DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The status of the claims stands as follows (*the claims are renumbered according to the objection below*):
Pending claims: 1-4, 6-20, 22
Withdrawn claims: 12-20
Cancelled claims: 5, 21
Claims currently under consideration: 1-4, 6-11, 22
Currently rejected claims: 1-4, 6-11, 22
Allowed claims: None
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-4, 6-11, 22) in the reply filed on 10/30/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no undue search burden on the Examiner. This is not found persuasive because, not only is there an undue search burden on the Examiner, but the inventions of Groups I, II, and III were shown to be independent or distinct for the reasons provided in the Election Restriction filed 08/05/2025..
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Objections
Claims labeled as 5-10 and 21 are objected to because the claims are improperly numbered. The previous claim set contained two claims which were numbered as claim 4. Applicant canceled one of the claims labeled as claim 4 and left the other claim labeled as claim 4. Applicant did not correct the claim numbers and thus, the claims are numbered incorrectly. Claims 5-10 and 21 should be renumbered as claims 6-11 and 22. Canceled and withdrawn claims should be renumbered as well.
For the purpose of this examination, the rejections will use the claims as if they were numbered properly.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-11, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a natural product without significantly more. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-11, and 22 are directed to a composition comprising natural products. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-11, and 22 recite a composition comprising a flavor/taste modifying agent and a high intensity sweetener (HIS), wherein the flavor/taste modifying agent and the HIS may be the same substance (e.g., claim 3 and 9 recite that the both the flavor/taste modifying agent and the HIS may be stevia extracts (SEs)); or wherein the flavor/taste modifying agent and the HIS may be compounds that naturally coexist in one naturally-occurring product (e.g., a stevia leaf). Therefore, the claimed product is not markedly different from its closest naturally-occurring counterpart because there is no indication that the preparation has caused the nature-based product to have any characteristics that are markedly different from the closest naturally-occurring product and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Ingredients recited in the claims are natural products that would occur naturally; thus, the claims fall within judicial exceptions. There is no indication in the record of any markedly different characteristics (either structural or functional) of the composition as broadly claimed. For example, there is no evidence of record of a structural difference between the claimed product and that of its nature-based counterparts. Consequently, the claimed composition is structurally the same as their closest naturally-occurring counterparts.
Nor is there any difference in functional characteristics. To show a marked difference, the characteristic(s) must be changed as compared to its closest naturally-occurring counterpart. For example, an assertion of changed functionality must be accompanied with evidence of a comparison of the claimed composition with its closest naturally-occurring counterpart and should apply to the full scope of the claim. Furthermore, inherent or innate characteristics of the naturally-occurring counterpart cannot show a marked difference. Likewise, differences in the characteristics that came about or were produced independently of any effort or influence by Applicant cannot show a marked difference.
The requirement that the composition contain the flavor/taste modifying agent in an amount sufficient to enhance a flavor and/or taste profile of HIS does not meaningfully limit the claim, especially wherein both the flavor/taste modifying agent and the HIS may be the same compound.. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than a naturally-occurring product itself.
Thus, there is no evidence of record to indicate that the claimed product is markedly different, structurally, chemically, functionally, than its closest naturally-occurring counterpart and is not eligible subject matter under current 35 U.S.C. 101 standards.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Prakash (US 2015/0216219).
Regarding claim 1, Prakash teaches a composition comprising: (1) a flavor/taste modifying agent (corresponding to sweetness enhancer); and (2) a HIS (corresponding to high potency sweetener), wherein the flavor/taste modifying agent is present at an amount sufficient to enhance a flavor and/or taste profile of the HIS [0041].
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Prakash teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the flavor/taste modifying agent comprises a stevia extract (SE) (corresponding to rebaudiosides) [0019].
Regarding claim 6, Prakash teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the flavor/taste modifying agent comprises stevia sweeteners such as rubusoside (RU) [0019]. Although Prakash discloses that the rubusoside is sourced from stevia instead of the sweet tea plant, rubusoside has the same chemical composition no matter its source. Therefore, the rubusoside of Prakash is still considered to anticipate the present claim.
Regarding claim 7, Prakash teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the flavor/taste modifying agent comprises RU [0019].
Regarding claim 9, Prakash teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the flavor/taste modifying agent comprises a mogroside [0019].
Regarding claim 10, Prakash teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the HIS is a natural HIS (NHIS) selected from the group consisting of SEs, stevia glycosides (SGs) (SEs and SGs corresponding to rebaudiosides and stevia), sweet tea extracts (STEs), sweet tea glycosides (STGs) (STEs and STGs corresponding to rubusoside), monkfruit extracts (MFEs) (corresponding to Luo Han Guo sweetener), licorice extracts, and glycyrrhizin and salts thereof (licorice extracts and glycyrrhizin corresponding to glycyrrhizic acid) [0049].
Regarding claim 11, Prakash teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the HIS is a synthetic HIS (SHIS) selected from the group consisting of sucralose, acesulfame-K, aspartame, saccharin, saccharin and aspartame, neotame, neohesperidin dihydrochalcone, and salts thereof [0047]-[0048].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chakraborty (US 2017/0055548).
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 4, Chakraborty teaches a composition (corresponding to a flavor system) comprising: (1) a flavor/taste modifying agent comprising benzaldehyde and/or decanal; and (2) a HIS (corresponding to rebaudiosides, swingle extract, mogroside V, and glycosylated steviol glycosides) [0051] as recited in present claims 1, 3, and 4. Chakraborty does not explicitly disclose that the flavor/taste modifying agents are extracted from stevia. However, these flavor/taste modifying agents have the same chemical composition no matter their source. For these reasons, Chakraborty is considered to anticipate the claims.
Chakraborty discloses that the concentration of flavor/taste modifying agent in the composition is from about 0.01 wt.% to about 1.0 wt.% [0062]; and that the concentration of the HIS in the composition is from about 0.00000001 wt.% to about 0.0025 wt.% [0053]. Although Chakraborty does not disclose this concentration of flavor/taste modifying agent to be sufficient to enhance a flavor and/or taste profile of the HIS, this disclosed concentration is considered fall within the range of “an amount sufficient” as recited in present claim 1. For this reason, Chakraborty is considered to render the claims obvious.
Claims 1, 3, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Karaköse (Karaköse, H., “Phytochemical Characterization of Stevia rebaudiana”, 2012, Jacobs University).
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 22, Karaköse teaches a composition (corresponding to Stevia rebaudiana extract) comprising: (1) a flavor/taste modifying agent comprising SEs selected from the group consisting of quercetin pentoside, kaempferol-xylosyl-glucoside; quercetin-diglucoside-rhamnoside, and quercetin-dirhamnoside; and (2) a HIS (corresponding to steviol glycosides) (page 48, Fig. 22 and Table 4) as recited in present claims 1, 3, and 22. For this reason, Chakraborty is considered to anticipate the claims.
Karaköse demonstrates the relative abundance of each of the flavor/taste modifying agents and for each of the HISs (page 48, Fig. 22). Although Karaköse does not disclose these relative concentrations of flavor/taste modifying agent to be sufficient to enhance a flavor and/or taste profile of the HIS, these relative concentrations are considered fall within the range of “an amount sufficient” as recited in present claim 1. For this reason, Karaköse is considered to render the claims obvious.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash (US 2015/0216219) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Prakash teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the flavor/taste modifying agent comprises a combination of RU with at least one of another sweetness enhancer [0021]. Therefore, the concentration of RU in the flavor/taste modifying agent is from an amount greater than 0 wt.% to an amount less than 100 wt.% with the at least one of another sweetness enhancer is also from an amount greater than 0 wt.% to an amount less than 100 wt.%. This concentration of RU encompasses the claimed concentrations denoted by RU20, RU40, RU90 in the present claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portions of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art references, particularly in view of the fact that; "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages" In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549,533 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.I.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,102,996. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 1 and 2 require the same flavor/taste modifying agent and HIS as patented claims 1, 6, and 7. The patented claims do not require the flavor/taste modifying agent to be present in an amount sufficient to enhance a flavor and/or taste profile of the HIS. However, the patented claims do not require any particular amount of flavor/taste modifying agent or HIS so that the amounts of each ingredient may be from greater than 0 wt.% to less than 100 wt.%, which encompasses the amount considered to be “sufficient” in the instant claims; therefore, the selection of an amount of flavor/taste modifying agent in the composition of the patented claims within the encompassing range renders the instant claims obvious.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,425,923. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 1 and 2 require the same flavor/taste modifying agent and HIS as patented claims 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6. The patented claims do not require the flavor/taste modifying agent to be present in an amount sufficient to enhance a flavor and/or taste profile of the HIS. However, the patented claims do not require any particular amount of flavor/taste modifying agent or HIS so that the amounts of each ingredient may be from greater than 0 wt.% to less than 100 wt.%, which encompasses the amount considered to be “sufficient” in the instant claims; therefore, the selection of an amount of flavor/taste modifying agent in the composition of the patented claims within the encompassing range renders the instant claims obvious.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 13, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,324,237. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 1 and 2 require the same flavor/taste modifying agent and HIS as patented claims 1, 7, 13, and 19. The patented claims do not require the flavor/taste modifying agent to be present in an amount sufficient to enhance a flavor and/or taste profile of the HIS. However, the patented claims do not require any particular amount of flavor/taste modifying agent or HIS so that the amounts of each ingredient may be from greater than 0 wt.% to less than 100 wt.%, which encompasses the amount considered to be “sufficient” in the instant claims; therefore, the selection of an amount of flavor/taste modifying agent in the composition of the patented claims within the encompassing range renders the instant claims obvious.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,849,742. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 1 and 2 require the same flavor/taste modifying agent and HIS as patented claims 1, 8, and 16. The patented claims do not require the flavor/taste modifying agent to be present in an amount sufficient to enhance a flavor and/or taste profile of the HIS. However, the patented claims require the weight ratio of flavor/taste modifying agent and HIS to be between 99:1 and 1:99, which is considered to encompass the amount considered to be “sufficient” in the instant claims; therefore, the selection of an amount of flavor/taste modifying agent in the composition of the patented claims within the encompassing range renders the instant claims obvious.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, and 24 of U.S. Patent No. 11,252,978. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 1 and 2 require the same flavor/taste modifying agent and HIS and the same effect of the flavor/taste modifying agent on the HIS as patented claims 1, 9, and 24. Therefore, the patented claims render the instant claims obvious.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8-10, and 17-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,154,079. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 1 and 2 require the same flavor/taste modifying agent and HIS as patented claims 1, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18, 19, and 20. The patented claims do not require the flavor/taste modifying agent to be present in an amount sufficient to enhance a flavor and/or taste profile of the HIS. However, the patented claims do not require any particular amount of flavor/taste modifying agent or HIS so that the amounts of each ingredient may be from greater than 0 wt.% to less than 100 wt.%, which encompasses the amount considered to be “sufficient” in the instant claims; therefore, the selection of an amount of flavor/taste modifying agent in the composition of the patented claims within the encompassing range renders the instant claims obvious.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 15, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,369,127. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 1 and 2 require the same flavor/taste modifying agent and HIS as patented claims 1, 6, 15, and 20. The patented claims do not require the flavor/taste modifying agent to be present in an amount sufficient to enhance a flavor and/or taste profile of the HIS. However, the patented claims require the amount of flavor/taste modifying agent to be between 1-15,000 ppm, which is considered to at least overlap the amount considered to be “sufficient” in the instant claims; therefore, the selection of an amount of flavor/taste modifying agent in the composition of the patented claims within the overlapping range renders the instant claims obvious.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 10, and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,147,295. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 1 and 2 require the same flavor/taste modifying agent and HIS as patented claims 1, 3, 10, and 12. The patented claims do not require the flavor/taste modifying agent to be present in an amount sufficient to enhance a flavor and/or taste profile of the HIS. However, the patented claims require the amount of flavor/taste modifying agent to be 1-100 wt. or 1-99 wt.%, which is considered to at least overlap the amount considered to be “sufficient” in the instant claims; therefore, the selection of an amount of flavor/taste modifying agent in the composition of the patented claims within the overlapping range renders the instant claims obvious.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,266,170. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 1 and 2 require the same flavor/taste modifying agent and HIS as patented claims 1, 6, and 10. The patented claims do not require the flavor/taste modifying agent to be present in an amount sufficient to enhance a flavor and/or taste profile of the HIS. However, the patented claims require the amount of flavor/taste modifying agent to be 0.0001-50 wt.% wt.%, which is considered to at least overlap the amount considered to be “sufficient” in the instant claims; therefore, the selection of an amount of flavor/taste modifying agent in the composition of the patented claims within the overlapping range renders the instant claims obvious.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 10, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,284,634. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 1 and 2 require the same flavor/taste modifying agent and HIS as patented claims 1, 5, 10, and 16. The patented claims do not require the flavor/taste modifying agent to be present in an amount sufficient to enhance a flavor and/or taste profile of the HIS. However, the patented claims require the amount of flavor/taste modifying agent to be 0.0001-10 wt.% wt.%, which is considered to at least overlap the amount considered to be “sufficient” in the instant claims; therefore, the selection of an amount of flavor/taste modifying agent in the composition of the patented claims within the overlapping range renders the instant claims obvious.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-6, 11, and 15-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,304,431. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 1 and 2 require the same flavor/taste modifying agent and HIS as patented claims 1, 5-6, 11, and 15-16. The patented claims do not require the flavor/taste modifying agent to be present in an amount sufficient to enhance a flavor and/or taste profile of the HIS. However, the patented claims do not require any particular amount of flavor/taste modifying agent or HIS so that the amounts of each ingredient may be from greater than 0 wt.% to less than 100 wt.%, which encompasses the amount considered to be “sufficient” in the instant claims; therefore, the selection of an amount of flavor/taste modifying agent in the composition of the patented claims within the encompassing range renders the instant claims obvious.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,793,321. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 1 and 2 require the same flavor/taste modifying agent and HIS as patented claims 1 and 10. The patented claims do not require the flavor/taste modifying agent to be present in an amount sufficient to enhance a flavor and/or taste profile of the HIS. However, the patented claims require the amount of flavor/taste modifying agent to be 0.001-1 wt.% wt.% or 1-2,000 ppm, which is considered to at least overlap the amount considered to be “sufficient” in the instant claims; therefore, the selection of an amount of flavor/taste modifying agent in the composition of the patented claims within the overlapping range renders the instant claims obvious.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,048,316. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 1 and 2 require the same flavor/taste modifying agent and HIS and the same effect of the flavor/taste modifying agent on the HIS as patented claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.
Claims 1-2 and 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-5, 7, 10, 12, 14-16, 18, and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,751,593. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 1, 2, and 22 require the same flavor/taste modifying agent and HIS and the same effect of the flavor/taste modifying agent on the HIS as patented claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, and 21.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kelly Kershaw whose telephone number is (571)272-2847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached at (571) 270-3435. 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.
/KELLY P KERSHAW/Examiner, Art Unit 1791