Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
2. Applicants’ arguments and amendments filed on 12/08/2025, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the following action is final.
Any objections and/or rejections made in the previous action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
Status of the application
3. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claims 1-20 have been allowed.
Double Patenting
4. The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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 e-Terminal 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
Claims 1-9, and 13-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double
patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-9, 12-19 of U.S. Patent Application No.17/339897. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Instant claims 1-9 and 13-20 are directed to “A flour substitute product” which is essentially carbohydrate-free, fiber-free and does not include a binding agent and comprising similar ingredients and identical amount of oil/oil spray which is similar to the claims 2-9, 12-19 of U.S. Patent Application No.17/339897. Claim 2 of application number 17/339897 is directed to recite “wherein the organoleptic properties of the flour substitute product resemble the organoleptic properties of traditional baked goods” which is not claimed in claim 1 of instant application. However, it is to be noted that as because the independent claims are similar with respect to other claim limitations, therefore, the organoleptic properties of the flour substitute product would have obvious be considered to resemble the organoleptic properties of traditional baked goods of claim 1 of instant application. Therefore, the independent claim 1 of instant application is similar to the independent claim 2 of U.S. Patent Application No.17/339897.
Also, claim 13 of instant application recites “A food product comprising the flour substitute product of claim 1” which has long lists of food product and, flour substitute product can be, by itself, “a food product” also. Therefore, even if independent claim 2 and claim 12 of 17/339897 do not recite the phrase “A food product”, however, claims 2-9, 12-19 of 17/339897 are similar over instant claims 1-9,13-20 of instant application (U.S. Patent Application No. 18/516942).
Therefore, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claim 2 is 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 2 depends on claim 1. Claim 2 recites “boneless chicken breast”. More appropriately, claim 2 should recite “ground boneless chicken breast” which is supported by the specification (in specification, in PGPUB [0012]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
8. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
9. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park T et al. KR 935107 B1 in view of Bonkowski et al. USPN 5164213 in view of Huang et al. USPN 5611263 and in view of NPL Meat Recipe (in The BBQ Brethern: From the Backyard to The American Royal, 2009).
10. Regarding claims 1, 3-7, Park T et al. discloses the chicken breast meat powder composition comprising salt (Ca-salt), ginger powder which is useful to prevent browning and can be stored long period of time (At least in Abstract).
Park et al. is silent about (i) flavor-masking spice as claimed in claim 2 and it is nutmeg as claimed in claims 3, 4, 5 and (ii) plant-based oil as claimed in claim 2 and it is olive oil in the composition as claimed in claims 6, 7.
With respect to (i), Bonkowski et al. disclose that boneless chicken meat is ground (Example 5, e.g., ground in a grinding plate and ingredients were mixed followed by second grinding with other ingredients (at least in Bonkowski et al., Example 5 and col 8 lines 55-67, col 10 lines 20-35, col 10 lines 60-67) to meet claims 1-2.
It is to be noted that salt/spice mixture is interpreted as “common salt” (i.e., sodium chloride) and/or with other spice(s) is used to season the ground meat.
Bonkowski et al. also discloses the steps of mixing the salt, flavoring ingredients, spices etc. to season the meat mixture and placing the seasoned meat mixture to a grinding machine to make ground meat mixture (col 8 lines 55-67, col 10 lines 20-35, col 10 lines 60-67, e.g., seasoning boneless fatless skinless breast chicken with seasoning and in lines 63-65, “after mixing, grinding plate, reground”) by mixing and grinding using grinder to meets claim 1.
It is to be noted that salt and Nutmeg are used in the seasoning mix as disclosed by Bonkowski et al. (col 8 lines 55-67) in order to have salty taste and also nutmeg serves as inherently a flavor masking spice to mask inherently unpleasant flavor as is evidenced by applicants own specification (in PGPUB [0010]) and also evidenced by Walzade et al. ([0032]). Therefore, it meets claims 3, 4.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify ‘Park et al. to include the teaching of Bonkowski et al. to season the ground meat with premixed seasoning mixture to season the ground meat and having salty taste and nutmeg provides as inherently flavor masking agent.
With respect to (ii), regarding the amended claim limitation of “oil or oil-based spray is less than or equal to about 2% of the weight of the meat” as claimed in claim 1 , it is to be noted that examiner used two secondary prior arts -one secondary prior art by Huang et al., and (Additionally) another new secondary prior art by NPL Meat Recipe in Meat and discussed below. The examiner has used these three prior arts to strengthen the motivation to use small amount of vegetable oil in “the flour substitute composition.
Huang et al. discloses that vegetable oil can be used to spray coat meatballs in order to serve as lubricant (col 4 lines 37, 56). Although Huang et al. discloses as spray, it is to be noted that the presence of less amount of oil provides benefits of its use of this composition having lubricant already present in this “flour substitute composition” as disclosed by Huang et al. (vegetable oil can be used to spray coat meatballs in order to serve as lubricant col 4 lines 37, 56).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Park T et al.to include the teachings of Huang et al. the presence of less amount of oil which provides benefits of its use of this composition having lubricant already present in this “flour substitute composition” as disclosed by Huang et al. (vegetable oil can be used to spray coat meatballs in order to serve as lubricant as disclosed by Huang et al. (vegetable oil can be used to spray coat meatballs in order to serve as lubricant col 4 lines 37, 56).
(Additionally), NPL “Meat Recipe” discloses that olive oil is added to chicken meat (page 3, Recipe #8: #8 is mentioned at top right side), and it can be splash of olive oil in the sauce (at least in page 5, fourth paragraph, Recipe #19: #19 is mentioned at top right side) which sauce is used to marinade chicken breast (at least page 5, Recipe # 17: #17 is mentioned at top right side).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Park T et al.to include the teachings of NPL “Meat Recipe” in order to incorporate vegetable oil (s) e.g. olive oil, sesame oil etc. which provides nutritional benefits of olive oils as well as benefits of its use of this composition having lubricant already present in this “flour substitute composition” as disclosed by Huang et al. (vegetable oil can be used to spray coat meatballs in order to serve as lubricant as disclosed by Huang et al. (vegetable oil can be used to spray coat meatballs in order to serve as lubricant col 4 lines 37, 56).
This is also optimizable.
As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of Vegetable/olive oil in Park T et al., to amounts, including that presently claimed, in order to obtain the desired effect e.g. desired polyunsaturated fatty acids which has cholesterol suppressing effect (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
11. Regarding claim 2, Park T et al. discloses the chicken breast meat powder composition. Therefore, it includes boneless chicken also.
However, more specifically, Park et al. is silent about Boneless Chicken.
Bonkowski et al. discloses that white chicken meat derived from boneless breast part (Under Example 5, col 10, lines 58-60).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Park T et al.to include the teachings of Bonkowski et al. in order to have desired choice of having white breast chicken meat derived from boneless breast part in order to have processed white boneless chicken breast meat (Under Example 5, col 10, lines 58-60).
12. Claims 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park T et al. KR 935107 B1 in view of Bonkowski et al. USPN 5164213 in view of Huang et al. USPN 5611263 and (Additionally) NPL Meat Recipe as applied to claim 8 and further in view of Meusel et al. USPN 3186853.
13. Regarding claims 8, 9, Park T et al. discloses the chicken breast meat powder composition comprising salt (Ca-salt), ginger powder which is useful to prevent browning and can be stored long period of time (At least in Abstract).
Bonkowski et al. discloses that white chicken meat derived from boneless breast part (Under Example 5, col 10, lines 58-60).
Bonkowski et al. also discloses the salt/spice mix can be brine blend containing nutmeg, salt also (Bonkowski et al. col 8 lines 55-67).
However, Park T et al. in view of Bonkowski et al. are silent about the specific amounts and ingredients with the amounts as ratio of the ingredients from steps (i) to (iv) of claims 8 and 9.
Boneless chicken: Claims 8 (i), 9 (i) claims 50 Ibs. (Lower limit) of boneless chicken. The proportion (ratio) of salt and nutmeg used which is addressed using Meusel et al. and discussed below:
Nutmeg: Likewise, regarding claims 8 (iv), 9 (iv), Meusel et al. ‘853 discloses that nutmeg is added 15 Ibs. /100 Ibs. in seasoning mix which (i.e., seasoning mix) which is used 8 oz. (i.e., 1/2 lbs.) for 100 lbs. chicken seasoning (calculated based on col 2 lines 1 -10 of Meusel et al.).
So, stepwise, 100 Ibs seasoning has 15 lbs. nutmeg (col 2 lines 2-3)
1 lbs. seasoning has 0.15 lb. nutmeg.
80z seasoning (i.e., ¥2 lbs.) is used for 100 Ibs chicken
Therefore, 80z (= los) seasoning has 0.15/2= 0.075 lbs. nutmeg which is used for 100 lbs. chicken.
Therefore, for 50 lbs. chicken (lower value), it is 0.075/2=0.0375 lbs. nutmeg and for 150 lbs. chicken, 0.038x3=0.114 which overlaps claimed range amount of about 0,01-0.2 lbs. of nutmeg of claims 8 (iv), 9 (iv).
Salt:
Regarding claims 8 (ii), 9 (ii), Meusel et al. discloses that salt is added 45 lbs. /100 lbs. in seasoning mix which is used 8 oz. (i.e., 1/2 los.) used for 100 Ibs. chicken seasoning (calculated based on col 1 lines 65-70). Therefore, in a simple way, the disclosed amount of 45 Ibs. salt in 100 lbs. seasoning is three times of 15 Ibs. nutmeg in 100 lbs. seasoning and it will be 0.075 (for nutmeg) x8= 0.225 (about) of salt in 100lbs chicken. Therefore, if we consider the range amount of chicken, accordingly, based on identical calculation made for nutmeg above, the amount of salt will overlap claimed range amount of salt of claims 9 (ii).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made would have been motivated to further modify Park T et al. in view of Bonkowski et al. by including the teaching of Meusel et al. to use the desired amount of salts, nutmeg in order to have proportionate seasoning composition in the final product.
(Additionally), the disclosed amounts of salt, nutmeg are not exactly the claimed amount, although it is close proximity to the claimed range, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would optimize to determine the taste (e.g., degree of saltiness, flavor masking effect etc.) etc. in order to evaluate the final amount to reach the presently claimed invention.
Olive oil: Claims 8 (iii), 9 (iii) depend on claim 7 and claim 7 depends on claim 1. The rejection made for olive oil is applicable here also. Therefore, it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the sufficient amount of olive oil to be used that can be claimed range amount of 0.25-2.5 lbs. of olive oil of claim 8 (iii) and claimed range amount of 0.6-0.9 lbs. of olive oil of claim 9 (d).
As mentioned above, the rejection made for olive oil is applicable here also.
Therefore, the rejection made using additional secondary prior art by NPL Meat Recipe is applicable here for olive oil also. Even if the combined teaching does not teach the claimed amount, however, the less amount of olive oil in the composition is optimizable.
As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of olive oil in Park T et al., to amounts, including that presently claimed, in order to obtain the desired effect e.g. desired polyunsaturated fatty acids which has cholesterol suppressing effect (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
14. Claims 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Park T et al. KR 935107 B1 in view of Bonkowski et al. USPN 5164213 in view of Huang et al. USPN 5611263 and (additionally), NPL Meat Recipe (in The BBQ Brethern: From the Backyard to The American Royal, 2009) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Gerd et al. DE 19540241 A1 and further in view of Kimple et al. USPN 5775208 and further in view of Meusel et al. USPN 3186853.
15. Regarding claims 10, 11, 16, 17, the rejections made for claim 8, and for claims 12, 18, 19, 20, the rejections made for claim 9 are applicable here. However, claims 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, have additionally “A pizza crust”. The claims 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20 have additionally bread crumb.
Huang et al., and NPL Meat Recipe have addressed vegetable oil and discussed in detail with claim 1 and is applicable here also.
Gerd et al. and Kimple et al. have been used to address “A pizza crust” composition.
Therefore, (a) Huang et al. is used to disclose that vegetable oil and (b) Gerd et al. and Kimple et al. is used to address “A pizza crust” composition.
(a) It is to be noted that and as disclosed above that Huang et al. discloses that vegetable oil can be used to spray coat meatballs in order to serve as lubricant (col 4 lines 37, 56).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to further modify Park et al. in view of Bonkowski et al. to include the teaching of Huang et al. to coat with vegetable oil in order to serve as lubricant (col 4 lines 37, 56) and with olive oil in order to have the additional nutritional value of olive oil as Olive oil has multi health benefit effect including antihypertensive effect as disclosed by Lopes et al. ([0152]). The reason for the motivation is also, specific consistency containing ground seasoned meat can also be preserved as meat ball dough for the future use and also for the next step to make final product by introducing disclosed ingredients and “vegetable oil’ etc. to assist “forming a dough ball’.
(b) Gerd et al. discloses the method of making meat products including meatballs without binder (at least in claim 1 of Gerd et al.).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Park et al. to include the teaching of
Gerd et al. to make meatball without binder in order to use the meat ball as such or for the preparation of other food products e.g., pizza crust etc.
Kimple et al. discloses an apparatus having pizza pan to be used between lids like member and rim to compression of ‘seasoned ground meatball to make desired single or double crusted pizza shape (col 1 lines 45-50, 60-65, col 2 lines 8-10). Therefore, the “compression of ‘seasoned ground meatball can be compressed with the disclosed apparatus to generate a raw pizza crust.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Park et al. in view of Bonkowski et al. in view of Gerd et al. to include the teaching of Kimple et al. to place oil-coated seasoned ground meatball to compress to make desired single or double crusted pizza shape (col 1 lines 45-50, 60-65, col 2 lines 8-10).
Further, the recitation in the claims 13-20, that “the flour substitute is used in the preparation of a bread crumb” is merely an intended use.
Applicants’ attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, and then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner's position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Park et al. in view of Bonkowski et al. in view of Huang et al. USPN 5611263, Gerd et al., Kimple et al. disclose “flour substitute product is a baked product and therefore, would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e., can be used in the preparation of pizza and bread crumb as presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Response to arguments
16. Applicants’ arguments have been considered. Applicant’s arguments do not overcome 112 second paragraph rejections of record. The reason is it is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art would ever associate a boneless chicken breast as a substitute flour product as flour is a ground/granular product and a boneless chicken breast is a slab of meat.
17. Applicants’ arguments do not overcome obviousness rejections of record. The arguments are not persuasive. The arguments are addressed below.
Arguments:
18. Applicants argued on second page, last paragraph and third page first paragraph that “Primary prior art by Park discloses pulverized and dehydrated powdered chicken, where the final product has 2-8% water and it would require addition of water and a binding agent”.
In response,
Firstly, there is no definition in the specification that the flour substitute has to be a powder, merely that it has to produce products that preferably resemble in both appearance and taste the traditional food product it replaces (para 0006 of the spec as filed).
Secondly the product of the instant invention has all the same ingredients in the same quantities as instantly claimed so it is unclear how it could have different properties as instantly claimed, specifically with regards to its consistency.
It is also to be noted that the disclosed powdered dehydrated product of Park et al. (in Abstract) meets “a flour substitute product “ of independent claim 1. Park et al. discloses that desired food product can be made with the “dehydrated powdered chicken” which reads on “flour substitute product” and in combination with further addition of water and binding agent. Therefore, the “flour substitute product” , itself’ is free of binding agent.
In response to the further argument on page 3, line 2 “Applicant’s response submitted on January 23, 2025”, it is to be noted that in that argument , on third page, paragraph 4, in remarks is considered.
Applicants mentioned that “to form a flour substitute product” the dehydrated chicken product disclosed by Park would require addition of water and a binding agent” . This means “flour substitute product” which is “chicken powder”, needs binding agent and/or water when considered to make further food product.
Therefore, “flour substitute product” which is “chicken powder”, needs binding agent including water when considered to make further food product. The amount of water 2-8% by weight in the dried pulverized chicken powder is without binder because it would have been obvious that this range amount of water is considered as residual water in the powdered product and is not considered to contribute as binding water (agent).
19. Applicants argued on third page, third paragraph that “Examiner clearly states in the last office action that Huang discloses the use of olive oil as lubricant and not as a binding agent (OA page 17) which is similar scenario for the BBQ Brethern who discloses small amount of oil”. Examiner does not provide any prior art teaching or suggesting to use olive oil in a larger quantity such that it would function as a binding agent”.
In response, it is to be noted that
(i) Applicants agreed that Huang et al. discloses that olive oil serves as lubricant in low amount as claimed in claims 1, 6.
(ii) Therefore, it is not the burden of examiner to establish the fact that “olive oil in large quantity” serves as binder.
(iii) It is also to be noted that if we consider the last affidavit (8/11/2025), it was stated , with reference(s) that olive “ small amount of edible oils serves as lubricants, not as a binder (at least in item # 11, in item # 12 and item # 13).
Applicant’s do not have any further arguments. The rejection is made as final.
Conclusion
20. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning the communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bhaskar Mukhopadhyay whose telephone number is (571)-270-1139.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, examiner’s supervisor Erik Kashnikow, can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571 -272-1000.
/BHASKAR MUKHOPADHYAY/
Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792