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 .
Reissue Applications
For reissue application filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions. The instant reissue application seeks to correct an error in U.S. Patent No. 11,311,589 (“the ‘589 Patent”) which has an effective filing date of 17 August 2021.
Status of Claims
Claims 19-61 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 40 and 41 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claim is missing the word “nuts” between the words “raw” and “and” in line 7 of claim 40 and line 4 of claim 41. Appropriate correction is required.
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 19-39 and 57-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The preamble of independent claim 19 recites “A method of making a cannabis infused food product”. The claim then continues by disclosing several method steps, none of which involve making a cannabis infused food product. Likewise, none of the dependent claims 20-39 recite a specific step or steps in which a cannabis infused food product is produced. As such, it is unclear if the method recited in claims 19-39 is actually required to produce a cannabis food product and thus the claims are indefinite. For the purpose of examination, a method which comprises each of the claimed steps will be interpreted as reading on a method of making a cannabis infused product. Appropriate action is required.
Claims 28, 29, 33, 35, 57, and 59 are indefinite because of the recitation of the term “rich in” which is a relative term. The term “rich in” 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. As such, claims 28, 29, 33, 35, 57, and 59 are indefinite. Claims 34, 36, and 58 are rejected for inheriting the indefiniteness of claims 33, 36, and 57, respectively. For the purpose of examination, any non-zero amount of cannabidiol (CBD) and/or cannabigerol (CBG) will be interpreted as constituting “rich in”. Appropriate action is required.
Original Patent requirement under 35 U.S.C. 251(a)
IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
Claims 19-39 are rejected as not complying with the original patent requirement under 35 U.S.C. 251.
The preamble of independent claim 19 recites “A method of making a cannabis infused food product” which encompasses a method of making any cannabis infused product that is fit for consumption. However, the ‘589 Patent is only focused on coffee beans and raw nuts. For example, the title of the ‘589 Patent is “Cannabinoids Infused Coffee Beans and Raw Nuts”. Likewise, the abstract, of the ‘589 Patent recites the following:
“The present disclosure is directed to whole spectrum cannabis infused coffee beans and raw nuts and method of producing cannabinoids infused coffee beans and raw nuts.”
Additionally, while the more generic term “consumable” is recited in the ‘589 Patent three times, it is always in the context of coffee beverages. For example, at lines 1 and 2 of column 2, the ‘589 Patent recites “The infused coffee beans in turn may be used for producing consumable coffee beverages.” Similarly, lines 15-30 of the column 3 of the ‘589 Patent recites:
“After the coffee beans are infused with cannabinoids, the coffee may be consumed in any typical fashion, such as direct consumption of the infused coffee beans or more typically, to a make an infused coffee beverage. Likewise, the cannabinoids infused raw nuts can be consumed directly or added to other foods, such as baked goods, to provide whole spectrum cannabinoids to the food.
Consumption of the cannabinoids infused coffee beans, coffee beverages, or raw nuts generated by the methods described herein provides the beneficial effects generally associated with cannabinoids. These effects include, but are not limited to, mental and physical effects, such as pain relief from CBDs and other cannabinoids, mental high from THC (in foods infused with marijuana cannabinoids ), and other effects attributed to consumption of cannabinoids.”
It is clear from this recitation that the disclosed method is specifically for making cannabis infused coffee beans and raw nuts which may then be used in producing a food product.
It is noted that as is stated in Forum US, Inc. v Flow Valve, LLC, 926 F.3d 1346, 2019 USPQ2d 221227 (Fed. Cir.), for broadening reissue claims, the specification of the original patent must do more than merely suggest or indicate the invention recited in reissue claims; “[i]t must appear from the face of the instrument that what is covered by the reissue was intended to have been covered and secured by the original.” Indus. Chems., 315 U.S. at 676. Stated differently, the original patent “must clearly and unequivocally disclose the newly claimed invention as a separate invention.” Antares, 771 F.3d at 1362.
The ‘589 Patent does not “clearly and unequivocally disclose” a method of making a cannabis infused food product as a separate invention wherein the food product is any generic edible product which would be encompassed by new reissue claims 19-39. Therefore, claims 19-39 do not satisfy the original patent requirement under 35 U.S.C. §251(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 19-21, 27-29, 38, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Coban, et al., WO 2021/025652 A1 (“Coban”)(copy provided herewith).
Laughton et al., US 2021/0252087 (“Laughton”) is relied upon as an evidentiary reference for claims 28 and 29. The Hemp Seed Oil SDS from the International Cosmetics Science Center (ICSC) (“ICSC”)(copy provided herewith) available online at https://www.ecochem.com.co/pdf3/ICSC%20Hemp%20Seed %20Oil-SDS.pdf is relied upon as an evidentiary refence for claim 38.
Regarding claim 19, Coban discloses a method of producing an extract from cannabis and peganum (abstract, page 1 lines 4-6, page 5 lines 10-12, page 6 lines 5-page 8 line 19). The method comprises at step in which the leaves, stem, seeds, and roots of the cannabis plant are ground (page 6 lines 5-12). The ground cannabis is then mixed with a solvent mixture comprising an edible solvent and an edible oil (i.e., food grade oil) (page 6 lines 16-18, page 8 lines 5-19, page 9 line 27-page 10 line 9).
The mixing of the ground cannabis with a solvent mixture comprising an edible oil corresponds to claimed step (a). Since the extract comprises an edible oil it is reasonably interpreted as being a cannabis infused food product as claimed.
The mixture of the ground cannabis, edible solvent, and edible oil is then frozen (page 6 line 19, page 9 line 27-page 10 line 9) which corresponds to the claimed step (b). The frozen mixture comprising the ground cannabis and solvent mixture is then thawed (page 6 line 20, page 9 line 27-page 10 line 9) which corresponds to the claimed step (c). After thawing, the mixture is filtered through filter paper (page 9 line 27-page 10 line 9) which corresponds to claimed step (d).
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Coban teaches repeating the freezing and thawing steps one after the other seven times (page 6 line 20, page 10 lines 6-7) which corresponds to claimed steps (e) and (f).
Regarding claim 27, Coban teaches that the disclosed method extracts all of the components of cannabis (page 8 lines 20-21). As such, the disclosed method is reasonably interpreted as producing a whole spectrum cannabis extract as claimed.
Regarding claims 28 and 29, Laughton serves as evidence that cannabis comprises both cannabidiol and cannabigerol [0017]. Given that the ‘589 Patent does not set forth a specific definition of the phrase “rich in”, the presence of cannabidiol and/or cannabigerol in any non-zero amount is reasonably interpreted as constituting “rich in” (see MPEP 2111). As such, the extraction method disclosed by Coban reads on the limitations of claims 28 and 29.
Regarding claim 38, Coban teaches an example wherein 50 g (i.e., about 0.11 lbs) of cannabis is mixed with 75g of hemp seed oil (page 9 lines 27-31). ICSC serves as evidence that hemp seed oil has a density of about 0.90 to 0.92 g/cm3 at 20 ˚C (page 3). As such, in this example the volume of hemp oil added would range from about 67.5 to about 69 cm3 which is equivalent to about 0.0178 to about 0.0182 gallons. Thus, the ratio of from about 1:1.62 to about 1:1.65 (pounds of cannabis:gallons of oil) which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 39, Coban teaches that the edible oil may be olive oil (page 9 lines 29-30).
Claims 19, 20, 24, 28, 29, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the post by EdiblesOnly titled “My Cannabis Oil Process (Long and Extensive with Images) posted on Reddit.com and archived at https://web.archive.org/web/ 20130618210055 /http://www.reddit.com /r/tree dibles/comments/1bkhsv/my_ cannabis_oil_process_long_and_extensive _with on 18 June 2013 (“Edibles Only”)(copy provided herewith).
Laughton is relied upon as an evidentiary reference for claims 28 and 29.
Miller et al., US 2014/0147548 (“Miller”) is relied upon as an evidentiary reference for claim 37.
Regarding claim 19, EdiblesOnly discloses a method of making a cannabis infused coconut oil (i.e., a cannabis infused food product) comprising a step in which cannabis is combined with coconut oil (i.e., a food grade oil) and lecithin (page 1 – under “3. Adding Lecithin and Oil”). This step corresponds to claimed step (a).
In a subsequent step, the mixture of cannabis, coconut oil, and lecithin is heated and then frozen (page 1 – under “4. Processing”). The freezing of the mixture corresponds to the claimed step (b). The frozen mixture is then thawed and heated for three hours (page 1 – under “4. Processing”) which corresponds to the claimed step (c).
In a final step, the plant matter is strained from the mixture (page 1 – under “4. Processing”) which corresponds to the claimed step (d).
Regarding claim 20, EdiblesOnly teaches that the disclosed method further comprises another 2 hour freeze after which the mixture is heated again for another three hours to produce a final oil (page 1 – under “4. Processing”). The additional 2 hour freeze and subsequent heating correspond to the claimed steps (e) and (f), respectively.
Regarding claim 24, the coconut oil taught by EdiblesOnly reads on the claimed coconut oil.
Regarding claims 28 and 29, Laughton serves as evidence that cannabis comprises both cannabidiol and cannabigerol [0017]. Given that the ‘589 Patent does not set forth a specific definition of the phrase “rich in”, the presence of cannabidiol and/or cannabigerol in any non-zero amount is reasonably interpreted as constituting “rich in” (see MPEP 2111). As such, the cannabis disclosed by Coban reads on the limitations of claims 28 and 29.
Regarding claim 37, Miller serves as evidence that coconut oil is rich in medium chain triglycerides [0016]. As such, the coconut oil used in the method of Coban would reasonably reads on the claimed food grade oil comprising medium chain triglyceride oil.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 19, 20, 21, 24, 27-29, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laughton in view of EdiblesOnly.
Regarding claim 19, Laughton discloses a method of extracting cannabis in an edible oil (i.e., making a cannabis infused food product) [abstract, 0002]. The disclosed method comprises a step of contacting cannabis with an edible oil (i.e., a food grade oil) [0006, 0046-0050] which corresponds to claimed step (a). Subsequently, the combination of the cannabis and edible oil is steeped at a temperature of from 50 to 180 ˚C [0006]. After steeping, the cannabis is separated from the oil [0006, 0046-0050] which corresponds to claim step (d).
Laughton is silent regarding freezing the cannabis and oil.
EdiblesOnly discloses a method of making a cannabis infused coconut comprising a step in which coconut oil and lecithin are added to cannabis (page 1 – under “3. Adding Lecithin and Oil”). In a subsequent step, the mixture of cannabis, coconut oil, and lecithin is heated and then frozen (page 1 – under “4. Processing”). The frozen mixture is then thawed and heated for three hours (page 1 – under “4. Processing”). EdiblesOnly teaches that the freezing step is important as it forces the liquid in cells to take on a crystalline structure, piercing the plant cell wall and releasing all the goodies (page 1 – under “4. Processing”). The freezing process is also disclosed as increasing the bioavailability of the final oil (page 1 – under “4. Processing”).
Laughton and EdiblesOnly are both directed towards method of making a cannabis infused oil. In light of the teachings of EdiblesOnly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was effectively filed to have modified the method of Laughton by freezing the combination of the cannabis and edible oil prior to steeping with the expectation of piercing the cells of the cannabis thereby increasing the extraction yield and bioavailability. The freezing of the combination of the cannabis and edible oil prior to steeping would have corresponded to the claimed step (b). The subsequent steeping step would have corresponded to the claimed step (c).
Regarding claims 20 and 21, while modified Laughton is silent regarding including multiple freezing and heating steps, MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B) the duplication of parts has not patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In the instant case, the addition and duplication of steps (e) and (f) recited in claims 20 and 21 is merely duplicating steps (i.e., parts) (b) and (c) of the of claim 19. As such, the additional steps recited in claims 20 and 21 is not patentably significant.
Regarding claims 24 and 39, Laughton teaches that the edible oil may be, inter alia, coconut oil as recited in claim 24 or sunflower oil as recited in claim 39 [0084].
Regarding claim 27, Laughton teaches that the extract may be a full-spectrum (i.e., whole spectrum) extract [0218].
Regarding claims 28 and 29, Laughton teaches that the extract may comprised CBD and CBG [0012] Given that the ‘589 Patent does not set forth a specific definition of the phrase “rich in”, the presence of CBD and/or CBG in any non-zero amount is reasonably interpreted as constituting “rich in” (see MPEP 2111). As such, the cannabis extract disclosed by modified Laughton reads on the limitations of claims 28 and 29.
Regarding claim 37, Laughton teaches that the edible oil may comprise medium chain triglycerides [0085].
Claims 24 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coban as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Ruben et al., US 10,308,625 (“Ruben”).
Miller is relied upon as an evidentiary reference for claim 37.
Regarding claim 24, as is noted above, Coban teaches a method of an cannabis extract using an edible oil which meets the limitations of claim 19. Additionally, regarding the edible oil relied upon to prepare the extract, Coban discloses edible vegetable oils and specifically recites olive oil (page 5 lines 13-17). Coban is silent regarding the use of coconut oil.
Ruben teaches a method of making a cannabis extract in which whole cannabis plants are soaked in a selective solvent (abstract, col. 1 line 33-col. 2 line 40, claim 1). As the solvent, Ruben teaches using coconut oil, olive oil, and vegetable oils (col. 3 lines 24-27).
Coban and Ruben are both directed towards methods of preparing cannabis extracts using an edible oil. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was effectively filed have substituted the vegetable or olive oil in the method of Coban with coconut oil because as is taught by Ruben coconut oil was art recognized to be equivalent to vegetable and olive oil for the purpose of cannabis extraction (see MPEP 2144.06).
Regarding claim 37, Miller serves as evidence that coconut oil is rich in medium chain triglycerides [0016]. As such, the coconut that would have been used in the method of modified Coban would have reasonably read on the claimed food grade oil comprising medium chain triglyceride oil.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coban as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of the Homestead and chill website titled “How to make homemade cannabis oil (or CBD oil)” archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20200921104309/https://homesteadandchill.com/homemade-cannabis-oil/ on 21 September 2020 (“Homestead”)(copy provided herewith).
Regarding claim 30 as is noted above, Coban teaches a method of extracting cannabis using an edible oil which meets the limitations of claim 19. Coban is silent regarding cannabis being hemp.
Homestead discloses a method of producing a cannabis infused oil (pages 1-9). Homestead teaches that the cannabis infused oil can be made with hemp or marijuana (page 4). Homestead further teaches that hemp infused oil will only contain CBD (or very miniscule amounts of THC) (page 4). CBD is disclosed as being non-psychoactive and known to help with insomnia, seizures, and inflammation (page 4).
Coban and Homestead are both directed towards cannabis oil extracts. In light of the teachings of Homestead it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art rub the instant invention was effectively filed to have utilized hemp in the method of Coban with the expectation of producing an extract that is non-psychoactive and helps with insomnia, seizures, and inflammation. The hemp used in the resulting process would have read on the claimed hemp.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coban as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view Koumans, US 2021/0189287 (“Koumans”).
Regarding claim 31, as is noted above, Coban teaches a method extract from cannabis which meets the limitations of claim 19. Coban is silent regarding decarboxylating the oil extract.
Koumans discloses a method of making extract from cannabis by extracting the oil-soluble component from cannabis in an edible oil [abstract, 0024-0029, 0044]. In the method of Koumans, cannabis plant material is steeped in an edible oil [0047]. After steeping, the plant material is removed from the oil [0064]. Once the plant material is removed from the oil, a decarboxylation step is performed wherein the oil is heated to a temperature of from 80 to 100 ˚C [0062]. Koumans teaches that decarboxylation is important in order to activate cannabinoids present in extract [0062].
Coban and Koumans are both directed towards extracting cannabis in an edible oil. In light of the teachings of Koumans it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was made to have modified the method of Coban by including a decarboxylation step after the mixture comprising the ground cannabis, edible solvent, and edible oil is filtered in order to activate the cannabinoids present in the extract. The decarboxylation step would have corresponded to the claimed heating the cannabis extract of (d).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EdiblesOnly as applied to claim 19 above.
Regarding claim 23, as is described above, EdiblesOnly teaches a method which anticipates the method of claim 19. Additionally, EdiblesOnly teaches heating the cannabis/coconut oil/lecithin mixture to 195 to 210 ˚C for 3 hours (page 1 – under “4. Processing”). The amount of time taught by EdiblesOnly reads on the claimed 2 to 4 hours. The temperature range taught by EdiblesOnly overlaps, and therefore renders obvious, the claimed temperature range (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EdiblesOnly as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of the website titled Edibles 101: How To Cook With Cannabis In 7 Easy Steps published American Mary on 30 May 2018 and archived online at https://web.archive.org/web/20190824 183120/https://americanmarywa.com/how-to-cook-with-cannabis/ on 24 August 2019 (“American Mary”)(copy provided herewith).
The Lid & Ladle website published online on 20 October 2023 by Sur La Table at https:// learn.surlatable.com/slow-cooker-dutch-oven-conversion/ is relied upon as an evidentiary reference (“Sur La Table”)(copy provided herewith).
Regarding claim 26, as described above, EdiblesOnly teaches a method of making a cannabis infused food product which meets the limitations of claim 26. EdiblesOnly further teaches performing the heating of the cannabis/edible solvent/edible oil mixture in a crock pot (i.e., a slow cooker) (page 1 – under “4. Processing”).
EdiblesOnly is silent regarding the time and temperature at which the cannabis is extracted into the edible oil.
American Mary discloses a method of infusing cannabis into an edible oil using a slow cooker (pages 1-5). American Mary teaches that you’ll want to cook the edible oil and cannabis in the slow cooker on low heat for at least 6 to 8 hours (page 4 – under “How to Cook with Cannabis – Step 5: Dissolve the Cannabis in the Oil”).
EdiblesOnly and American Mary are both directed towards extracting cannabis in an edible oil using a slow cooker. In light of the teachings of American Mary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was effectively filed to have steeped the cannabis in the edible oil of the method of EdiblesOnly for 6 to 8 hours while the slow cooker is at a low setting because it was known the be a useful time and temperature for extraction. Sur La Table serves as objective evidence that slow cookers generally operate at temperature of from 190 to 200 ˚F on the low setting (page 8 - under “Conversion To Oven”). As such, the obvious modification of EdiblesOnly with the teachings of American Mary would have resulted in a method which render obvious the claimed method.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coban or EdiblesOnly as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of the website titled “Can You Freeze Marijuana Flowers?” published online at http://gamut packaging.com/blogs/resources/can-you-freeze-marijuana-flowers?srsltid =AfmBOoqlk4z8vjmKMAcGOQdWcoL0RccZvC0jPgQ-Bmr8EP48 UBmwuJQ2 on 16 February 2020 by Gamut Packaging (“Gamut”)(copy provided herewith).
Regarding claim 26, as described above, both Coban and EdiblesOnly teach a method of making a cannabis infused food product which meets the limitations of claim 26. Both Coban and EdiblesOnly are silent regarding freezing the cannabis prior to mixing cannabis with an food grade oil.
Gamut teaches freezing marijuana flowers (i.e., cannabis) provides an extended shelf life and convenient storage while also preserving potency (page 1 – under “Why Freeze Marijuana Flowers?”).
Coban and/or EdiblesOnly and Gamut are directed towards cannabis products. In light of the teachings of Gamut, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was effectively filed to have frozen the cannabis of the method of Coban or EdiblesOnly prior to oil extraction with the expectation of providing extended shelf life, convenient storage, and preserved potency of the cannabis prior to extraction. The freezing of the cannabis prior to extraction would have corresponded to the claimed freezing the cannabis to yield a frozen cannabis before step (a).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EdiblesOnly as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Koumans
Regarding claim 25, as is noted above, EdiblesOnly teaches a method producing a cannabis extract using an edible oil which meets the limitations of claim 19. EdiblesOnly is silent regarding heating the oil prior to the combining of the cannabis to the oil/lecithin.
Koumans discloses a method of making extract from cannabis by extracting the oil-soluble component of cannabis in an edible oil [abstract, 0024-0029, 0044]. In the method of Koumans, an edible oil is first heated to a temperature of from 10 to 80 ˚C and subsequently cannabis plant material is added to the heated oil [abstract, 0024-0029]. The cannabis plant material is then steeped in the edible oil [0047]. Importantly, Koumans that the heating of the oil prior to the addition of the cannabis material promotes extraction of the oil-soluble components [0039].
EdiblesOnly and Koumans are both directed towards method of making cannabis extract using an edible oil. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was effectively filed to have modified the method of EdiblesOnly by heating the coconut oil to a temperature of from 10 to 80 ˚C (i.e., from 50 to 176 ˚F) prior to combining with cannabis as taught by Koumans in order to promote extraction of oil-soluble components. The heating of the coconut oil to a temperature of from 50 to 176 ˚C prior to the addition of cannabis would have rendered obvious the claimed method step.
Duty to Disclose
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior art or concurrent proceeding in which U.S. Patent No. 11,311,589 is or was involved. The proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examination, and litigations. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligations under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01, and 1442.04.
Conclusion
Claims 19-39 and 57-59 are rejected. Claims 40-56, 60, and 61 are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEE E SANDERSON whose telephone number is (571) 270-1079. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30AM to 7:00PM.
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, Patricia Engle can be reached at 571-272-6600. 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.
/LEE E SANDERSON/ Patent Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3991
Conferees:
/Kevin S Orwig/ Patent Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3991
/Patricia L Engle/ SPRS, Art Unit 3991