. 5, ¶ 1). The time points of 2, 15, 30, and 45 min lie inside the claimed range.
The cited prior art does not discuss that the raw pistachio shells and the ground pistachio shells have a moisture content of less than 10% by weight. Cardullo teaches that the pistachio shells were dried before grinding (p. 2, last ¶), but does not disclose a moisture content.
However, Hummingbird Wholesale discloses pistachios dried in the shell at 180 °F for 4-5 hours to bring the moisture level down to 3-4% (p. 1, ¶ 2). Therefore, Hummingbird Wholesale teaches one of ordinary skill in the art that a suitable range for the moisture content of pistachio shells is 3-4%.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the method of De Bondt as modified by Cardullo to use pistachio shells dried to a moisture content of 3-4% as disclosed by Hummingbird Wholesale. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to consult Hummingbird Wholesale to determine a suitable moisture content for the dried pistachio shells disclosed by Cardullo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Hummingbird Wholesale teaches that it is common practice that pistachios in the shell are dried to a moisture level of 3-4%.
The cited prior art gives no indication that cryogenic milling changes the moisture content of the material. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the ground pistachio shells have a similar moisture content to the raw pistachio shells.
Claim 6 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 10, De Bondt and Cardullo teach the method of claim 1.
De Bondt also teaches that the conditions comprise a grinding time in a range of from 1 to 120 min – “the wheat bran was milled for 0, 2, 15, 30, and 45 min” (p. 5, ¶ 1). The time points of 2, 15, 30, and 45 min lie inside the claimed range.
De Bondt as modified by Cardullo also teaches that the ground pistachio shells have a total polyphenol content of at least 11% – Cardullo discloses that ground pistachio shells extracted with various solvents (i.e., EtOH, MeOH, H2O pH4, EtOH/H2O) exhibit a total polyphenol content (TPC) of at least 11% (i.e., at least 110 mg GAE/g, conversion factor: 1% = 10 mg/g) (p.3, Table 1, “TPC”). The pistachio shells were ground to a 60-mesh (250 µm) size, and then extracted by the various solvents (pp. 2-3, bridging ¶).
Since De Bondt teaches that the cryogenic milling method produces particles with a D50 size under 250 µm (Figure 2A&C), and that particle size reduction increases extractability of phenolic acids (p. 2, ¶ 3), and Cardullo teaches that pistachio shell particles under 250 µm have at least 11% total polyphenol content (pp. 2-3, bridging ¶, p.3, Table 1, “TPC”), De Bondt as modified by Cardullo to apply the pistachio shells of Cardullo to the cryogenic milling method of De Bondt as described above would also be expected to produce ground pistachio shells having a total polyphenol content of at least 11% based on the well-known scientific principle that reducing particle size increases surface area and therefore substrate availability and, hence, extractability. That is, since Cardullo teaches that pistachio shell particles up to 250 µm have at least 11% total polyphenol content, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that pistachio shell particles with a D50 particle size in a range of from 10 µm to 50 µm would also have at least 11% total polyphenol content.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach that the ground pistachio shells have a ruminant digestibility of at least 56.85%.
However, De Bondt teaches that cryogenic milling can achieve a D50 particle size as small as 6 µm (Abstract; Figure 2A), and teaches milling times of 2, 15, 30, and 45 min (p. 5, ¶ 1). Pass 1 in Figure 2C corresponds to a D50 particle size of 28 µm (p. 7, last ¶), which is nearly 30 µm.
As evidenced by the instant specification in Table 4 at paragraphs [0024] – [0025], cryo-ground pistachio shell particles with a D50 particle size of 30 µm have a ruminant digestibility of 56.85%.
MPEP § 2112(I) states, “‘[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.’ Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).”
MPEP § 2112.01(I) states, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).”
Therefore, in such a case where pistachio shells cryo-ground by the method of De Bondt as modified by Cardullo, as described above, achieve a D50 particle size of 30 µm or less, those pistachio shell particles would necessarily have a ruminant digestibility of at least 56.85%. Claiming the unknown property of ruminant digestibility does not make the claim patentable in view of the teachings of the prior art.
Taken together, the proposed modification of De Bondt with the pistachio shells of Cardullo renders obvious that the ground pistachio shells have a total polyphenol content of at least 11% and a ruminant digestibility of at least 56.85%.
The cited prior art does not discuss that the raw pistachio shells and the ground pistachio shells have a moisture content of less than 10% by weight; Cardullo teaches that the pistachio shells were dried before grinding (p. 2, last ¶), but does not disclose a moisture content.
However, Hummingbird Wholesale discloses pistachios dried in the shell at 180 °F for 4-5 hours to bring the moisture level down to 3-4% (p. 1, ¶ 2). Therefore, Hummingbird Wholesale teaches one of ordinary skill in the art that a suitable range for the moisture content of pistachio shells is 3-4%.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the method of De Bondt as modified by Cardullo to use pistachio shells dried to a moisture content of 3-4% as disclosed by Hummingbird Wholesale. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to consult Hummingbird Wholesale to determine a suitable moisture content for the dried pistachio shells disclosed by Cardullo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Hummingbird Wholesale teaches that it is common practice that pistachios in the shell are dried to a moisture level of 3-4%.
The cited prior art gives no indication that cryogenic milling changes the moisture content of the material. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the ground pistachio shells have a similar moisture content to the raw pistachio shells.
Claim 10 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 11, De Bondt, Cardullo, and Hummingbird Wholesale teach the method of claim 10.
De Bondt also teaches that the cooled compression milling system makes use of liquid nitrogen as a cooling medium – “Cryogenic milling at laboratory scale was done with a cryogenic ball mill…The sample was cooled with liquid nitrogen (-196 °C) before and during milling.” (p. 4, last ¶), and “Large-scale cryogenic milling was done with an industrially available impact whirl mill…The wheat bran was fed into a cryogenic screw (15 rpm) to cool the material with liquid nitrogen…” (p. 5, ¶ 2).
Claim 11 is therefore rendered obvious.
Claims 13 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Bondt et al. (De Bondt, Y., Liberloo, I., Roye, C. et al. (2020). The Effect of Wet Milling and Cryogenic Milling on the Structure and Physicochemical Properties of Wheat Bran. Foods, 9(12), 1755. 16 pages. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9121755) in view of Cardullo et al. (Cardullo, N., Leanza, M., Muccilli, V, & Tringali C. (2021). Valorization of Atri-Food Waste from Pistachio Hard Shells: Extraction of Polyphenols as Natural Antioxidants. Resources, 10(5), 45. 17 pages. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources1005004), Akay, (US 2016/0082062 A1), and Altom et al. (2007/0202211 A1).
Regarding claim 13, De Bondt teaches a method for processing wheat bran, the method comprising grinding wheat bran in a cryogenic (i.e., cooled compression) milling system under conditions to provide wheat bran having a D50 particle size in a range of from 10 µm to 600 µm (Abstract; Figure 2A (15-minute timepoint) & Figure 2C). Pass 1 in Figure 2C corresponds to a D50 particle size of 28 µm (p. 7, last ¶). De Bondt teaches that wheat bran is a by-product of the production process of white flour and is known to be a good source of dietary fiber and other bioactive components (p. 1, last ¶). De Bondt further teaches that particle size reduction of wheat bran has a positive impact on its nutrition- and physiology-related properties, and can increase the extractability of antioxidants, like phenolic acids and anthocyanins, thereby increasing the antioxidant capacity of the wheat bran (p. 2, ¶ 3).
De Bondt does not teach using the method to process pistachio shells. De Bondt does not teach that the ground pistachio shells have a total polyphenol content of at least 11%, or that the ground pistachio shells have a ruminant digestibility of at least 56.85%, or both. De Bondt does not teach that the method further comprises forming an animal nutrition product configured for ingestion by an animal, the animal nutrition product comprising the ground pistachio shells.
However, Cardullo teaches that pistachio hard shells are one of the major pistachio by-products from pistachio industrial processing and are a source of natural antioxidants (Abstract). Cardullo teaches methodology for effectively recovering bioactive phenolic compounds from pistachio hard shell with potential applications in food and healthcare sectors (Abstract). Cardullo teaches that the pistachio shells were ground to give 60-mesh (250 µm) size powder (p. 2, last ¶), but does not teach that the shells were ground by cryogenic milling, and does not disclose the D50 particle size.
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 cryogenic milling method of De Bondt to replace the wheat bran with pistachio shells to produce ground pistachio shells with a D50 particle size in a range of from 10 µm to 600 µm as claimed. Where De Bondt teaches that wheat bran is a by-product rich in bio-active compounds, such as antioxidants, and that particle size reduction can increase the extractability of antioxidants, and where Cardullo teaches that pistachio shells are a by-product comprising antioxidants and methodology for extracting antioxidants from pistachio shells, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to grind pistachio shells by the method of De Bondt to increase the extractability of the pistachio shell antioxidants. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because both wheat bran and pistachio shells are fibrous plant by-products that are rich in antioxidants, and De Bondt teaches that obtaining particles of fibrous plant by-products with a D50 particle size in a range of from 10 µm to 600 µm is achievable by cryogrinding.
Regarding the method further comprising forming an animal nutrition product configured for ingestion by an animal, the animal nutrition product comprising the ground pistachio shells, Akay teaches a feed additive comprising thermo-modified nutshells for treatment of diarrhea and to adsorb toxins as well as promote growth and improve the overall health in humans and other animals (Abstract). The nut shells comprise one or more of shells from hazelnuts, almonds, walnuts, pecans, macadamia nuts, brazil nuts, pistachios, cashews, coconuts, and any combinations thereof (claim 2). The nut shells may be ground to a size of less than 100 µm ([0011]). The disclosure of the nut shells as a feed additive implicitly discloses a food product/nutritional composition.
Altom discloses an animal food composition containing a nut shell (Abstract). Altom discloses that “the use of nut shell has proved to be beneficial for promoting a means for controlling fecal hair excretion, controlling oral hair excretion, trichobezoar formation, and satiety in an animal. It is believed that the nut shell aids in the gastric and intestinal passage of ingested hair and their subsequent excretion in the feces of an animal” ([0037]). Altom teaches that “the nut shell contains a unique blend of nutrients that promote satiety and maintenance of a healthy body weight. Nut shell fiber is low in calories, rich in insoluble fiber and lignans, and contains a high proportion of branched-chain amino acids in relation to total protein. It is believed that the intake of nut shell enhances satiety signaling through several mechanisms, including reducing food energy density, increasing gastric distention, mitigating sharp rises and falls in blood glucose, and promoting hormonal satiety signals” ([0038]). The nut shells are ground to a fine grind ([0065]).
Altom does not specifically disclose pistachio nut shell. Altom states, “The nut shell is selected from the group consisting of pecan nut shell, walnut nut shell, filbert nut shell, hickory nut shell, hazelnut shell, chestnut nut shell, and combinations thereof.” ([0033]). It is noted that both Akay and Altom disclose pecan, walnut, and hazelnut among the disclosed nut shells. It is considered that pistachio nut shells would likewise be suitable for the food compositions of Altom as a source of insoluble fiber and lignans to promote satiety and/or control hair excretion, absent any evidence to the contrary.
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 De Bondt as modified by Cardullo with the teachings of Akay and Altom to prepare an animal food product comprising the ground pistachio shells. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to promote the gastrointestinal health of an animal and to make use of an agricultural by-product (i.e., pistachio shells); Cardullo discloses that pistachio shells are one of the major by-products from pistachio industrial processing (Abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation at arriving at the claimed invention because Akay and Altom both teach that it was known to use ground nut shells (Akay further teaches that the pistachio shells can be ground to a size less than 100 µm) in animal food products, and Akay teaches that pistachio shells are a suitable nut shell for such uses.
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 Akay discloses that the ground pistachio nut shell is a suitable compound for use in an animal food composition, it would have been prima facie obvious to use the ground pistachio nut shells of De Bondt as modified by Cardullo to prepare an animal food composition.
Claim 13 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 19, De Bondt, Cardullo, Akay and Altom teach the method of claim 13.
De Bondt as modified by Cardullo also teaches that the ground pistachio shells have a D50 particle size is in the range of from 10 µm to 50 µm – De Bondt teaches a method for processing wheat bran, the method comprising grinding wheat bran in a cryogenic (i.e., cooled compression) milling system under conditions to provide wheat bran having a D50 particle size in a range of from 10 µm to 50 µm (Abstract; Figure 2A (15-minute timepoint) & Figure 2C). Pass 1 in Figure 2C corresponds to a D50 particle size of 28 µm (p. 7, last ¶). Thus, modification of De Bondt with the teachings of Cardullo as described regarding claim 13 also render obvious the D50 particle size in the range of from 10 µm to 50 µm.
De Bondt as modified by Cardullo also teaches that the ground pistachio shells have a total polyphenol content of at least 11% –Cardullo discloses that ground pistachio shells extracted with various solvents (i.e., EtOH, MeOH, H2O pH4, EtOH/H2O) exhibit a total polyphenol content (TPC) of at least 11% (i.e., at least 110 mg GAE/g, conversion factor: 1% = 10 mg/g) (p.3, Table 1, “TPC”). The pistachio shells were ground to a 60-mesh (250 µm) size, and then extracted by the various solvents (pp. 2-3, bridging ¶).
Since De Bondt teaches that the cryogenic milling method produces particles with a D50 size under 250 µm (Figure 2A&C), and that particle size reduction increases extractability of phenolic acids (p. 2, ¶ 3), and Cardullo teaches that pistachio shell particles under 250 µm have at least 11% total polyphenol content (pp. 2-3, bridging ¶, p.3, Table 1, “TPC”), De Bondt as modified by Cardullo to apply the pistachio shells of Cardullo to the cryogenic milling method of De Bondt as described above would also be expected to produce ground pistachio shells having a total polyphenol content of at least 11% based on the well-known scientific principle that reducing particle size increases surface area and therefore substrate availability and, hence, extractability. That is, since Cardullo teaches that pistachio shell particles up to 250 µm have at least 11% total polyphenol content, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that pistachio shell particles with a D50 particle size in a range of from 10 µm to 50 µm would also have at least 11% total polyphenol content.
Claim 19 is therefore rendered obvious for the same reasons and with the same expectation of success as described regarding claim 13 above.
Regarding claim 20, De Bondt, Cardullo, Akay, and Altom teach the method of claim 13.
De Bondt as modified by Cardullo also teaches that the ground pistachio shells have a D50 particle size is in the range of from 10 µm to 50 µm – De Bondt teaches a method for processing wheat bran, the method comprising grinding wheat bran in a cryogenic (i.e., cooled compression) milling system under conditions to provide wheat bran having a D50 particle size in a range of from 10 µm to 50 µm (Abstract; Figure 2A (15-minute timepoint) & Figure 2C). Pass 1 in Figure 2C corresponds to a D50 particle size of 28 µm (p. 7, last ¶). Thus, modification of De Bondt with the teachings of Cardullo as described regarding claim 13 also render obvious the D50 particle size in the range of from 10 µm to 50 µm.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach that the ground pistachio shells have a ruminant digestibility of at least 56.85%.
However, De Bondt teaches that cryogenic milling can achieve a D50 particle size as small as 6 µm (Abstract; Figure 2A), and teaches milling times of 2, 15, 30, and 45 min (p. 5, ¶ 1). Pass 1 in Figure 2C corresponds to a D50 particle size of 28 µm (p. 7, last ¶), which is nearly 30 µm.
As evidenced by the instant specification in Table 4 at paragraphs [0024] – [0025], cryo-ground pistachio shell particles with a D50 particle size of 30 µm have a ruminant digestibility of 56.85%.
MPEP § 2112(I) states, “‘[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.’ Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).”
MPEP § 2112.01(I) states, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).”
Therefore, in such a case where pistachio shells cryo-ground by the method of De Bondt as modified by Cardullo, as described above, achieve a D50 particle size of 30 µm or less, those pistachio shell particles would necessarily have a ruminant digestibility of at least 56.85%. Claiming the unknown property of ruminant digestibility does not make the claim patentable in view of the teachings of the prior art.
Claim 20 is therefore rendered obvious for the same reasons and with the same expectation of success as described regarding claim 13 above.
Regarding claim 21, De Bondt, Cardullo, Akay and Altom teach the method of claim 13.
De Bondt as modified by Cardullo also teaches that the ground pistachio shells have a D50 particle size is in the range of from 10 µm to 50 µm – De Bondt teaches a method for processing wheat bran, the method comprising grinding wheat bran in a cryogenic (i.e., cooled compression) milling system under conditions to provide wheat bran having a D50 particle size in a range of from 10 µm to 50 µm (Abstract; Figure 2A (15-minute timepoint) & Figure 2C). Pass 1 in Figure 2C corresponds to a D50 particle size of 28 µm (p. 7, last ¶). Thus, modification of De Bondt with the teachings of Cardullo as described regarding claim 13 also render obvious the D50 particle size in the range of from 10 µm to 50 µm.
De Bondt as modified by Cardullo also teaches that the ground pistachio shells have a total polyphenol content of at least 11% –Cardullo discloses that ground pistachio shells extracted with various solvents (i.e., EtOH, MeOH, H2O pH4, EtOH/H2O) exhibit a total polyphenol content (TPC) of at least 11% (i.e., at least 110 mg GAE/g, conversion factor: 1% = 10 mg/g) (p.3, Table 1, “TPC”). The pistachio shells were ground to a 60-mesh (250 µm) size, and then extracted by the various solvents (pp. 2-3, bridging ¶).
Since De Bondt teaches that the cryogenic milling method produces particles with a D50 size under 250 µm (Figure 2A&C), and that particle size reduction increases extractability of phenolic acids (p. 2, ¶ 3), and Cardullo teaches that pistachio shell particles under 250 µm have at least 11% total polyphenol content (pp. 2-3, bridging ¶, p.3, Table 1, “TPC”), De Bondt as modified by Cardullo to apply the pistachio shells of Cardullo to the cryogenic milling method of De Bondt as described above would also be expected to produce ground pistachio shells having a total polyphenol content of at least 11% based on the well-known scientific principle that reducing particle size increases surface area and therefore substrate availability and, hence, extractability. That is, since Cardullo teaches that pistachio shell particles up to 250 µm have at least 11% total polyphenol content, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that pistachio shell particles with a D50 particle size in a range of from 10 µm to 50 µm would also have at least 11% total polyphenol content.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach that the ground pistachio shells have a ruminant digestibility of at least 56.85%.
However, De Bondt teaches that cryogenic milling can achieve a D50 particle size as small as 6 µm (Abstract; Figure 2A), and teaches milling times of 2, 15, 30, and 45 min (p. 5, ¶ 1). Pass 1 in Figure 2C corresponds to a D50 particle size of 28 µm (p. 7, last ¶), which is nearly 30 µm.
As evidenced by the instant specification in Table 4 at paragraphs [0024] – [0025], cryo-ground pistachio shell particles with a D50 particle size of 30 µm have a ruminant digestibility of 56.85%.
MPEP § 2112(I) states, “‘[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.’ Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).”
MPEP § 2112.01(I) states, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).”
Therefore, in such a case where pistachio shells cryo-ground by the method of De Bondt as modified by Cardullo, as described above, achieve a D50 particle size of 30 µm or less, those pistachio shell particles would necessarily have a ruminant digestibility of at least 56.85%. Claiming the unknown property of ruminant digestibility does not make the claim patentable in view of the teachings of the prior art.
Claim 21 is therefore rendered obvious for the same reasons and with the same expectation of success as described regarding claim 13 above.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Bondt et al. (De Bondt, Y., Liberloo, I., Roye, C. et al. (2020). The Effect of Wet Milling and Cryogenic Milling on the Structure and Physicochemical Properties of Wheat Bran. Foods, 9(12), 1755. 16 pages. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9121755) in view of Cardullo et al. (Cardullo, N., Leanza, M., Muccilli, V, & Tringali C. (2021). Valorization of Atri-Food Waste from Pistachio Hard Shells: Extraction of Polyphenols as Natural Antioxidants. Resources, 10(5), 45. 17 pages. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources1005004), Akay, (US 2016/0082062 A1), and Altom et al. (2007/0202211 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Hummingbird Wholesale (Pistachios, Split Shells, Raw. (2021, June 18). Hummingbird Wholesale. Retrieved August 19, 2025 from https://web.archive.org/web/ 20210618191734/https://hummingbirdwholesale.com/products/pistachios-split-shells-raw-n227).
Regarding claims 22-23, De Bondt, Cardullo, Akay, and Altom teach the method of claim 13.
The cited prior art does not discuss that the raw pistachio shells and the ground pistachio shells have a moisture content of less than 10% by weight (re: claim 22) or wherein the moisture content is from 2% to 10% by weight (re: claim 23). Cardullo teaches that the pistachio shells were dried before grinding (p. 2, last ¶), but does not disclose a moisture content.
However, Hummingbird Wholesale discloses pistachios dried in the shell at 180 °F for 4-5 hours to bring the moisture level down to 3-4% (p. 1, ¶ 2). Therefore, Hummingbird Wholesale teaches one of ordinary skill in the art that a suitable range for the moisture content of pistachio shells is 3-4%.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the method of De Bondt as modified by Cardullo to use pistachio shells dried to a moisture content of 3-4% as disclosed by Hummingbird Wholesale. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to consult Hummingbird Wholesale to determine a suitable moisture content for the dried pistachio shells disclosed by Cardullo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Hummingbird Wholesale teaches that it is common practice that pistachios in the shell are dried to a moisture level of 3-4%.
The cited prior art gives no indication that cryogenic milling changes the moisture content of the material. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the ground pistachio shells have a similar moisture content to the raw pistachio shells.
Claims 22 and 23 are therefore rendered obvious.
Response to Arguments
Specification Objections:
Applicant has overcome the objections to the specification by amendment. Accordingly, the objections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112:
Applicant has overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections of claims 5-6 and 10-11 based on amendment to the claims. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Independent claim 1:
Applicant’s arguments filed on 24 November 2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first asserted that the Examples of the specification demonstrate that ground pistachio shells having a D50 particle size within 10 to 50 µm had a total polyphenol content of 11% as well as a ruminant digestibility of 56.85%, and that particles having a D50 particle size of 300 µm had a substantially lower total polyphenol content and ruminant digestibility (p. 8, ¶ 4). Applicant asserted that reducing the D50 particle size by a factor of 30 increased the total polyphenol content by over a factor of 8, and reducing the D50 particle size by a factor of 10 increased the ruminant digestibility by over a factor of 4, and that these substantial increases were unexpected and not reasonably predictable in view of the prior art (p. 8, ¶ 5).
Applicant’s assertion of 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, the data in the Examples do not support this assertion. None of the data show that the claimed total polyphenol content of at least 11% is achieved in particles having a D50 particle size within 10 to 50 µm. Particles of a D50 particle size of 10 µm have a total polyphenol content of 10.62% (which is not 11%), and larger particles have a lower total polyphenol content (Specification, [0017], Table 1). The data are not commensurate in scope with the claims.
Additionally, the digestibility data show that particles having a D50 particle size of 30 µm have a digestibility of 56.85% (Specification, [0035], Table 4). The claims recite “at least 56.85%”. The data in the table suggest that a larger particle size results in lower digestibility. Therefore, it would be expected that particles having a D50 particle size between 30 and 50 µm would have less than 56.85% digestibility, which is outside the scope of the claims. Therefore, these data are not commensurate in scope with the claims.
Applicant next argued that De Bondt demonstrates that there was no reasonable basis for predicting the effect of a reduction in D50 particle size on the total polyphenol content or ruminant digestibility of ground pistachio shells because De Bondt is concerned with wheat bran versus pistachio shells, and different physical properties (glucose, protein, phosphorus versus polyphenol content and ruminant digestibility), and that nothing would lead one to reasonably infer that De Bondt’s teachings translate to other food products and other physical properties (pp. 8-9, bridging ¶). Applicant has argued against De Bondt individually where the rejection was based on a combination of references.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant next argued that De Bondt’s results show that a reduction in D50 particle size has a n unpredictable and at most, limited, effect on glucose, protein, and phosphorus content from ground wheat bran – some individual sugars increased while others decreased with decreasing particle size, and the factor of increase was only about a factor of 2 (p. 9, ¶ 2).
Applicant’s argument has been considered, but it is not persuasive. De Bondt’s data are toward sugar, protein, and phosphorus, not polyphenols, so the comparison is not like-for-like regarding factor of increase. The large-scale cryogenic milling data (Table 1, col. 3) with D50 particle size of 28 µm still shows an increase in the compounds analyzed with a decrease in particle size. The lab-scale cryogenic milling data (Table 1, col. 2) is from particles with a D50 particle size of 6 µm, which is outside the claimed range of 10-50 µm. Therefore, these data are irrelevant. The well-known scientific principle that reducing particle size increases surface area and therefore substrate availability and, hence, extractability is the expectation unless demonstrated to be otherwise (e.g., some threshold exists beyond which no more extraction occurs). It is also unknown whether the assay conditions for measuring the 6 µm particle extracts were optimized for the particle size, (e.g., sufficient mixing to avoid agglomeration, or sufficient extraction volume).
Applicant next argued that a more limited reduction in D50 particle size of pistachio shells corresponds to a much greater increase in total polyphenol content and ruminant digestibility, which would have been unexpected in view of De Bondt’s teachings, and even assuming one of ordinary skill in the art considered a cryogenic milling process for use with Cardullo’s pistachio shells and further engaged in adjustment of D50 particle size, the prior art fails to provide a reasonable basis for predicting the result of such an adjustment (pp. 9-10, bridging ¶). Applicant argued that Cardullo’s 250 µm pistachio shells are outside the claimed size range and Cardullo uses different extraction techniques than the present application, so the data provided by Cardullo that such pistachio shell particles comprise at least 11% total polyphenols is irrelevant (Id.).
Applicant’s argument has been considered, but it is not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the factor of particle size reduction, factor of increase in polyphenol content and digestibility, and extraction techniques) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The scale or factor of increase is not at hand, and the method of extraction is irrelevant in meeting the claimed requirement that the ground pistachio shells have a total polyphenol content of at least 11%. The numerical value is at hand, not the method by which it is obtained; a piece of string can be measured with a ruler, yardstick, or tape measure, but the length remains the same.
Applicant next asserted that it is impermissible to make use of the inventors’ results to support a prima facie case of obviousness since doing so amounts to impermissible hindsight in view of the present application.
In response, the rejection points to applicant’s results to provide evidence that pistachio particles with a D50 particle size of 30 µm have the inherent property of 56.85% digestibility. The cited prior art renders obvious the claimed particle size range, including 30 µm.
When the method steps recited in the prior art reference are substantially identical to those of the claims, claimed properties of the resulting composition are presumed to be present in the composition of the prior art. The burden of proof shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence (i.e., test data) to the contrary. See In re Best, 562, F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 403, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP § 2112.01(I). Thus, the particles are presumed to have the same properties, including the percent digestibility.
For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments toward claim 1 are not persuasive.
Independent claim 13 and new claims 22-23:
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 10, ¶ 3 – p.13, ¶ 3), filed 24 November 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 13 and 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amended claims. The amended claims require that the animal nutrition product comprises the ground pistachio shells, rather than forming an animal nutrition product from the ground pistachio shells. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon consideration of the amended claims, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Akay and Altom.
It is noted that Applicant’s reliance on “raw” ground pistachio shells is in conflict with Applicant’s definition of “raw” in regard to the pistachio shells. By Applicant’s own admission and definition in the specification, “[t]he term "raw" is used to refer to the pistachio shells prior to processing using the present methods. The raw pistachio shells have generally not been subjected to any prior processing technique, including any type of physical and/or chemical processing technique.” (Specification, [0006]). The term “raw ground pistachio shells” is conflicting and therefore indefinite; by Applicant’s definition, the ground pistachio shells cannot be considered to be raw having undergone grinding by the present method.
All pending claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
RU 2208343 C2 teaches a composite of the balanced mixture for enteral nutrition comprises dry cream, curd cryopowder, peanut cryopowder, wild rose cryopowder, carrot cryopowder, beet cryopowder, wheat germinated seedlings cryopowder, potato cryopowder, apple cryopowder and sugar.
Foods 2020, 9(2), 223; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9020223 shows increased polyphenol extraction in ginseng root when in particle size is reduced from > 50 µm to 10-20 µm (Figure 6).
Animals 2021, 11(2), 401; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11020401 shows dietary polyphenol supplementation in food producing animals from polyphenol-rich plant by-products.
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