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 May 13, 2026. Any objections and/or rejections made in previous actions and not repeated are hereby withdrawn.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 13, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 57 and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “dilute inorganic acid” in claims 57 and 58 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “dilute inorganic acid” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination, the term “dilute inorganic acid” will be interpreted to mean comprising 15% or less of the total composition.
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 36, 39-41, 43, 46-51, 53-54, and 56-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itamar et al. (GB 1495194) in view of McMindes et al. (US 20100166940 A1).
With respect to Claim 36, Itamar et al. teaches a process for preparing a texturized vegetable protein product [Pg. 1, Ln. 48-50] derived from a mixture comprising greater than 20% vegetable protein, such as isolated potato protein, [Pg. 1, Ln. 36-42] potato pulp, and water [Pg. 1, Ln 54-56] between 20-50%. [Pg. 2, Ln. 2] Additionally, Itamar et al. teaches the mixture is extruded at a temperature between 100-210°C. [Pg. 2, Ln. 4-8] In a specific embodiment, a composition of 100 parts isolated potato protein, 60 parts potato pulp, and 50 parts water are extruded at about 170°C. [Example 2]
Itamar et al. is silent to adding an alkaline salt in the potato product.
McMindes et al. teaches a process for producing a structured plant protein product, [0005] comprising plant protein material [0027] between 40-100% [0028], such as potato derived protein, [0029] a moisture content of about 1-35% [0055] and a pH modifying agent, such as sodium carbonate, [0110] can be incorporated between 0.2-1.6%. [Table 2] Additionally, McMindes et al. teaches that the composition through a plurality of heating zones, ranging from 100-150°C. [0049] McMindes et al. is motivated to control the pH of the composition in order to more closely imitate the pH of real meat. [0039]
The instant specification discloses that the potato protein is subjected to thermocoagulation at low pH in order to prepare the denatured potato protein. [Pg. 20, Ln. 3-4] McMindes et al. teaches that the preconditioning stage of the process can include a preheating phase wherein the material can be heated to between 25-80°C [0054] and the mixture before extrusion can include a pH reducing agent such as acetic, lactic, hydrochloric or other acids, [0040] to a pH as high as 7 and as low as 4. [0039] The premixture composition of McMindes et al., wherein the composition is preheated and comprises an acid in order to lower the pH of the protein reads on a denatured potato protein wherein the denatured potato protein is acid-treated and thermocoagulated prior to inclusion into the composition.
Itamar et al. and McMindes et al. exist within the same field of endeavor in that they are both concerned with the process of creating an extruded, plant protein-based, food product. Where Itamar et al. teaches a composition composed primarily of potato and potato derived products, McMindes et al. teaches controlling the pH of the vegetable composition through the addition of pH modifying alkaline salts, such as sodium carbonate.
The ranges of protein, water, and extrusion temperature in Itamar et al. and McMindes et al. overlap with the ranges recited in claim 36, and the amount of alkaline salt and pH in McMindes et al. overlaps with the range recited in claim 36. According to the MPEP 2144.05 I, “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside the ranges recited in the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”.
Additionally, with respect to the limitation of “such that fiber formation occurs during an extruding step”, MPEP 2112.01 I, states, “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”. The composition taught by Itamar et al. in view of McMindes et al. reads on the limitation of the one or more alkaline salts in order to raise the pH to between 5 and 7, and therefore possesses the same property of fiber formation during extrusion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have used the teaching of Itamar et al. in combination with the teaching of McMindes et al. in order to produce a method of making an extruded potato product that renders obvious claim 36.
With respect to Claims 39-41, Itamar et al in view of McMindes et al. teach the invention recited in claim 36, as detailed above. Additionally, McMindes teaches the incorporation of sodium carbonate in order to control the pH of the composition. [0110] Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application to have used the teachings of Itamar et al. and McMindes et al. in order to produce an extruded potato protein composition, wherein the pH is controlled by an alkaline salt, specifically sodium carbonate, as recited in claims 39-41.
With respect to Claim 43, Itamar et al. teaches a process for preparing a texturized vegetable protein product [Pg. 1, Ln. 48-50] derived from a mixture comprising greater than 20% vegetable protein, such as isolated potato protein, [Pg. 1, Ln. 36-42] potato pulp, and water [Pg. 1, Ln 54-56] between 20-50%. [Pg. 2, Ln. 2] Additionally, Itamar et al. teaches the mixture is extruded at a temperature between 100-210°C. [Pg. 2, Ln. 4-8] In a specific embodiment, a composition of 100 parts isolated potato protein, 60 parts potato pulp, and 50 parts water are extruded at about 170°C. [Example 2]
Itamar et al. is silent to adjusting the pH of the composition to below 5.
McMindes et al. teaches a process for producing a structured plant protein product, [0005] comprising plant protein material [0027] between 40-100% [0028], such as potato derived protein, [0029] a moisture content of about 1-35% [0055] and a pH modifying agent, such as sodium carbonate, [0110] wherein the desired pH is less than 5.0 [0039] and the pH modifying agent can be incorporated between 1-5%. [0041] Additionally, McMindes et al. teaches that the composition through a plurality of heating zones, ranging from 100-150°C. [0049] McMindes et al. is motivated to control the pH of the composition in order to more closely imitate the pH of real meat. [0039]
The instant specification discloses that the potato protein is subjected to thermocoagulation at low pH in order to prepare the denatured potato protein. [Pg. 20, Ln. 3-4] McMindes et al. teaches that the preconditioning stage of the process can include a preheating phase wherein the material can be heated to between 25-80°C [0054] and the mixture before extrusion can include a pH reducing agent such as acetic, lactic, hydrochloric or other acids, [0040] to a pH as high as 7 and as low as 4. [0039] The premixture composition of McMindes et al., wherein the composition is preheated and comprises an acid in order to lower the pH of the protein reads on a denatured potato protein wherein the denatured potato protein is acid-treated and thermocoagulated prior to inclusion onto the composition.
Itamar et al. and McMindes et al. exist within the same field of endeavor in that they are both concerned with the process of creating an extruded, plant protein-based, food product. Where Itamar et al. teaches a composition composed primarily of potato and potato derived products, McMindes et al. teaches controlling the pH of the vegetable composition through the addition of pH modifying alkaline salts, such as sodium carbonate.
According to the MPEP 2144.05 I, “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside the ranges recited in the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. The ranges of protein, water, and extrusion temperature in Itamar et al. and McMindes et al. overlap with the ranges recited in claim 43, and the pH in McMindes et al. overlaps with the range recited in claim 43.
Additionally, with respect to the limitation of “such that fiber formation occurs during an extruding step”, MPEP 2112.01 I, states, “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”. The composition taught by Itamar et al. in view of McMindes et al. reads on the limitation of the one or more alkaline salts in order to raise the pH to between 5 and 7, and therefore possesses the same property of fiber formation during extrusion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have used the teaching of Itamar et al. in combination with the teaching of McMindes et al. in order to produce an extruded potato product that renders obvious claim 43.
With respect to Claims 45-48, Itamar et al in view of McMindes et al. teach the invention recited in claim 43, as detailed above. Additionally, McMindes teaches the incorporation of sodium carbonate in order to control the pH of the composition and [0110] the pH modifying agent can be incorporated between 1-5%, [0041]which overlaps with the ranges recited in claim 48 of 0.5-2%. According to the MPEP 2144.05 I, “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside the ranges recited in the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application to have used the teachings of Itamar et al. and McMindes et al. in order to produce an extruded potato protein composition, wherein the pH is controlled by an alkaline salt, specifically sodium carbonate, as recited in claims 45-48.
With respect to Claim 49, Itamar et al in view of McMindes et al. teach the invention recited in claim 43, as detailed above. Additionally, Itamar et al. teaches a composition wherein the water is between 20-50%. [Pg. 2, Col. 1, Ln. 2], falling within the claimed range. Therefore, Itamar et al. in view of McMindes et al. renders obvious claim 49.
With respect to Claim 50, Itamar et al in view of McMindes et al. teach the invention recited in claim 43, as detailed above. Additionally, McMindes teaches that the composition comprising plant proteins may be a meat analogue. [0020] Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used Itamar et al. in view of McMindes et al. to develop a composition according to claim 43, wherein the composition is in the form of a meat analogue, thereby rendering obvious claim 50.
With respect to Claims 51 and 54, Itamar et al in view of McMindes et al. teach the invention recited in claims 36 and 43, as detailed above. The recitation of “wherein the extruded potato protein product is a textured product having a hydration power above 200” is a recitation of an inherent property. MPEP 2112 II states, “There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference”. The composition taught by Itamar et al. in view of McMindes et al. is substantially identical to the composition recited in claims 36 and 43 and would possess the same inherent properties.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teaching of Itamar et al. in view of McMindes et al. to produce the inventions recited in claims 36 and 43, wherein the hydration power of the extruded product is above 200, thereby rendering claims 51 and 54 obvious.
With respect to Claims 53, 56, and 59, Itamar et al in view of McMindes et al. teach the invention recited in claims 36 and 43, as detailed above. Additionally, McMindes et al. teaches that the composition can have a pH of below 4.0 at any stage of production and a pH as high as 7. [0039] These ranges overlap with the ranges recited in claims 53, 56, and 59 and the teaching that the pH modification can occur at any step would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to have performed the pH modification at any step recited in claims 36 and 43. MPEP 2144.05 I, “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside the ranges recited in the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have used the teaching of Itamar et al. in view of McMindes et al. to have produced the invention according to claims 36 and 43, wherein the pH of the composition is less than 4.5 in step a) and between the range of 5.4 and 6.72, thereby rendering claims 53, 56, and 59 obvious.
With respect to Claims 57-58, Itamar et al in view of McMindes et al. teach the invention recited in claims 36 and 43, as detailed above. McMindes et al. teaches the use of a variety of acids, including phosphoric acid [0040] between 0.1-15%, that would be used to control the pH before the extrusion process. [0041] Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teaching of Itamar et al. in view of McMindes et al. to devise the invention recited in claims 36 and 43, wherein the method comprises a step of washing with a dilute inorganic acid, thereby rendering claims 36 and 43 obvious.
Claims 52 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itamar et al. (GB 1495194) in view of McMindes et al. (US 20100166940 A1) as applied to claims 36 and 43 above, and further in view of Schmidt et al. (US 2020/0060310 A1).
With respect to Claims 52 and 55, Itamar et al in view of McMindes et al. teach the invention recited in claims 36 and 43, as detailed above. Neither reference teaches an embodiment wherein the density of the extrudate is between 80-200 g/L.
Schmidt et al. teaches a textured, high protein, plant-based, extruded food product, [0018] wherein the protein can be potato protein. [0145] Schmidt et al. teaches that the invention has an increases flavor and palatability. [0188] Additionally, Schmidt et al. teaches a number of embodiments comprising a variety of densities, ranging from 98 kg/m3 [0243] to 313 kg/m3. [0248]
Itamar et al., McMindes et al., and Schmidt et al. exist within the same field of endeavor, in that they teach extruded potato protein products. Where Itamar et al. teaches a composition composed primarily of potato and potato derived products, McMindes et al. teaches controlling the pH of the vegetable composition through the addition of pH modifying alkaline salts, such as sodium carbonate, and Scmidt et al. teaches a variety of densities and textures.
The range of densities taught by Schmidt et al. overlaps with the ranges recited in instant claims 36 and 43. According to MPEP 2144.05 I, “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside the ranges recited in the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teaching of Itamar et al. and McMindes et al., in view of Schmidt et al., to have devised the invention according to claims 36 and 43, wherein the density of the product is between 80-200 g/L, thereby rendering claims 52 and 55 obvious.
Declaration
The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed May 13, 2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 36 and 43 based upon Itamar et al. in view of McMindes et al. as set forth in the last Office action.
Applicant’s declaration is first directed to the long felt need and failure of others in the field of endeavor, specifically with relation to the criticality of the method of denaturation of the potato protein. Applicant refers to Edens et al. and Johannson et al., which both present evidence for the difficulty and knowledge in the field of the denaturation of potato proteins in the interest of preparing a food product.
Neither reference is used in the rejection included in the previous action, and therefore does not present sufficient evidence to overcome the rejection of record. Additionally, the references do not teach away from Itamar et al. or McMindes et al., both of which use a denatured protein isolate, including potato protein, as described in the rejection above.
Applicant continues, addressing the inoperability of the prior art, asserting that the teaching of McMindes et al. in view of Itamar et al. does not produce a functional, acid-treated, thermocoagulated , denatured potato protein. Applicant declares the pH lowering agent in McMindes et al. does not teach a pH modifying agent, and the sodium carbonate taught in McMindes et al. is only relevant to the soy protein composition explicitly taught. Examiner respectfully disagrees, citing MPEP 2123 II, “[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed”. The broad teaching of McMindes et al. includes the use of potato protein, sodium carbonate, and edible acids, as described above.
Applicant’s assertion with respect to Itamar et al. and McMindes et al. individually disregards the teaching of the combination of the references. MPEP 2145 IV states, “One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references”.
Applicant additionally declares unexpected results from the data presented by applicant in the declaration and in the specification. Applicant asserts the benefit sodium carbonate provides is instrumental in the hydration capacity of the extrudate, the formation of fibers, and the density. Applicant also asserts that the greater the amount of sodium carbonate, the greater the amount of chemical off taste.
Examiner finds the declaration to be insufficient due to the teaching McMindes et al. pretreating the protein with acid and the inclusion of sodium carbonate in the food product. Additionally, the range of sodium carbonate declared overlaps with the teaching of Itamar et al. in view of McMindes et al. and it is not unexpected for an increase in the amount of sodium carbonate to lead to an increase in the chemical flavor of the composition. Finally, The limitation of fiber strength is not recited in the instant set of claims, and the hydration capacity is only considered in two of the dependent claims.
For these reasons, the declaration does not overcome the rejections of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts, with respect to the long felt need and skepticism of professionals, that, “it is established in the field of potato protein technology there has been a presumption that acid treated and denatured potato protein (DPP) lack functional capabilities compared to native potato protein” and “it is established that in industrial scale production, native protein is very expensive to produce compared to production of acid-treated and thermocoagulated protein”. Applicant concludes that, “it is established that glycoalkaloids are toxic substances originating from the potato, and accumulated in untreated coagulated potato protein. Importantly, it can be seen that a subsequent washing step for reducing the glycoalkaloid content in the obtained coagulated potato is required”.
Applicant’s assertion is found to be unpersuasive due to the teaching of Itamar et al. and McMindes et al., as described above. Itamar et al. teaches a denatured potato protein used in an extruded food product [Pg. 1, Ln. 36-42] and McMindes et al. teaches treating a protein with acid before extrusion in order to adjust the pH. [0041-43] Though Itamar et al. and McMindes et al. do not explicitly teach acid-treating potato protein in order to denature the protein, MPEP 2112 II states, “There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference”. Therefore, the teaching of Itamar et al. in view of McMindes et al. would have produced the same acid-treated protein through the use of potato protein and acid treating the protein before extrusion.
Applicant’s asserts with respect to the inoperability of the prior art, that “if one of ordinary skill in the art follows the process from McMindes as outlined by the Final Office Action on page 4, then a product having a toxic content of glycoalkaloids derived from potatoes is the result”. Applicant supports the assertion, stating, “McMindes describes the addition of a pH lowering agent not "pH modifying agents," as stated by the Final Office Action on page 5, at any time in the manufacturing process in Paragraphs [0038-0041]. McMindes discloses the pH of a potato derived protein is lowered using food grade edible acid (Para. [0040-0041]). McMindes fails to disclose raising the pH of a DPP by the addition of alkaline salt prior to extruding the composition” and continues, “Itamar is silent in respect of how the isolated potato protein is produced. Itamar is silent in respect of "denatured potato protein (DPP) in an amount of 43 to 94.9 w% of the total weight of the composition, wherein the denatured potato protein is a pre-formed, isolated material that was acid-treated and thermocoagulated prior to inclusion in the composition." Itamar is also silent in the pH of the composition or the addition of alkaline salt”.
Firstly, applicant’s assertions are directed at each reference individually, and do not account for the teaching of the references in combination. MPEP 2145 IV states, “One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references”. Additionally, McMindes et al. teaches that the protein used can be a potato protein [0029] and teaches that the composition is edible. [0010] Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that a product prepared according to McMindes et al. comprising potato protein would not be toxic. Finally, MPEP 2145 III states, “It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements”. One need not be able to directly replace, one for one, aspects of each reference into the other in order to support a prima facie case of obviousness.
For these reasons, applicant’s assertions are found to be unpersuasive.
Applicant asserts, with respect to the unexpected results of the instant invention, that, “the inventor has prepared and submits additional data which further demonstrates the unexpected results of alkali salt above 2 w% of the total weight of the composition impacts the taste profile”, continuing, “The `237 application discloses in Table 5 that without the addition of alkali salt (#1) an unacceptable density is obtained compared to all other samples. The `237 application discloses in Table 6 that without the addition of alkali salt (#1) the hydration power is very low, compared to all other samples”.
Applicant is directed to examiner’s rejection of claim 36 above, which is directed to the teaching of McMindes et al. in which sodium carbonate, [0110] can be incorporated between 0.2-1.6% [Table 2] into the food product extrudate. The amount of sodium carbonate overlaps with the amount recited in instant claim 36, and MPEP 2144.05 I states, “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside the ranges recited in the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. Additionally, the hydration power and ability to form fibers, as determined by the sodium carbonate and pH according to the instant declaration, would be a property inherent in the composition. MPEP 2112 II states, “There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference”. Therefore, the composition taught by Itamar et al. in view of McMindes et al. would also possess the properties inherent in the composition.
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding the density of the extrudate, examiner’s rejection relies on a new reference not made of record in previous actions. Therefore, applicant’s assertions with respect to the density of the composition are moot.
For these reasons, applicant’s assertions are found to be unpersuasive.
Applicant asserts, with respect to the dependent claims, that “those claims are in condition for allowance at least for depending from an allowable base claim among other reasons”. Examiner does not concede that claims 36 and 43 are in condition for allowance, and therefore does not find applicant’s assertion persuasive.
For this reason, and those enumerated above, applicant’s assertions are found to be unpersuasive, and the rejection of claims 36, 38-41, 43, and 45-59 are maintained.
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 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
