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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I (claims 1-14) in the reply filed on 12/01/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/01/25.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, line 4, “macaoba bean” seems it should read “mayocoba bean”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 3, paragraph [0014], line 5, “macaoba bean” seems it should read “mayocoba bean”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The terms “high and low” solubility in claim 1, “coarse” grinding in claim 2 step 2, and “heating and cooling” in claim 2 steps 3-4, are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “high and low, coarse, and heating and cooling” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what level of solubility of a legume protein is considered to be high or low. It is unclear what particle size is considered coarse grind. It is unclear what exact temperatures are considered heating and cooling temperatures.
Claim 8 recites “wherein in the step (4), a grinding media in the media mill is glass beads, ceramic beads, steel beads.” It is unclear if the media mill beads material requires all of the recited bead materials in claim 8 or if it requires the selection of bead materials in the alternative from the beads recited in the claim.
Claims 3-14 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a base rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Augustin et al. [US 20210100751 A1], hereinafter Augustin, in view of Liu et al. [CN 105660987 A], hereinafter Liu.
Regarding claim 1, Augustin teach a method for preparation of fully soluble legume protein (i.e., leguminous biomass), wherein high-solubility legume protein is prepared by processing low-solubility legume protein [Augustin, Abstract, 0113, 0136, claim 22] with a physical method that combines grinding (macerating) with ultrasound [Augustin, 0174, claims 18-19], comprising: (1) providing legume protein [Augustin, 0007-0009], adding water and stirring (obtaining aqueous mixture of biomass and water [Augustin, 0009, 0203-0204, 0321]) to disperse evenly, and obtaining a protein dispersion [Augustin, 0009, 0012, 0039, 0221]; (2) pouring the stirred homogeneous [Augustin, 0203, 0228] protein solution into a colloid mill for grinding to obtain a grinding solution [Augustin, 0180]; (3) heating the grinding solution [Augustin, 0180, 0321]; and (4) cooling the heated grinding solution [Augustin, 0321], and; wherein the protein solution that has been ground and ultrasonicated is the high-solubility legume protein.
Augustin is silent regarding a physical method that combines grinding with ultrasound .
Regarding integration of mill and ultrasonication devices, MPEP 2144.04, V. B., states:
In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.")
Regarding coupling of milling and ultrasonication methods, MPEP 2143, I. A., states:
Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc., 962 F.3d 1373, 1379, 2020 USPQ2d 10706 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950). As such, since Augustin teach the legume protein material (biomass) may be pre-treated by physical methods that combines mill-grinding (macerating) with ultrasound [Augustin, 0174, 0180, claims 18-19] in order to extract components from the legume protein material (biomass) [Augustin, 0173].
The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Moreover;
Liu teach a device and method for extracting a soluble legume protein in an ultrasonic-assisted manner. The method uses a wet-mill and ultrasonic assisted bundle system for grinding and sonication [Liu, Abstract, 0018].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have include the media mill-ultrasonic coupling system for grinding and ultrasonication as taught by Liu, in the method of modified Augustin, because Liu teach that the use of the bundle or coupled device comprising a wet mill and ultrasonic for extracting legume proteins in combination provides for a simpler than existing technologies, which greatly reduces the extracting process, operating condition is controlled in the strict degree; it not only shortens extraction time, but improves the yield and reduces the number of microorganisms and improve product colour and taste, at the same time, reduces the labor intensity, and it is suitable for industrial production [Zhang, 0025-0027, Abstract].
Claim(s) 2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Augustin in view of Liu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. [US 20210092977 A1], hereinafter Zhang.
Modified Augustin teach the method for preparation of fully soluble legume protein by processing low-solubility legume protein with a physical method that combines grinding with ultrasound as explained above but are silent regarding the grinding producing coarse particles or coarsely grinding.
Zhang teach a method for preparation of fully soluble legume protein [Zhang, Abstract, 0005, 0016, 0045], wherein high-solubility legume protein is prepared by processing low-solubility legume protein [Zhang, 0013] with a physical method that combines grinding with ultrasound [Zhang, 0004]. The method includes a step of coarsely grinding [Zhang, 0036-0037] the legume protein and water solution (wet-milling) [Zhang, 0041, 0049].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Augustin, and include the coarsely grinding as taught by Zhang, of the stirred homogeneous protein solution of Augustin, since Augustin already teach using a colloid mill [Augustin, 0180] but simply did not mention the particle size of the grinds, and since Augustin and Zhang are both directed to methods of preparing soluble legume protein solutions/dispersions with a physical method that combines grinding with ultrasound [Augustin, 0174, claims 18-19; Zhang, 0004]. Further, because Zhang teach the method would provide a skilled artisan the flexibility of selecting the grinds particle size coarse or fine [Zhang, 0036-0037].
Regarding claim 7, Modified Augustin teach the method discussed above in claims 1-2, and further teach wherein in the step (3, heating/(iii)microwaving after colloid mill grinding or maceration [Augustin, 0174]), a heating temperature is 50-90°C (heating to about 70-80°C) and a heating duration is 1-3 h (at least 30 seconds or 3 minutes or more, since Augustin does not teach an upper limit [Augustin, 0182]). Further, regarding the heating time duration, Augustin recognize that heating at lower temperatures would require a longer period of time and/or heating at higher temperatures would require a shorter period of time [Augustin, 0176], and also because Augustin teaches heating to temperatures of about 30-80°C during the colloid mill treatment for about 1 to 5 hours [Augustin, 0180], but simply did not explicitly mention the heating as a separate step after the colloid mill treatment, which one of ordinary skill in the art would have used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization (i.e., before, during and/or after) in the method of modified Augustin.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Augustin, in view of Liu, and Zhang as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Cummins et al. [WO 2023009375 A1], hereinafter Cummins, evidenced by Ventureira [US 20220007678 A1].
Regarding claims 3-4, Modified Augustin teach the method and concepts discussed above in claims 1-2 using pea and pea protein [Augustin, 0136], but is silent regarding the initial solubility of the legume protein before the treatment being from 8%-20%.
While Augustin is silent regarding the legume protein solubility, Augustin does teach using legume material (i.e., pea and pea protein [Augustin, 0136]) to obtain the legume protein that is edible [Augustin, 0146] and suitable for human and animal consumption [Augustin, 0280-2081] which is the legume protein required by instant claim 4. Therefore, if the composition is the same, it must have the same properties (see MPEP § 2112.01, II.). “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2112.01. 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).
If it could be argued that the legume protein of Augustin does not have an initial solubility before the treatment of from 8%-20%;
Cummins teach methods of making legume protein compositions from pea with improved properties [Cummins, Abstract, 0019] by wet milling the legume material in water to obtain a protein dispersion, and wherein solubility of the legume protein may be altered by adjusting pH of the water [Cummins, 0013], and further disclose that the legume protein may have a solubility of less than 20% [Cummins, claim 9], which is also evidenced by Ventureira, since Ventureira disclose that legume proteins have an initial solubility before being treated of less than 20% [Ventureira, 0008].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a legume protein such as pea protein, wherein the initial solubility of the legume protein before the treatment is from 8%-20% as taught by Cummins and evidenced by Ventureira, because Cummins teach that legume proteins from pea may have a solubility of less than 20% and said solubility may be altered by adjusting pH, which is also evidenced by Ventureira, and since Augustin teach using the same initial raw material of legume protein (pea). Doing so would provide a skilled artisan the flexibility of starting with a legume raw material having the desired protein solubility.
Claim(s) 5, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Augustin, in view of Liu, and Zhang as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Nono et al. [US 20170099852 A1], hereinafter Nono.
Regarding claim 5, Modified Augustin teach the method and concepts discussed above in claims 1-2, and further, Augustin in view of Zhang teach wherein in the step (1), a mass fraction of protein in the protein dispersion (protein material in water at a 1 to 5 weight ratio to a 1 to 20 weight ratio forming a protein slurry/dispersion having a protein mass fraction in a range of from about 4.76% to 16.7% or about 5% to 17%) which are values that are in a range of 5%-20% [Zhang, 0004]. However, modified Augustin are silent regarding a stirring rate being 300-900 r/min and a stirring duration being 10-30 min in step (1).
Nono teach a method for preparation of protein compositions comprising at least one plant protein [Nono, 0001], wherein the protein may be legume protein such as pea [Nono, 0029, 0036], and further teach that stirring speed and time durations may be selected according to the pH of the liquid in which the legume protein is dispersed and teach stirring the protein dispersion at 500 r/min with a stirring duration of 30 minutes [Nono, 0169].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a protein mass fraction, a stirring rate, and a stirring duration in the claimed range, since Augustin, Zhang and Nono are all directed to methods of making protein dispersions from legumes using colloid mills and ultrasonication [Augustin, 0180, 0183; Zhang, 0036, 0041; Nono, 0099], and further because Nono teach that stirring helps dissolution of the plant proteins in the liquid composition [Nono, 0087-0088], and since the claimed protein mass fraction, stirring rate, and stirring duration would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as the ratios of the various ingredients, the temperature and pH of the liquid in which the legume protein is being dissolved to increase protein extraction as taught by Zhang [Zhang, 0023, 0049], and as also taught by Nono [Nono, 0086-0089].
Regarding claims 13-14, Modified Augustin teach the method and concepts discussed above in claims 1-2, but does not explicitly teach wherein in the step (5), the high-solubility legume protein has a solubility greater than 80% and greater than 98%.
While modified Augustin does not explicitly recites the legume protein has a solubility greater than 80% and greater than 98%, however, given that the process of preparing a legume protein composition based on the disclosure in Augustin (i.e., providing a legume protein mixed with water to obtain a protein dispersion, grinding the dispersion in a colloid mill, heating, cooling, ultrasonication) combined with the teachings in Zhang (i.e., coarsely grinding) and Liu (i.e., combining milling and ultrasonication) is substantially similar to that in instant claims, it is the examiner's position that the legume protein made by the process of Augustin in view of Zhang and Liu would inherently have the instantly claimed protein solubility greater than 80% and greater than 98%. Since the PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) .
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).
Moreover, Nono teach the method for preparation of legume protein compositions comprising at least one plant protein [Nono, 0001], wherein the protein may be legume protein such as pea [Nono, 0029, 0036] to form a dispersion [Nono, 0070], and also teach treating the protein composition with colloid mills, microbead mills, and ultrasonication devices [Nono, 0099], in order to provide a composition having a high soluble protein content of between 20% and 99% [Nono, 0052].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a high-solubility legume protein in step (5), having a solubility greater than 80% and greater than 98%, because the claimed and modified Augustin products/process are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, using identical or substantially identical raw materials, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes as explained above, but simply did not mention the solubility of the protein, and further because Nono also teach using identical or substantially identical raw materials, produced by identical or substantially identical processes, and further explicitly teach a high-solubility legume protein having up to 99% solubility may be obtained by using colloid mills, microbead mills, and ultrasonication devices in order to obtain protein dispersions or solutions [Nono, 0070] with functional and/or sensory properties including not only an improved solubility but additionally improved dispersion/suspension stability [Nono, 0119].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Augustin, in view of Liu, and Zhang as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Gordilov [WO 2022086363 A1].
Regarding claim 6, Modified Augustin teach the method and concepts discussed above in claims 1-2, but is silent regarding the rotational speed of the colloid mill being 2000-4000 rpm, and the coarse grinding being performed for 1-3 times in step (2).
Gordilov teach a method for preparation of a protein drink (plant milk, which is a colloidal dispersion) [Gordilov, 0001-0003, 0010] from plant material comprising plant protein [Gordilov, 0014]. The method includes a step where the homogenous plant material (raw material) is poured into a colloid mill for grinding at a rotational speed of 1800 to 3200 rpm for 1 time [Gordilov, 0017].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the claimed rotational speed and the amount of grinding treatment times as taught by Gordilov in the method of modified Augustin, since all are directed to methods of making protein dispersions comprising plant proteins and since Gordilov recognize the use of grains and legumes to prepare plant milk protein dispersions [Gordilov, 0005], and further because Gordilov teach that using the colloid mill at a rotational speed of between 1800 to 3200 rpm allows for a thick, uniform, but fluid consistency of the plant material for maximum extraction of the nutrient fraction (i.e., protein fraction) from the feedstock [Gordilov, 0026].
Claim(s) 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Augustin, in view of Liu, and Zhang as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Anderson et al. [US 5190786 A], hereinafter Anderson, Matsumura [JP 4752098 B2], Fang et al. [CN 115500426 A], hereinafter Fang and Wei [CN 107811173 A].
Regarding claim 8-12, Modified Augustin teach the method and concepts discussed above in claims 1-2, wherein a grinding (colloid mill maceration) temperature is controlled at 30-80°C [Augustin, 0180], and ultrasonic conditions comprising a frequency of 20-600 kHz [Augustin, 0183], (which encompass the claimed grinding temperature and ultrasonic frequency of claim 12). Further, in regards to the coarse grinding solution being circulated for 0.5-3 hours during ultrasonication or ultrasonic conditions as required by claim 12, Augustin teach the ultrasonication of the coarse grinding solution may be performed for at least 30 seconds or at least 8 minutes [Augustin, 0183], Augustin in view of Zhang teach the ultrasonication of the coarse grinding solution may be performed for 15 minutes or more [Zhang, 0042], and Augustin in view of Liu teach the ultrasonication of the coarse grinding solution may be performed for 15-30 minutes [Liu, 0018], (which encompass the claimed 0.5-3 hour of the coarse grind solution being circulated under ultrasonic conditions as required by claim 12). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the use of the claimed time duration of ultrasonication treatment during the course of normal experimentation and optimization in the method of modified Augustin, (since Augustin does not teach a limit and Liu teach the claimed ultrasonication time), due to factors such as the amount of material being treated, the power/intensity and/or frequency of the ultrasonication treatment and/or temperature during ultrasonication.
Modified Augustin is silent regarding the following:
1) The grinding media in the media mill is glass beads, ceramic beads, steel beads in step (4) of claim 8;
2) Wherein the grinding media is zirconia ceramic beads of claim 9;
3) Wherein in the step (4), a grinding media in the media mill is zirconia beads, and a particle size of the zirconia beads is in a range of 0.1-2.5 mm of claim 10;
4) Wherein the particle size of the zirconia beads is in a range of at least one of 0.2-2.0 mm, 0.8-1.8 mm, and 1.2-1.6 mm of claim 11; and
5) Wherein in the step (4), zirconia beads with a diameter of 0.2-2.0 mm are added to the grinding chamber; and a motor speed in the grinding chamber is 600-1500 rpm of claim 12.
Anderson teach methods for preparation of aqueous dispersions from plant material [Anderson, col.3, l.16-34] that comprise legume (soy) protein [Anderson, col.5, l.3-10], wherein the homogenized liquid dispersion may be milled by using a grinding media in the media mill of (ZrO2, zirconium oxide) zirconia ceramic beads inside a grinding chamber having a size in a range of 1.7 to 2.0 mm and wherein glass or steel beads are also suitable [Anderson, col.4, l.27-36], (which encompass the claimed materials and bead sizes of instant claims 8-12). Anderson further teach an example where a rotating shaft inside the grinding chamber at a speed of 1500 rpm (therefore, a motor speed that is rotating the shaft in the grinding chamber is 1500 rpm as claimed) [Anderson, col.7, l.56-57].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the claimed materials for the beads, the claimed beads size, and the claimed motor speed in the grinding chamber as taught by Anderson in the method of modified Augustin, because Anderson teach that this would create a uniform dispersion of the plant material particles [Anderson, col.4, l.38-43].
Modified Augustin in view of Anderson teach the method discussed above but are silent regarding the filling rate of the grinding media in the grinding chamber is in a range of 30-80% as required by claim 10; and the filling rate of the grinding media (zirconia beads) is in a range of 40-80% as required by claims 11-12.
Matsumura teach methods for preparation of dispersions using a grinding media of zirconia spheres or beads and is suitable for use in foods [Matsumura, 0032], and wherein the grinding media zirconia beads are added to the grinding chamber at a filling rate of 80% [Matsumura, 0035].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the claimed filling rate for the zirconia beads grinding media as taught by Matsumura in the grinding chamber of modified Augustin in view of Anderson, because Matsumura teach that zirconia beads as used for dispersions and/or grinding media in mills offers wear resistance, durability, are recyclable, reduce industrial waste, and can be used repeatedly while maintaining their stability [Matsumura, 0010].
Modified Augustin in view of Anderson and Matsumura teach the method discussed above but are silent regarding the ultrasonic conditions comprising a power of 800 W as required by claim 12.
Fang teach methods for preparation of a legume protein (soy) aqueous dispersion by grinding and ultrasonicating legume protein material [Fang, 0006-0007], wherein the ultrasonic conditions comprises using a power intensity in the range of 200 W to 1000 W [Fang, 0013].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the claimed ultrasonic conditions comprising a power of 800 W, as taught by Fang in the method of modified Augustin, because Fang teach that the disclosed method of integration of grinding and ultrasonic treatment of protein material under high protein concentration conditions, can achieve efficient preparation of legume protein compositions, by combining physical methods of grinding and ultrasonic treatments, which helps in the continuous industrial production for quality, efficiency, costs, and avoids the use of large amounts of organic reagents, ensuring processing suitability and biosafety of the raw materials being treated [Fang, 0020].
Modified Augustin in view of Anderson, Matsumura and Fang teach the method discussed above but are silent regarding the ultrasonic probe having a specific diameter of 10mm.
Wei teach a method for preparation of a plant liquid beverage comprising ground plant material dissolved in water, to obtain an aqueous dispersion (ground plant material dispersed in water) [Wei, 0014-0015]. The plant material aqueous solution is further processed for achieving uniform mixing through a grinder and then is treated with an ultrasonic probe [Wei, 0019], wherein the ultrasonic probe has a diameter of 10 mm [Wei, 0020].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the claimed ultrasonic probe comprising a diameter of 10 mm, as taught by Wei in the method of modified Augustin, because Wei teach that by using said probe type ultrasonic instrument, the probe can be inserted below the liquid level for ultrasonic treatment and achieve uniform mixing [Wei, 0019-0020] and help homogenize and stabilize the mixing between liquids [Wei, 0054].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS EUGENIO DIOU BERDECIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571) 270-3475. 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.
/L.E.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792