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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-18 are pending (claim set as filed on 10/30/2023).
Priority
This application filed on 10/30/2023 claims priority to provisional application no. PRO 63/421,243, filed on 11/01/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
No Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been filed in this application. Applicant is reminded that each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application has a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which includes a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability (see 37 C.F.R. 1.56).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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 1-18 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.
Claim 1 recites ‘the form’ which is indefinite for lacking antecedent basis because ‘form’ is not recited within the claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of the claim, and thus, could not clearly determine how to avoid infringement of claim 1.
Claim 17 recites ‘said concentrated fermentation broth’ which is indefinite for lacking antecedent basis because ‘concentrated’ is not recited within the claim or in claim 1 from which claim 17 depends. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of the claim, and thus, could not clearly determine how to avoid infringement of claim 17.
In the interest of compact prosecution, claims 1 and 17 are interpreted to the broadest embodiment claimed.
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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai et al. (US 2021/0246417 A1, published on 08/12/2021), hereinafter ‘Nagai’, in view of Butterworth et al. (US 2021/0037861 A1, published on 02/11/2021), hereinafter ‘Butterworth’, and Janse et al. (WO 2021/155157 A1, published on 08/05/2021), hereinafter ‘Janse’, as evidenced by Tang et al. (“Drum drying”, published in 2003, Encyclopedia of agricultural, food, and biological engineering, pages 211-212), hereinafter ‘Tang’, and Martinez-Alvarez et al. (“Recent Advances in Astaxanthin Micro/Nanoencapsulation to Improve Its Stability and Functionality as a Food Ingredient”, published on 08/01/2020, Marine Drugs 2020, 18(8), 406, pages 1-25), hereinafter ‘Martinez-Alvarez’.
Nagai’s general disclosure relates to “[a] method for producing a dried bacterial cell powder containing a carotenoid” (see entire document, including abstract).
Regarding claim 1, it is noted that the instant specification states that “[a]s used herein, the term "free-flowing powder" refers to a powder” (see specification, paragraph [0013]).
Pertaining to a method, Nagai teaches a method of producing a composition comprising cells of at least one bacterium, wherein the composition is in the form of a free flowing powder (“The present invention relates to a dried bacterial cell powder containing a carotenoid and a method for producing the same”; paragraph [0001]), the method comprising
providing a drum dryer comprising two rotatable cylinders (“the drying is
drying carried out by using a drum dryer”, “A drum-dried product was produced by directly drying the collected Paracoccus bacterial cells using a double drum dryer”, “Examples of double drum dryers include an internal rotation type dryers, external rotation type dryers”; paragraphs [0012], [0046], [0082]). The Examiner notes that a double drum dryer comprises two spaced apart rotatable cylinders, with a gap of width G and a Length of L inches therebetween, as evidenced by Daud (“A drum dryer consists of one or two horizontally mounted hollow cylinder(s) made of high-grade cast iron or stainless steel, a supporting frame, a product feeding system, a scraper, and auxiliaries. Typical structures of single and double drum dryers are shown in Fig. 1.”, “A double drum dryer has two drums that revolve toward each other at the top. The spacing between the two drums controls the thickness of the feed layer applied to the drum surfaces.; page 211, left column, paragraph 2; page 211, right column, paragraph 2). It is noted, that the gap size between the drums is defined by the distance between the drums (nip width) and the length of each drum, which corresponds to the length of the gap (“adjustable gap between the two drums as a means to control the film thickness. The uniform distribution of the feed over the length of the drums is essential.”, page 212, right column, paragraph 2; see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2b).
providing a fermentation broth comprising cells of at least one bacterium in a liquid suspension (“culturing a carotenoid-producing microorganism”, a culture product or a concentrate is dried in order to obtain a dried bacterial cell powder“; paragraphs [0033], [0042], [0080], [0082]); and
introducing said fermentation broth into said drum dryer to provide said composition (“a culture product or a concentrate is dried in order to obtain a dried bacterial cell powder”, “When a drum dryer is used, the object of interest having liquid or paste form is applied to the surface of a heated drum and the object of interest is dried by rotating the drum.”; “The drum-dried product was further finely powderized (i.e., pulverized)”, “A drum-dried product was produced by directly drying the collected Paracoccus bacterial cells using a double drum dryer”; paragraphs [0042], [0046], [0082]-[0083])
Regarding claims 6 and 9, pertaining to the surface temperature, Nagai teaches a surface temperature of a drum dryer of 140° C to 160° C (“A dryer with conductive heat transfer mechanism caries out drying by conductive heat transfer via a heated transfer unit (i.e., a plate) thereby applying heat to the object of interest.”, “Examples of dryers with a conductive heat transfer mechanism include …, a drum dryer (also referred to as a drum-type dryer)”, “the temperature of the heat transfer unit is 140° C. to 160° C.”; “using a double drum dryer under the following operating conditions: … and drum temperature: 140° C”; paragraphs [0042]-[0045], [0082]) (instant claim 6), and wherein said drum dryer is operated to provide a surface temperature of 150 °C or 160 °C (“temperature of the heat transfer unit is 160° C. or less, or 150° C.”; paragraph [0045]) (instant claim 9). The Examiner notes that drum dryers are heated to provide a specific surface temperature of each of the rotatable cylinders, as evidenced by Tang (“In a drying operation, liquid, slurry, or puree material is applied as a thin layer onto the outer surface of revolving drums that are internally heated by steam”; see introduction on page 211).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Nagai teaches “the drum rotation speed may be, but not limited to, 1 to 5 rpm, 2 to 5 rpm, 2 to 4 rpm, or 2 to 3 rpm.” (paragraph [0047]).
Additionally, Nagai discloses that “a method for producing a dried bacterial cell powder containing a carotenoid is provided, said method comprising the step of bringing bacterial cells of a carotenoid-producing microorganism into contact with a heat transfer unit having a temperature exceeding 100° C. for heat drying” (paragraph [0026]), wherein [t]he dried bacterial cell powder of the present invention can be mixed with a feed for feeding poultry” (paragraph [0052]), and that “[p]oultry fed with a feed containing the dried bacterial cell powder of the present invention lay eggs enriched
with a carotenoid (paragraph [0054]; see Example 3 in paragraphs [0106]-[0109]). Nagai further teaches wherein a carotenoid is astaxanthin (paragraph [0012]), which lacks stability, as evidenced by Martinez-Alvarez (“Astaxanthin and astaxanthin-containing lipid extracts obtained from these sources present an intense red color and a remarkable antioxidant activity… However, their use is hindered by: their instability in the presence of high temperatures, acidic pH, oxygen or light; their low water solubility, bioaccessibility and bioavailability”; see entire document, including abstract).
Nagai further teaches wherein “[a]ny microorganism can be used in the present
invention without particular limitations as long as it can produce a carotenoid.’, and wherein “[e]xamples thereof include bacteria of the genus Paracoccus, bacteria of the genus Sphingomonas, bacteria of the genus Brevundimonas, bacteria of the genus
Erythrobacter,” (paragraph [0027]).
Nagai does not teach expressly teach wherein at least 90% of the composition is in the form of a free flowing powder (instant claim 1).
Nagai does not teach
a drum dryer comprising two spaced-apart rotatable cylinders, with a gap of width G inches and a length of L inches therebetween (instant claim 1).
a total solid content C percent weight of no greater than about 15%wt of
the total weight of the fermentation broth (instant claim 1).
introducing said fermentation broth into said drum dryer at a rate of W Kg per hour of no greater than 14x[(GxL)/C] (instant claim 1), wherein a rate of introduction of said fermentation broth into said drum dryer is no greater than 10x[GxL/C] Kg per hour (instant claim 2).
wherein said composition is generated at a rate of from about 5 to about 50 Kg/hour (instant claim 3).
wherein said rate W is from about 10 to about 300 Kg per hour (instant claim 4).
wherein said width G is from about 0.010 to about 0.015 inches (instant claim 5).
wherein said drum dryer is operated at a steam pressure of at least 40 psig (instant claim 7), wherein said drum dryer is operated at a steam pressure of from about 40 to about 75 psig (instant claim 8), wherein said drummer dryer is operated to provide a surface temperature of said rotable cylinders of from about 150 to about 160°C (instant claim 9).
wherein each of said rotatable cylinders comprises a plating layer selected from the group consisting of chrome and stainless steel (instant claim 10), wherein each of said rotatable cylinders comprises a chrome plating layer (instant claim 11).
wherein said rotatable cylinders are rotated at a speed of from about 5 to about 12 revolutions per minute (rpm) (instant claim 12), wherein said rotatable cylinders are rotated at a speed of about 9.6 rpm (instant claim 13).
wherein each said rotatable cylinders have a diameter of about 12 inches (instant claim 14).
wherein said composition has a moisture content of less than about 4wt% (instant claim 15).
wherein at least 90% of said cells of said at least one bacterium in said composition are in intact form (instant claim 16).
heating said concentrated fermentation broth to a temperature from about 40°C to about 55°C prior to introducing into said drum dryer (instant claim 17).
further comprising introducing energy into the dryer to provide a residual product moisture content of less than about 4wt% (instant claim 18).
Butterworth’s general disclosure relates to “to a product, which comprises at least 30% or more intact plant cells, which comprises 15% or less water by weight, which has a particle size in the range 75-500 μm,” (see entire document, including abstract). Butterworth further teaches using a double-drum drier for drying a product comprising plant cells (paragraphs [0018], [0066], [0206]).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, pertaining to a drum dryer, Butterworth teaches a drum-dryer comprising two spaced-apart rotatable cylinders, with a gap of width G-inches and a length of L inches therebetween (instant claim 1), wherein the said width G is about 0.010 inches (instant claim 5) (“Suitably roller drying is performed by loading the material onto a double-drum roller. Suitably the dimensions of each drum are length = 300 mm, radius = 150 mm”, “More suitably a 250 μm separation gap is used”; paragraphs [0206]-[0208]). The Examiner notes that Butterworth’s separation gap of 250 μm and drum length of 300 mm correspond to 0.00984 inches and 11.811 inches, respectively, and that the length of the instant gap corresponds to Butterworth’s length of the drums.
Regarding claim 3, pertaining to the generation rate of the composition, Butterworth teaches wherein said composition is generated at a rate of 11 kg/h (“when drying plant cell material … a drying rate of 11 kg/h was achieved”; paragraph [0510]).
Regarding claim 4, pertaining to rate W, Butterworth teaches wherein the rate W is 15 kg/h (“with a feed rate of 15 kg/h”; paragraph [0510]).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, pertaining to steam pressure, Butterworth further teaches wherein the drum dryer is operated at a steam pressure of 14.5 psig (“More suitably steam pressure 1 bar over atmospheric is used”; paragraph [0211]). It is noted that 1 bar over atmospheric corresponds to about 14.5 psig.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, pertaining to a rotation speed of the cylinders, Butterworth teaches wherein the rotatable cylinders are rotated at a speed of 2.62 rpm (“Suitably a rotation speed 2.62 rpm (23 s/revolution) is used”; paragraph [0210]).
Regarding claim 14, pertaining to the rotatable cylinders, Butterworth teaches wherein the rotatable cylinders have a diameter of about 12 inches (“Suitably the dimensions of each drum are length=30 mm, radius=150 mm.”; paragraph [0207]). The Examiner notes that a radius of 150 mm corresponds to a diameter of 11.811 inches.
Regarding claims 15 and 18, pertaining to the moisture content of a composition, Butterworth teaches wherein a composition has a moisture content of less than 5 wt% (“Suitably this involves spreading the material to a thin layer <0.5 cm and drying in a deck oven or leaving to air dry to achieve a material containing <10% moisture, more suitably <5% moisture … Alternative drying method(s) may be used to achieve these results”, “Suitably drying is by roller drying”; paragraphs [0199]-[0200], [0205]-[0206]).
Regarding claim 16, pertaining to the composition, Butterworth teaches wherein roller drying results in a composition with a high proportion of intact cells (see Example 10, paragraph [0515]).
Additionally, Butterworth teaches a dried composition with more than 90% of the composition being intact cells (see Example 12 in paragraphs [0534]-[0537]; see Fig. 12).
Janse’s general disclosure relates to “processes for recovering and purifying human milk oligosaccharides (HMOs) from a fermented broth” (paragraph [0001]). Janse teaches using a drum-drier for obtaining an HMO product (paragraph [0016], [0040]-[0048]).
Regarding claim 1, pertaining to a total solid content, Janse teaches a total solid content of 5 to 30 wt% of a composition prior to drying (“A concentration step can be used to economically remove significant quantities of liquid from the HMO-containing stream using evaporation … Evaporation processes can include, e.g., … rotary evaporation. … The incoming solids concentration to the process is approximately 5 to 30 wt.%.”; paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, pertaining to steam pressure, Janse teaches a steam pressure of 3.3 bar(g) used in double drum drying (paragraph [0072]). It is noted that 3.3 bar(g) corresponds to about 47.8 PSIG.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, pertaining to a plating layer of the cylinders, Janse teaches wherein “the cylinder wall of the drum dryer contacting the material to be dried is chrome plated.” (paragraph [0042]), and that “[t]his prevents contamination of the dried product from metal components leaching from the unprotected walls of conventional drums, such as cast-iron drums; or corrosion products present on the drums from flaking off” (paragraph [0042]).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, pertaining to a rotation speed of the cylinders,
Janse teaches wherein “Drum rotation speed is preferably 1 to 10 rpm” (paragraph [0044]).
Regarding claims 15 and 18, pertaining to the moisture content of a composition, Janse teaches wherein a composition after drying has a moisture content of less than about 4wt% (“Preferably, the solids concentration of the HMO exiting the dryer is 95wt.%+, more preferably 96 wt%+”; paragraph [0040]) (instant claims 15 and 18). Janse further teaches introducing energy into a dryer to increase residual moisture content (“An indirect drying process is performed to increase the solids concentration”, “indirect dryers include those devices that do not utilize direct contact of the material to be dried with a heated process gas for drying, but instead rely on heat transfer either through walls of the dryer”, “Preferably, the indirect drying method is drum drying.”, “The cylinder is preferably heated by steam condensing inside”; paragraphs [0040]-[0042]) (instant claim 18). The Examiner notes that heating the cylinder of a drum dryer intrinsically comprises introducing energy into the dryer.
Regarding claim 17, pertaining to heating a fermentation broth prior to introducing into a drum dryer, Janse teaches wherein a “[f]eed temperature is preferably 4°C to 110°C, more preferably, 4°C to 95°C” (paragraph [0044]).
Additionally, Janse teaches that “[v]ariables affecting drum dryer operation include rotation speed, drum gap size, nip width, drum temperature, steam pressure, feed temperature and feed solids concentration (paragraph [0044]).
While Nagai does not expressly teach wherein at least 90% of the composition is in the form of a free flowing powder (instant claim 1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nagai’s teachings on the bacterial cell powder with Nagai’s teachings on mixing the powder with chicken feed, in order to have created a composition wherein 100% of the composition is in the form of a free flowing powder. One would have been motivated to do so, in order create a superior bacterial cell powder that can be uniformly mixed with chicken feed.
While modified Nagai does not teach a drum dryer comprising two spaced-apart rotatable cylinders, with a gap of width G inches and a length of L inches therebetween (instant claim 1), wherein said width G is from about 0.010 to about 0.015 inches (instant claim 5), wherein each said rotatable cylinders have a diameter of about 12 inches (instant claim 14), wherein said rate W is from about 10 to about 300 Kg per hour (instant claim 4), and wherein said composition is generated at a rate of from about 5 to about 50 Kg/hour (instant claim 3), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Nagai’s method for producing a bacterial cell powder with Butterworth’s teachings on drum drying parameters, in order to have created a method for producing a bacterial cell powder wherein a drum dryer comprising two spaced-apart rotatable cylinders, with a gap of a width of about 0.010 inches and a length of about 12 inches therebetween, wherein each said rotatable cylinders have a diameter of about 12 inches, wherein said rate W is 15 Kg per hour, and wherein said composition is generated at a rate of about 11 kg/hour. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to improve the drying process for producing a superior bacterial cell powder.
While modified Nagai does not teach wherein at least 90% of said cells of said at least one bacterium in said composition are in intact form (instant claim 16), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined modified Nagai’s teachings with Butterworth’s teachings on intact cells, in order to create a method of producing a bacterial cell powder wherein at least 90 % of the cells of said at least one bacterium in said composition are in intact form. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to ensure protection of astaxanthin by the intact bacterial cells.
A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in combining modified Nagai’s and Butterworth’s teachings since both are directed to producing a dried cell composition (see above).
While modified Nagai does not teach a total solid content C percent weight of no greater than about 15%wt of the total weight of the fermentation broth (instant claim 1), wherein said drum dryer is operated at a steam pressure of at least 40 psig (instant claim 7), wherein said drum dryer is operated at a steam pressure of from about 40 to about 75 psig (instant claim 8), wherein said drum dryer is operated to provide a surface temperature of said rotatable cylinders of from about 150 to about 160°C (instant claim 9), wherein each of said rotatable cylinders comprises a plating layer selected from the group consisting of chrome and stainless steel (instant claim 10), wherein each of said rotatable cylinders comprises a chrome plating layer (instant claim 11), wherein said rotatable cylinders are rotated at a speed of from about 5 to about 12 revolutions per minute (rpm) (instant claim 12), wherein said rotatable cylinders are rotated at a speed of about 9.6 rpm (instant claim 13), wherein said composition has a moisture content of less than about 4wt% (instant claim 15), further comprising introducing energy into the dryer to provide a residual product moisture content of less than about 4wt% (instant claim 18) and wherein the method comprises heating said fermentation broth to a temperature from about 40°C to about 55°C prior to introducing into said drum dryer (instant claim 17), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined modified Nagai’s teachings with Janse’s teachings on solid content of a composition to be dried, on drum drying parameters, and on the moisture level of a dried composition, to have created a method of producing a bacterial cell composition, wherein a fermentation broth comprises a total solid content C percent weight of 5 to 30 wt% before drying, wherein said drum dryer is operated at a steam pressure of 47.8 psig, wherein said drum dryer is operated to provide a surface temperature of said rotable cylinders at 150°C or 160°C, wherein each of said rotatable cylinders comprises a chrome plating layer, wherein said rotatable cylinders are rotated at a speed of 1-10 rpm, wherein said composition has a moisture content of less than about 4wt% , further comprising introducing energy into the dryer to provide a residual product moisture content of less than about 4wt%, and wherein the method comprises heating said fermentation broth to a temperature of 4°C to 95°C prior to introducing into said drum dryer. One would have been motivated to do so in order to optimize the drying process of the bacterial cells and to obtain a superior bacterial cell powder. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in combining modified Nagai’s teachings with Janse’s teachings, since all references are directed to drum-drying of biologically produced compositions (see above).
While modified Nagai does not teach a total solid content C percent weight of no greater than about 15%wt of the total weight of the fermentation broth wherein said rotatable cylinders are rotated at a speed of from about 5 to about 12 revolutions per minute (rpm), wherein said rotatable cylinders are rotated at a speed of about 9.6 rpm, and wherein the fermentation broth is heated to a temperature from about 40°C to about 55°C prior to introducing into said drum dryer, the instantly recited total solid content C, the instantly recited rotation speeds of the cylinders, and the instantly recited temperatures of the fermentation broth prior to drum-drying would have been with the realm of routine experimentation of a skilled artisan, since modified Nagai teaches a total solid content C percent weight of 5 to 30 wt% before drying, a drum dryer rotation speed of 1-10 rpm, and a fermentation broth of a temperature of 4°C to 95°C prior to introducing into a drum dryer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the optimal total solid content of the fermentation broth, the optimal drum dryer rotation speed, and the optimal fermentation broth temperature prior to drum-drying, in order to obtain a superior bacterial cell powder. Further, one would expect success since modified Nagai’s teachings are directed to compositions comprising different bacterial genera (see Nagai above), and therefore, manipulation of the above cited parameters based on the teachings of the references would be within the purview of an artisan. It is further noted that, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 part II A.
In light of modified Nagai’s solid content C percent weight of no greater than about 15%wt (see above), modified Nagai’s gap width of 0.00984 inches, and modified Nagai’s gap length of 11.811 inches (see Nagai above), modified Nagai’s rate W of 15 kg/h (see Butterworth above) for introducing the fermentation broth into the drum dryer is no greater than 14x[GxL/C] (instant claim 1), and is further no greater than 10x[GxL/C] kg per hour (instant claim 2).
Based on a total solid content C of 5 wt.% and the above gap width and length,
14x(0.00984x11.811/0.05)=32.54, and
10x(0.00984x11.811/0.05)=23.244048.
Modified Nagai’s rate W of 15 kg/h is below both values of 32.54 and 23.244048.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANDRA ZINGARELLI whose telephone number is (703)756-1799. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Sharmila Landau can be reached at (571) 272-0614. 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.
/SANDRA ZINGARELLI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1653
/SHARMILA G LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1653