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 1-16 are currently pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-9, 12, and, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geistlinger et al. (herein referred to as Geistlinger, US 20160073671 A1) in view of Gibbons et al. (herein referred to as Gibbons, US 20130142905 A1), Ajami et al. (herein referred to as Ajami, US 20170105438 A1) and Rutt et al. (herein referred to as Rutt, US 20170020159 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Geistlinger teaches food products that have meat-like structure, texture, and properties, and that comprise substantial amounts of microbial biomass (abstract). Geistlinger teaches mixing a first protein powder ([0093] The microbial biomass may be added to the dough in any form, including but not limited to dry powder) with a liquid and other ingredients to form a powder mixture ([0009], [0025] Geistlinger reads such that microbial biomass and water and optional other ingredients are combined to form a dough).
Geistlinger teaches extruding the powder mixture with thermoplastic extrusion ([0090], [0091]). Geistlinger teaches any physiochemical parameter or extruder configuration parameter may influence the appearance, texture, and properties of the protein fibrous product ([0091]). Geistlinger teaches the physiochemical and configuration parameters are not mutually exclusive. Optimal physiological and configuration parameters for the thermoplastic extrusion of the meat structured protein products provided herein can be determined experimentally by titrating a particular parameter against the structure, sensory, and physical chemical characteristics (e.g., microscopic protein structure, sensory panel scores, MC, TPA profile) of the end products, and identifying the setting of the parameter at which the meat structured protein products provided herein are obtained ([0091]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to adjust the moisture content (“MC”) to achieve the desired result such as reducing the level of endotoxins. Therefore, Geistlinger reads on utilizing high moisture extrusion.
Geistlinger teaches cutting the extruded mixture ([0090]). Lastly Geistlinger teaches the extrusion consists of a cooling die ([0091]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art that the extrudate is cooled by traveling through a cooling die.
Geistlinger is silent to the other ingredients being sodium chloride.
Ajami teaches food products that have structures, textures, and other properties comparable to those of animal meat, and that may therefore serve as substitutes for animal meat (abstract). Ajami teaches adding sodium chloride (NaCl) as taste agent which modulates the taste of the meat-like food product ([0090]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the other ingredient taught by Geistlinger to be sodium chloride (NaCl) as taught by Ajami to modulate the taste of the meat-like food product.
Geistlinger teaches the first protein powder is a microbial biomass, and in preferred embodiments a bacterial biomass ([0019], [0093]) but is silent to the downstream processes to produce the first protein powder.
Rutt teaches a protein material and food ingredient from biomass (abstract). The downstream processing taught by Rutt subjects the biomass to a series of steps to derive a protein material that has high protein nutritional content and without the undesirable organoleptic taste and smell properties that typically accompany biomass from these sources ([0005]). Rutt teaches cultivating bacterial cells to obtain a biomass ([0020]). Rutt teaches separating a liquid phase and a solid phase of biomass and concentrating the biomass by removing the liquid phase ([0021], [0048], Rutt reads such that the biomass is centrifuged which one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize would separate the biomass into a solid and liquid phase). Rutt teaches drying the biomass to obtain a protein powder ([0047], [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to obtain the first protein powder taught by Geistlinger by the downstream processing taught by Rutt to derive a protein material that has high protein nutritional content and without the undesirable organoleptic taste and smell properties that typically accompany biomass from these sources.
With regard to Claim 2, Geistlinger is silent to freezing the extrudate mix.
Ajami teaches the similar or superior meat-like attribute stabilities persist over storing the meat-like food products (i.e., extrudate) at suitable storage conditions. In some such embodiments, the suitable storage conditions include storage at temperatures of less than about 15° C. In some embodiments, the similar or superior meat-like attribute stabilities persist over one or more cycles of freezing and thawing ([0226]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Geistlinger in view of Ajami to optimize the conditions for the extrudate mixture to ensure similar or superior meat-like attribute stabilities persist. This optimization would include the temperature, and Ajami makes it clear that suitable storage is less than about 15° C and includes freezing. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) 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 (CCPA 1955)
With regard to Claim 3, Geistlinger teaches adding at least one second protein powder ([0074], Table 1 utilizes yeast powder) and at least one soluble fiber ([0126]- [0127] Geistlinger reads such that the doughs, meat structured protein products, and extended meat products provided herein may comprise various other microbial compounds and other non-microbial ingredients including pectin). Because Geistlinger teaches optional other ingredients are combined to form a dough it would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art that this is the step in which the additional protein and fiber that is taught would be added ([0009]).
With regard to Claim 4, Geistlinger teaches the dough (i.e., powdered mixture) comprises between about 20% and about 30% weight microbial biomass ([0008], [0068]), at least about 30% by weight of water ([0008]), 5% and about 68% by weight of at least one second protein powder ([0099]), and 0.01% and about 5% by weight pectins ([0127]). See MPEP 2144.05(I) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Geistlinger is silent to quantity of sodium chloride.
Ajami teaches adding sodium chloride (NaCl) as taste agent which modulates the taste of the meat-like food product ([0090]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the other ingredient taught by Geistlinger to be sodium chloride (NaCl) as taught by Ajami in an amount sufficient enough to achieved to modulate the taste of the meat-like food product to the desired taste. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) 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 (CCPA 1955).
With regard to Claim 5, Geistlinger teaches the second protein powder is pea protein isolate ([0100]). Geistlinger teaches the pea protein can be in any other form, meaning one with ordinary skill in the art would reasonably deduce to utilize the pea isolate in a powdered form ([0100]).
With regard to Claim 6, Geistlinger teaches the dough (i.e., powder mixture) is mixed in a closed barrel during extrusion ([0090]). Geistlinger teaches the extruder can be a twin screw extruder ([0147]).
With regard to Claim 8, Geistlinger teaches the liquid is water ([0009]).
With regard to Claim 7, Geistlinger teaches any physiochemical parameter or extruder configuration parameter may influence the appearance, texture, and properties of the protein fibrous product ([0091]). Geistlinger teaches optimal physiological and configuration parameters for the thermoplastic extrusion of the meat structured protein products provided herein can be determined experimentally by titrating a particular parameter against the structure, sensory, and physical chemical characteristics (e.g., microscopic protein structure, sensory panel scores, MC, TPA profile) of the end products, and identifying the setting of the parameter at which the meat structured protein products provided herein are obtained ([0091]). In addition Geistlinger teaches The extruder may be selected from any commercially available extruder ([0092]).
Thus, through routine optimization one with ordinary skill in the art would configure the extrusion parameters to achieve the desired structure, sensory, and physical chemical characteristics of the end product. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) "[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 (CCPA 1955).
With regard to Claim 9, as showing in the rejection of claim 8 Geistlinger teaches the claimed water. Since claim 9 does not further limit the “water” and only further limits the “protein slurry” which was optionally recited in Claim 8 and has not been positively recited in claim 9, the limitations of claim 9 are seen to have been met.
With regard to Claim 12, Geistlinger is silent to the downstream processing.
Rutt teaches in some embodiments the methods involve one or more steps of mechanical homogenization or mixing ([0029]). Rutt teaches he methods can involve performing the steps in any order, and one or more of the steps can be eliminated. One or more of the steps can be repeated to optimize the yield or quality of protein material from the biomass ([0028]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Geistlinger in view of Rutt to homogenize the bacterial cells of the biomass before the drying step to optimize the yield or quality of protein material from the biomass.
With regard to Claim 16, Geistlinger is silent to the downstream processing.
Rutt teaches cultivation can be done in open ponds or in a photobioreactor or fermentation vessels of any appropriate size. The microbes or algae can be either phototrophic or heterotrophic. In some embodiments only light and carbon dioxide are provided but nutrients can be included in any culture medium, for example nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and other nutrients. In other embodiments sugars and other nutrients are included in the culture medium. ([0020]). Rutt teaches the biomass utilized in the present invention can be derived from any organism or class of organisms ([0020]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Geistlinger in view of Rutt to include the appropriate cultivation feed, such as CO2, to grow the desired organism or class of organisms to be used as the biomass. One with ordinary skill in the art would recognize the feed to grow organisms is unique to that specific organism and therefore to optimize parameters such as yield the nutrients in the feed should be optimized to align with the desired organism and outcome.
Claims 10-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geistlinger (US 20160073671 A1) in view of Gibbons (US 20130142905 A1), Ajami (US 20170105438 A1), Rutt (US 20170020159 A1), and Dyson et al. (herein referred to as Dyson, US 20190390158 A1).
With regard to Claim 10, Geistlinger teaches the meat structured protein products may be derived from a single or from multiple natural and/or modified microbial sources ([0098]). But is silent to the bacterial strain being bacterial strain VTT-E-193585 or a derivative thereof.
The examiner would like to note that VTT-E-193585 strain is from the genus Xanthobacter.
Dyson teaches a high-protein and/or high vitamin ingredient derived from the microorganism cells which can be utilized in the production of a vegetarian or vegan food product ([0432]-[0433]). Dyson teaches the microorganism cell is a bacterial cell and can be from the genus Xanthobacter ([0077], [0246]). Dyson teaches Xanthrobacter is an oxyhydrogen species and oxyhydrogen strains may also be obtained by routine processes, such as isolation from soil samples or geothermal fluid samples using enrichment methods ([0467]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Geistlinger in view of Dyson to utilize a microorganism from the genus Xanthobacter or specifically Dyson teaches specific strains may be obtained by routine processes because Dyson clearly shows bacterial strains from the genus Xanthrobacter are suitable for use as a protein source in vegetarian or vegan food product See MPEP 2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose.
The Xanthobacter species utilization taught by Dyson reads on the instant claims because in the instant specification, the applicant states “Optionally, the said isolated bacterial strain or a derivative thereof utilize hydrogen gas as energy source and carbon dioxide as carbon source” and Dyson specifically teaches the Xanthobacter species are knallgas strains which can use hydrogen and carbon dioxide as their energy source. Thus, one with ordinary skill in the art would reasonably deduce that the utilization of bacteria from the genus Xanthobacter species taught by Dyson reads on the instant claims utilization of strain VTT-E-193585 and derivatives thereof because of the overlapping use of a hydrogen energy source. See MPEP 2144.08(II)(A)(4)(c) See, e.g., Dillon, 919 F.2d at 693, 696, 16 USPQ2d at 1901, 1904. See also In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552, 1558, 34 USPQ2d 1210, 1214 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ("Structural relationships may provide the requisite motivation or suggestion to modify known compounds to obtain new compounds. For example, a prior art compound may suggest its homologs because homologs often have similar properties and therefore chemists of ordinary skill would ordinarily contemplate making them to try to obtain compounds with improved properties."). And The closer the physical and/or chemical similarities between the claimed species or subgenus and any exemplary species or subgenus disclosed in the prior art, the greater the expectation that the claimed subject matter will function in an equivalent manner to the genus. See, e.g., Dillon, 919 F.2d at 696, 16 USPQ2d at 1904 (and cases cited therein). Cf. Baird, 16 F.3d at 382-83, 29 USPQ2d at 1552 (disclosure of dissimilar species can provide teaching away)With regard to Claim 11, Geistlinger is silent to incubating the biomass with a heat treatment.
Dyson teaches utilizing high pressure homogenization on cells grown to preserving proteins to be harvested, and not imparting any off flavors ([0564]). Dyson teaches treating the cells for 5 to 60 minutes and at a temperature of 40° F. to 140° F ([0564] about 4℃ to 60℃). See MPEP 2144.05(I) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Geistlinger in view of Dyson to treat the cells for 5 to 60 minutes and at a temperature of 40° F to 140° F to preserve the proteins to be harvested and no impart any off flavors.
With regard to Claim 13, the combination of Geistlinger and Rutt is silent to the pressure in which the homogenization is carried out.
Dyson teaches utilizing high pressure homogenization on cells grown to preserving proteins to be harvested, and not imparting any off flavors ([0564]). Dyson teaches utilizing pressures from 5,000 to 15,000 psig ([0564] about 344 bar – 1,034 bar). See MPEP 2144.05(I) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Geistlinger in view of Dyson to utilizing pressures from 5,000 to 15,000 psig during homogenization to preserve the proteins to be harvested and no impart any off flavors.
With regard to Claim 14, Geistlinger teaches the microbial biomass can be further treated to maintain purity and/or freshness using filtration ([0112]). However, Geistlinger is silent to the filtration being nanofiltration or ultrafiltration.
Dyson teaches using nanofiltration for the recovery of biosynthetic chemical products and/or spent nutrients from the aqueous broth solution ([0355]).It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before he effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Geistlinger in view of Dyson to use nanofiltration on the homogenized bacterial cells to recover biosynthetic chemical products and/or spent nutrients from the aqueous broth solution.
With regard to Claim 15, Geistlinger is silent to adjusting the biomass pH.
Dyson teaches utilizing high pressure homogenization on cells grown to preserving proteins to be harvested, and not imparting any off flavors ([0564]). Dyson teaches part of the homogenization process includes adjusting the pH to above 5.5 ([0564]). See MPEP 2144.05(I) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Geistlinger in view of Dyson to adjust the pH to above 5.5 during homogenization to preserve the proteins to be harvested and no impart any off flavors.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Geistlinger teaches to use microbial cells in general and makes no different between algae, fungi, and bacterial biomass. This is not found to be persuasive because Geistlinger teaches the first protein powder is a microbial biomass, and in preferred embodiments a bacterial biomass ([0019], [0093]).
Applicant argues that Geistlinger is silent to specific challenges related to bacterial cells, in particular endotoxins and solutions thereof by high-moisture extrusion. This argument is not found to be persuasive because Geistlinger teaches extruding the powder mixture with thermoplastic extrusion ([0090], [0091]). Geistlinger teaches any physiochemical parameter or extruder configuration parameter may influence the appearance, texture, and properties of the protein fibrous product ([0091]). Geistlinger teaches the physiochemical and configuration parameters are not mutually exclusive. Optimal physiological and configuration parameters for the thermoplastic extrusion of the meat structured protein products provided herein can be determined experimentally by titrating a particular parameter against the structure, sensory, and physical chemical characteristics (e.g., microscopic protein structure, sensory panel scores, MC, TPA profile) of the end products, and identifying the setting of the parameter at which the meat structured protein products provided herein are obtained ([0091]). One with ordinary skill in the art would recognize the endotoxins cited by applicant would be considered “physical chemical characteristics” and thus the reduction of endotoxins would be ample motivation to modify the process parameters taught by Geistlinger via routine optimization to achieve the desired results. See MPEP 2144.05(II) Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." In this case it would be the optimum combination of extrusion parameters. Thus, applicants argument is not found to be persuasive.
Continuing, applicant argues that combining Ajami and Geistlinger would not teach or suggest the process of the present claimed because Ajami does not teach or suggest any solution not involving a binder. This argument is not found to be persuasive because Ajami is solely relied upon to teach adding sodium chloride (NaCl) as taste agent which modulates the taste of the meat-like food product (Ajami, [0090]). And Ajami provides ample motivation to combine to modulate the taste of the meat-like food product. Geistlinger is relied upon to teach the composition of the claimed invention and therefore any argument in relation to Ajami’s use of a binder is not found to be persuasive because the sodium chloride is being added as a taste modulator not a binder. Therefore, applicants argument is not found to be persuasive.
Applicant argues the product obtained by the present claimed subject matter differentiate the obtained product from the one referred to in Geistlinger. In this case, applicant specifically argues that Ajami teaches 0.1-10% salt, wherein the applicant presents data, Picture A3 and Picture A4, which shows the benefit of NaCl at concentrations of 0.1% and 1% in comparison to 0% and 0.3% NaCl. First, the examiner would like to note that Claim 1 does not claim any ranges in ingredients and thus applicants argument is not commensurate in scope with claim 1 because there are no ranges presented in claim 1. Next, Ajami teaches NaCl is a taste modulator which modulates the taste of the meat-like food product (Ajami, [0090]). As a result, It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the “other ingredient” taught by Geistlinger to include sodium chloride (NaCl) in an amount of 0.1-10% because, as taught by Ajami, NaCl is a taste modulator and it is well known in the art to salt a composition to taste. Further, attention is invited to In re Levin, 84 USPQ 232 and the cases cited therein, which are considered in point in fact situation of the instant case. At page 234, the Court stated as follows:
This court has taken the position that new recipes or formulas for cooking food which involve the addition or elimination of common ingredients, or for treating them in ways which differ from the former practice, do not amount to invention, merely because it is not disclosed that, in the constantly developing art of preparing food, no one else ever did the particular thing upon which the applicant asserts his right to a patent. In all such cases, there is nothing patentable unless the applicant by a proper showing further establishes a coaction or cooperative relationship between the selected ingredients which produces a new, unexpected and useful function. In re Benjamin D. White, 17 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 956, 39 F.2d 974, 5 USPQ 267; In re Mason et al., 33 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 1144, 156 F.2d 189, 70 USPQ 221.
Continuing, drawing in attention to claim 4 which teaches NaCl from 0.5% up to 1.5%, the data presented in picture A3 and picture A4 only shows points inside the range presented in claim 4. The examiner would like to point to MPEP 716.02(d)(II) To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). In this case, applicant does not show results outside of the claimed range and therefore cannot establish the criticality of the range.
Lastly, applicant argues NaCl has to be added before extrusion to reduce the endotoxins. Geistlinger teaches that all the ingredients are added prior to extrusion by teaching all the ingredients are added to make a dough and the dough is further processed using extrusion (Geistlinger, [0025], [0090]). Therefore it would have been obvious to add the NaCl with the dough prior to the extrusion process because that is where all the ingredients are added. Therefore, applicants argument is not found to be persuasive.
Applicant argues the cited references are silent to the reduce levels of endotoxins. This is not found to be persuasive because first the secondary references are not relied upon to teach the high moisture extrusion which results in the reduced levels of endotoxins. Continuing, as discussed above, Geistlinger teaches the physiochemical and configuration parameters are not mutually exclusive ([0091]) and thus one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize the endotoxins cited by applicant would be considered “physical chemical characteristics” and thus the reduction of endotoxins would be ample motivation to modify the process parameters taught by Geistlinger via routine optimization to achieve the desired results. See MPEP 2144.05(II). In addition, because Geistlinger teaches a substantially identical process and product as instantly claimed, the process would inherently reduce endotoxins. See MPEP 2112.01(I) 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, 1
95 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Thus applicant’s argument is not found to be persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 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 KARLA I DIVIESTI whose telephone number is (571)270-0787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm (MST).
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.
/K.I.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792