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 .
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s submission dated December 12, 2025. Any objections and/or rejections made in previous actions and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-11, 15-34, 38, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christensen et al. (WO 2019/134992 A1) in view of Rodriguez Posada et al. (US 20100196581 A1).
With respect to Claim 1, Christensen et al. teaches a vegetable meat substitute [Pg. 7, Ln. 12] wherein the composition comprises 56.5% water, 21.5% vegetable protein, and 8% vegetable fat. [Example 2] This composition reads on a meat analogue composition comprising 2-25% fat, 5-30% non-animal protein, and 30-70% water, but is silent to the fat composition comprising an interesterified blend of vegetable oil and fully hydrogenated vegetable oil.
Rodriguez Posada et al. teaches a fat composition comprising interesterification of a totally hydrogenated vegetable oil with a liquid vegetable oil having low saturated fat content. [0015] Rodriguez Posada et al. teaches the hydrogenated oil may be canola [0026] and the liquid vegetable oil may be canola [0031] among others. Rodriguez Posada et al. teaches the interesterification process can be enzymatic or chemical, and the mixture of hydrogenated to non-hydrogenated can be 10-80% to 20-90%. [0037]
Christensen et al. and Rodriguez Posada et al. exist within the same field of endeavor in that they both teach compositions comprising fats. Where Christensen et al. teaches a meat analog composition comprising vegetable fats, the vegetable fat (i.e., coconut oil) of Christensen et al. comprises saturated fat. The fat blend taught by Rodriguez Posada et al. is preferable to others in the art due to the low level of saturated fatty acids. [0018] Additionally, the amounts of fat, protein, and water taught by Christensen et al. lie within the claimed range.
Therefore, 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 teachings of Christensen et al. in view of Rodriguez Posada et al. in order to produce a meat analog product with the claimed ranges of fat, protein, and water, wherein the fat composition comprises an interesterified blend of vegetable oil and fully hydrogenated vegetable oil and a lower amount of saturated fat, thereby rending obvious claim 1.
With respect to Claim 2-4, Christensen et al. in view of Rodriguez Posada et al. teaches a meat analog composition that renders obvious claim 1, as described above. Additionally, Christensen et al. teaches that the solid fat and liquid fat may be added in equal parts, or 50% each. [Pg. 11, Ln. 10-14] This reads on the limitation of a blend of vegetable oil and interesterified vegetable oil and fully hydrogenated vegetable oil in ranges of 5-95% to 95-5%, 10-90% to 90-10%, and 50-80% to 20-50% interesterified vegetable oil and fully hydrogenated vegetable oil blend to vegetable oil. Therefore, Christensen et al. in view of Rodriguez Posada et al. renders obvious claims 2, 3, and 4.
With respect to Claim 5 and 6, Christensen et al. in view of Rodriguez Posada et al. teaches a meat analog composition that renders obvious claim 1, as described above. Additionally, Rodriguez Posada et al. teaches the fat composition can comprise between 10-80% totally hydrogenated vegetable oil and 20-90% of the liquid vegetable oil. [0037] Therefore, 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 teachings of Christensen et al. in view of Rodriguez Posada et al. to produce a fat composition for use in a meat analog product to meet claims 5 and 6.
With respect to Claim 7, Christensen et al. in view of Rodrigues Posada et al. teaches a meat analog composition that renders obvious claim 1, as described above. Additionally, Rodriguez Posada et al. teaches a fat composition comprising interesterification of a totally hydrogenated vegetable oil with a liquid vegetable oil having low saturated fat content. [0015] Therefore, 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 teachings of Christensen et al. in view of Rodriguez Posada et al. in order to produce a fat composition that meets claim 7.
With respect to Claim 8-11, Christensen et al. in view of Rodriguez Posada et al. teaches a meat analog composition that renders obvious claim 1, as described above. Additionally, Rodriguez Posada et al. teaches a blend of fully hydrogenated canola oil [0026] and liquid canola oil. [0031] Therefore, 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 teaching of Christensen et al. in view of Rodriguez Posada et al. in order to produce a meat analog product comprising a fat composition comprising fully hydrogenated non-tropical oil, in the form of fully hydrogenated canola oil, and liquid canola oil, thereby rendering obvious claims 8 through 11.
With respect to Claim 15, Christensen et al. in view of Rodriguez Posada et al. teaches a meat analog composition that renders obvious claim 1, as described above. Additionally, Rodriguez Posada et al. teaches the blend has a total saturated fatty acid content of less than 45%. [0038] It is well-known in the field that triglycerides are composed of acyl groups. Additionally, Rodriguez Posada et al. teaches it is preferable to have oil that comprises mostly palmitic oil, a 16 C chain, and an 18 C chain, such as stearic. [0025] Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have produced a meat analog composition comprising a fat composition with less than 55% saturated fatty acids, based on the total weight of the C4-C24 residues, by using the teachings of Christensen et al. in view of Rodriguez Posada et al., thereby rendering obvious claim 15.
With respect to Claim 16, Christensen et al. in view of Rodriguez Posada et al. teaches a meat analog composition that renders obvious claim 1, as described above. Additionally, Rodriguez Posada et al. teaches a fat composition with 27.3% stearic acid and 7.3% palmitic acid [0045] comprised of a hydrogenated soybean oil with 83.9% stearic acid and 13.4% palmitic acid [0043] and a sunflower oil with 3.0% stearic acid and 4.7% palmitic acid. [0044]
According to MPEP 2144.05 II, “Where 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”. The recitation of 40-60% stearic and 2.5-7.5% palmitic is the result of routine experimentation that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of blending the oils taught by Rodriguez Posada et al.
Therefore, 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 teaching of Christensen et al. in view of Rodriguez Posada et al. in order to produce a meat analog with a fat composition comprising 40-60% stearic and 2.5-7.5% palmitic acid based on the total weight of C4-C24 fatty acid residues, thereby rendering obvious claim 16.
With respect to Claim 17, Christensen et al. in view of Rodriguez Posada et al. teaches a meat analog composition that renders obvious claim 1, as described above. Additionally, Rodriguez Posada et al. teaches the interesterification process can be enzymatic or chemical. [0037] Therefore, 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 teaching of Christensen et al. in view of Rodriguez Posada et al. in order to chemically or enzymatically interesterify a vegetable fat blend for use in a meat analogue, thereby rendering obvious claim 17.
With respect to Claim 18, Christensen et al. in view of Rodriguez Posada et al. teaches a meat analog composition that renders obvious claim 1, as described above. Additionally, Christensen et al. teaches that the solid fat and liquid fat may be added in equal parts, and comprise oils including canola oil. [Pg. 11, Ln. 9-14]. Therefore, Christensen et al. in view of Rodriguez Posada et al. renders obvious the invention recited in claim 18.
With respect to Claims 19-21, Christensen et al. in view of Rodriguez Posada et al. teaches a meat analog composition that renders obvious claim 1, as described above. Additionally, Christensen et al. teaches the use of a soy protein isolate. [Example 2] This reads on the limitation of a nonanimal, plant protein, such as legume protein. Therefore, Christensen et al. in view of Rodriguez Posada et al. renders obvious claims 19-21.
With respect to Claims 22 and 23, Christensen et al. in view of Rodriguez Posada et al. teaches a meat analog composition that renders obvious claim 1, as described above. Additionally, Christensen et al. teaches a textured soy protein at 13%. [Example 2] Therefore, Christensen et al. in view of Rodriguez Posada et al. renders obvious claims 22 and 23.
With respect to Claims 24-26 and 29, Christensen et al. in view of Rodriguez Posada et al. teaches a meat analog composition that renders obvious claim 1, as described above. Additionally, Christensen et al. teaches the use of stabilizers selected from a group consisting of cellulose, pectins, starch, gums, and mixtures thereof. [Pg. 7, Ln. 24-26] Additionally, Christensen et al. teaches wheat gluten added to the meat analog composition in order to entrap the stabilizer compound. [Pg. 8, Ln. 17-24]
Wheat gluten and a stabilizer as taught by Christensen et al. read on a stabilizer blend as recited in claim 24. Additionally, Christensen et al. teaches a meat analog composition comprising 1.70% methyl cellulose and 4.05% wheat gluten, a total of 5.75% stabilizer blend. [Example 2] This teaching reads on the limitation of 5-10% stabilizer blend recited in claim 25. Therefore, Christensen et al. in view of Rodriguez Posada et al. renders obvious claims 24-26 and 29.
With respect to Claims 27 and 30, Christensen et al. in view of Rodriguez Posada et al. teaches a meat analog composition that renders obvious claim 1, as described above. Additionally, Christensen et al. teaches the addition of salt as a flavouring additive. [Example 2] Therefore, Christensen et al. in view of Rodriguez Posada et al. renders obvious claims 27 and 30.
With respect to Claim 28, Christensen et al. in view of Rodriguez Posada et al. teaches a meat analog composition that renders obvious claim 1, as described above. Additionally, Christensen et al. teaches the addition of beetroot colour at 1%. [Example 2] Therefore, Christensen et al. in view of Rodriguez Posada et al. renders obvious claim 28.
With respect to Claims 31 and 32, Christensen et al. in view of Rodriguez Posada et al. teaches a meat analog composition that renders obvious claim 1, as described above. Additionally, the composition taught by Christensen et al. teaches fat at 8% and nonanimal protein at 21.5%. [Example 2] Therefore, Christensen et al. in view of Rodriguez Posada et al. renders obvious claims 31 and 32.
With respect to Claims 33 and 34, Christensen et al. in view of Rodriguez Posada et al. teaches a meat analog composition that renders obvious claim 1, as described above. Additionally, the composition taught by Christensen et al. comprises no animal proteins or other animal derived products. [Example 2] Therefore, Christensen et al. in view of Rodriguez Posada et al. renders obvious claims 33 and 34.
With respect to Claim 38, Christensen et al. in view of Rodriguez Posada et al. teaches a meat analog composition that renders obvious claim 1, as described above. Additionally, Christensen et al. teaches that the vegetable meat substitute can be served as chopped steak. [Pg. 18, Ln. 2] Therefore, Christensen et al. in view of Rodriguez Posada et al. renders obvious claim 38.
With respect to claim 47, Christensen et al. teaches a method of producing a meat analog product comprising the steps of providing a plant protein material, [Pg. 3, Ln. 10] mixing with a liquid colour blend, [Pg. 3, Ln. 11] adding a vegetable fat, [Pg. 3, Ln. 16] adding a flavoring step after mixing the protein with liquid, [Pg. 11, Ln. 19-20] and finally forming the meat analogue into a food product. [Pg. 15, Ln. 11-17] Christensen et al. teaches the composition comprises 56.5% water, 21.5% vegetable protein, and 8% vegetable fat. [Example 2]
Rodriguez Posada et al. teaches a fat composition comprising interesterification of a totally hydrogenated vegetable oil with a liquid vegetable oil having low saturated fat content. [0015] Rodriguez Posada et al. teaches the hydrogenated oil may be canola [0026] and the liquid vegetable oil may be canola [0031] among others. Rodriguez Posada et al. teaches the interesterification process can be enzymatic or chemical, and the mixture of hydrogenated to non-hydrogenated can be 10-80% to 20-90%. [0037]
Christensen et al. and Rodriguez Posada et al. exist within the same field of endeavor in that they both teach compositions comprising fats. Where Christensen et al. teaches a meat analog composition comprising vegetable fats, Rodriguez Posada et al. teaches a specific blend of interesterified hydrogenated oils and liquid vegetable fats useful as a fat substitute. The fat blend taught by Rodriguez Posada et al. is preferable to others in the art due to the low level of saturated fatty acids. [0018] Additionally, the amounts of fat, protein, and water taught by Christensen et al. lie within the claimed range. Therefore, the teaching of Christensen et al. in view of Rodriguez Posada et al. renders obvious the method of claim 47.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christensen et al. (WO 2019/134992 A1) in view of Rodriguez Posada et al. (US 20100196581 A1) as applied to claim 1, in further view of Wheeler et al. (US 5378490).
With respect to Claim 12 and 13, Christensen et al. in view of Rodriguez Posada et al. teaches a meat analog composition that renders obvious claim 1, as described above. Christensen et al. and Rodriguez Posada et al. are silent to the use of high erucic rapeseed oil.
Wheeler et al. teaches a low-calorie triglyceride compositions and food compositions comprising them. [Col. 5, Ln. 36-39] Wheeler et al. teaches that the triglycerides in the invention are made of long fatty acid residues, referred to as R, comprising an acyl group, [Col. 8, Ln. 47-48] derived from any synthetic or natural organic acid, such as palmitic or stearic, or by hydrogenating an unsaturated acid, such as oleic or linoleic. [Col. 8, Ln. 59-67] Wheeler et al. teaches that the composition may contain R groups that are mixtures of fatty acids and can be derived from non-hydrogenated, partially hydrogenated, or fully hydrogenated oils, such as low erucic or high erucic rapeseed, [Col. 9, Ln. 7-13] or hydrogenated fats, such as hydrogenated canola oil. [Col. 9, Ln. 21-24]
Christensen et al., Rodriguez Posada et al., and Wheeler et al. all exist within the same field of endeavor in that they teach fat compositions and food products that comprise them. Where Christensen et al. teaches a meat analog comprising vegetable fats, Rodriguez Posada et al. teaches interesterification and hydrogenation of vegetable fats in order to produce a blend, and Wheeler et al. teaches fat compositions comprising randomly interesterified and hydrogenated canola oil. Wheeler et al. would have been obvious to combine with Christensen et al. and Rodriguez Posada et al. because Wheeler et al. teaches fat compositions that can be used as substitutes for part or all of the fat in a meat food product. [Col. 13, Ln. 33-35]
Therefore, 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 teachings of Christensen et al. and Rodriguez Posada et al. in order to produce a meat analog composition, and the teaching of Wheeler et al. to create a meat analog composition comprising a fat composition comprising fully hydrogenated rapeseed oil, fully hydrogenated high erucic rapeseed oil, and vegetable oil, thereby rendering obvious claims 12 and 13.
With respect to Claim 14, Christensen et al. in view of Rodriguez Posada et al. teaches a meat analog composition that renders obvious claim 1, and in further view of Wheeler et al., renders obvious claim 13, as described above. Rodriguez Posada et al. teaches the interesterification process can be enzymatic or chemical, and the mixture of hydrogenated to non-hydrogenated can be 10-80% to 20-90%. [0037] Wheeler et al. teaches the use of mixtures of fatty acids that can be derived from non-hydrogenated, partially hydrogenated, or fully hydrogenated oils, such as low erucic or high erucic rapeseed, [Col. 9, Ln. 7-13] or hydrogenated fats, such as hydrogenated canola oil. [Col. 9, Ln. 21-24]
According to MPEP 2144.05 II, “Where 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”. The recitation of 40-60% rapeseed oil, 5-15% fully hydrogenated high erucic acid rapeseed oil, and 30-50% fully hydrogenated rapeseed oil is simply the result of routine experimentation that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of blending the oils taught by Rodriguez Posada et al. and Wheeler et al.
Therefore, 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 teaching of Christensen et al. and Rodriguez Posada et al. in view of Wheeler et al. to produce a meat analog with a fat composition comprising 40-60% rapeseed oil, 5-15% fully hydrogenated high erucic acid rapeseed oil, and 30-50% fully hydrogenated rapeseed oil, thereby rendering obvious claim 14.
Claims 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christensen et al. (WO 2019/134992 A1) in view of Rodriguez Posada et al. (US 20100196581 A1) as applied to claim 1, in further view of Rose et al. (US 20150351427 A1).
With respect to Claim 35-37, Christensen et al. in view of Rodriguez Posada et al. teaches a meat analog composition that renders obvious claim 1, as described above. Both references are silent to the use of animal derived products in the meat analog composition.
Rose et al. teaches a meat analog composition comprising milk proteins and vegetable proteins. [0013] Rose et al. teaches that the addition of casein, as a milk derived protein isolate, can be added to vegetarian meat-like fibres. [0027]
Christensen et al., Rodriguez Posada et al., and Rose et al. exist within the same field of endeavor in that they are all concerned with meat analog products and the fats that comprise them. Where Christensen et al. and Rodriguez Posada et al. teach compositions entirely free from animal derived products, Rose et al. teaches the use of casein in order to form better meat like fibres.
According to MPEP 2144.06 II, “In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art”. Rose teaches that casein can be substituted as an equivalence to vegetable protein isolates, and Christensen et al. teaches a soy protein isolate of 2%. [Example 2] Therefore, 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 meat analog composition taught by Christensen et al. and Rodriguez Posada et al. with the milk protein isolate taught by Rose et al. in order to produce a meat analog with 1-20% animal milk proteins, thereby rendering claims 35-37 obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 12, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts on Page 12, Lines 10-11, that, “Contrary to the Office’s assertion, Christensen and Rodrigues Posada do not exist within the same field of endeavor”, continues on lines 15-17, “Christensen and Rodrigues Posada serve entirely different purposes. There would be no motivation to modify Christensen’s meat-related products with Rodrigues Posada’s bakery products”, and concludes on line 23, that “The Office’s § 103 rejection, accordingly, cannot hold”.
According to MPEP 2141.01 (a) I, “A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Note that "same field of endeavor" and "reasonably pertinent" are two separate tests for establishing analogous art; it is not necessary for a reference to fulfill both tests in order to qualify as analogous art. See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212” and continues, “When more than one prior art reference is used as the basis of an obviousness rejection, it is not required that the references be analogous art to each other”. The section clarifies, “The field of endeavor is ‘not limited to the specific point of novelty, the narrowest possible conception of the field, or the particular focus within a given field’” and “It may be necessary for the examiner to explain why an inventor seeking to solve the identified problem would have looked to the reference in an attempt to find a solution to the problem, i.e., factual reasons why the prior art is pertinent to the identified problem”.
Applicant misidentifies the field of endeavor as a narrow conception of the field in that Christensen is relevant to a meat-related product and Rodrigues Posada is relevant to a bakery product, when it would be more applicable to identify the field of endeavor as the production of comestible goods, but also comprises compositions comprising fats. Additionally, the reference cited would have been relevant to the problem solved by the instant invention as Christensen teaches a meat analog product and Rodrigues Posada teaches a fat composition that is low in saturated fatty acids.
Finally, whether the arts are analogous to each other is not relevant as to whether or not the references are analogous to the instant invention. The instant invention discloses a meat analog composition, as taught by Christensen, comprising an interesterified blend of vegetable oil and fully hydrogenated vegetable oil, as taught by Rodrigues Posada. Regardless, the prior art of record in the rejection is analogous and teaches all the parts of the invention as recited by the applicant.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are found to be unpersuasive.
Applicant asserts on Page 13, Lines 4-6, that “For at least the foregoing reasons, there would be no motivation to combine Christensen and Rodrigues Posada. Wheeler fails to cure the deficiencies of the asserted combination” and on Lines 11-13, “For at least the foregoing reasons, there would be no motivation to combine Christensen and Rodrigues Posada. Rose fails to cure the deficiencies of the asserted combination”.
With reference to the combination of Christensen and Rodriguez Posada, applicant is directed to examiner’s argument above. With respect to applicant’s assertion that each of the other two references combined, examiner is reminded of MPEP 2145 I, “Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record”.
For this reason and those stated above, applicant’s assertions are found to be unpersuasive, and the rejections of Claims 1-38 and 47 are upheld.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH CULLEN MERCHLINSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-2260. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/J.C.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791