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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection is acknowledged and entered. Claims 1, 3-9, 11-14, 16-18, and 20 are pending and being examined on their merits. Claims 2, 10, 15 and 19 were previously canceled. No claims were amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/29/26 was filed after the mailing date of the last Office action on 4/24/26. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et al. [A high protein, high fiber diet designed for weight loss improves satiety in dogs, 2007], hereinafter Weber, in view of Hayek et al. [US 20030072786 A1], hereinafter Hayek, Dierking [US 20090054301 A1], and Danset et al. [US 20170332669 A1], hereinafter Danset, and further in view of DuBourdieu et al. [US 20160374940 A1], hereinafter DuBourdieu and Olivry et al. [Validation of the Canine Atopic Dermatitis Extent and Severity Index (CADESI)-4, a simplified severity scale for assessing skin lesions of atopic dermatitis in dogs, 2014], hereinafter Olivry.
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Weber teaches a method for achieving weight management in an animal in need thereof, the method comprising:
feeding the animal with a high protein, high fiber (HPHF) diet palatable composition designed for weight loss [Title, Abstract], comprising:
at least about 25% by weight (Total dry composition= 100% - 8% moisture= 92%; 30 g/100 g protein / 92 g/100 g total composition dry basis= 0.326 x 100= 32.6% dry matter basis) of at least partially hydrolyzed proteins, and
at least about 10% by weight (Total dry composition= 100% - 8% moisture= 92%; 17.5 g/100 g crude fiber / 92 g/100 g total composition dry basis= 0.19 x 100= 19% dry matter basis) of crude fibers, [Weber, Table 1, HPHF composition, List of Ingredients].
Weber does not teach the palatable composition is a hypoallergenic palatable composition as required in claim 1.
Hayek teaches feeding a hypoallergenic palatable composition for animals, comprising hydrolyzed protein and fiber [Hayek, Abstract, 0009-0010, 0027-0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the claimed feeding an animal with a hypoallergenic palatable composition as taught by Hayek, into the method for achieving weight management in an animal in need thereof of Weber since both are directed to methods of using and/or making pet food compositions comprising hydrolyzed proteins and fiber and both are also interested in weight management, and further it would have been obvious to include the hypoallergenic palatable composition of Hayek because Hayek teach that the hypoallergenic composition of the invention is suitable for animals as a method of managing and/or diagnosing food allergies which are associated with weight loss (weight management), utilizing hydrolyzed protein as the sole protein source to reduce antigen production and allergic reactions along with a fiber source which provides acceptable stool formation [Hayek, Abstract, 0001-0002, 0009], which when combined with Weber’s invention would provide for hypoallergenic palatable food compositions suitable for weight management of animals that also suffer from food related allergies.
Modified Weber teaches the method for achieving weight management in an animal in need thereof, feeding the animal with a hypoallergenic palatable composition, but is silent regarding the at least partially hydrolysed proteins comprise at least about 95% of hydrolysed proteins, based on the total weight of proteins in the composition as required by claim 1, and wherein the at least partially hydrolysed proteins comprise 100% of hydrolysed proteins as required by claim 3.
Dierking teaches hypoallergenic palatable pet food compositions and methods for using such compositions [Dierking, 0022, 0032]. Dierking discloses that the hypoallergenic pet food compositions can include both “low allergen” and “ultra-low allergen” configurations. The latter can include hydrolysate as the source of at least about 95% of protein nutrition, at least about 99% of protein nutrition, or 100% of protein nutrition, where protein nutrition includes free amino acid(s). For example, a protein hydrolysate which lacks any full-length protein and comprises only oligopeptides (partially hydrolyzed) and free amino acids (100% or fully hydrolyzed) can be a source of protein nutrition [Dierking, 0042].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the claimed 95% of hydrolysed proteins, and 100% of hydrolysed proteins into the invention of modified Weber, in view of Dierking, since both are directed to methods of using and/or making pet food compositions comprising hydrolyzed proteins, and because modified Weber in view of Hayek already teach a high degree of protein hydrolysis (complete hydrolyzed proteins) is required to eliminate allergic reactions [Hayek, 0046]. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Weber with the teachings of Dierking, because Dierking teach that using the hypoallergenic palatable pet food compositions of the invention, when administered to a subject animal, evokes less allergic response (“low allergen” or partially hydrolyzed 95%), and/or no allergic response is detected (“ultra-low allergen” or fully hydrolyzed 100%) following administration of a hypoallergenic formulation [Dierking, 0039, 0042].
Modified Weber teaches the method for achieving weight management in an animal in need thereof, feeding the animal with a hypoallergenic palatable composition, but is silent regarding wherein the animal is affected with cutaneous adverse food reaction (CAFR), and wherein the method ameliorates skin conditions associated with the animal having CAFR.
While modified Weber does not explicitly recite the animal is affected with cutaneous adverse food reaction (CAFR), and wherein the method ameliorates skin conditions associated with the animal having CAFR, given that the method of achieving weight management in an animal using food compositions that are high in hydrolyzed protein and fiber based on the disclosure in Weber combined with the teachings in Hayek of feeding a hypoallergenic palatable composition for animals, comprising hydrolyzed protein and fiber for treating food related allergies in animals, where both Weber and Hayek disclose a food composition that is substantially similar to that in instant claims, it is the examiner's position that the method and composition for managing weight and food allergies made by the process of Weber in view of Hayek would have taught and suggested the instantly claimed method for achieving weight management in an animal in need thereof, the method comprising: feeding an animal with a hypoallergenic palatable composition wherein the animal is affected with cutaneous adverse food reaction (CAFR), and wherein the method ameliorates skin conditions associated with the animal having CAFR. Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
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, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Moreover, it is known in the art to use hypoallergenic food compositions comprising hydrolyzed proteins for weight management and treating cutaneous adverse food reaction (CAFR) in animals as taught by Danset below.
Danset teaches feeding an animal with a pet food product for use in animal health [Danset, 0001]. The food of Danset’s invention is not only suitable for use in a method for achieving weight management in an animal [Danset, 0021, 0030] but also suitable for animals affected with cutaneous adverse food reaction (CAFR), ameliorating skin conditions associated with the animal having CAFR by feeding the animal a food composition comprising protein, in which the proteins are hydrolyzed proteins [Danset, 0020, 0041, 0037-0040], and fiber [Danset, 0045, 0047].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the methods and compositions of modified Weber in view of Hayek, Dierking and Danset for feeding an animal affected with cutaneous adverse food reaction (CAFR), and wherein the method ameliorates skin conditions associated with the animal having CAFR, since all are directed to methods of using and/or making pet food compositions specifically targeting the health of animals (Weber already express interest in weight management and Hayek already express interest in food allergies management, both using food compositions with hydrolyzed protein and fiber), and because Danset is interested in both weight management [Danset, 0021, 0030] and cutaneous adverse food reaction (CAFR) management [Danset, 0020, 0041, 0037-0040]. Further, Danset also recognize the use of hydrolyzed protein for foods suitable for ameliorating CAFR [Danset, 0040], and further teaches that that a high enough level of hydrolysis is necessary in order to avoid CAFR [Danset, 0041].
Modified Weber teaches the method for achieving weight management in an animal in need thereof, the method comprising feeding the animal with a hypoallergenic palatable composition, but is silent regarding wherein the animal having an initial Canine Atopic Dermatitis Extent and Severity Index (CADESI-4) score, and wherein the method ameliorates skin conditions as defined by a decrease of the initial CADESI-4 score after 15 days of being fed the hypoallergenic palatable composition.
DuBourdieu teaches a food composition for treating atopic dermatitis in animals [DuBourdieu, Abstract], wherein the affected animal (adverse skin/cutaneous condition such as atopic dermatitis and pruritus) has an initial CADESI score (score of 5 before treatment), and wherein the method ameliorates skin conditions as defined by a decrease of the initial CADESI score (score of 2 after treatment) after 15 days (8 weeks) of being fed the composition [DuBourdieu, 0080].
In regards to the CADESI score being specifically CADESI-4 score;
Olivry teaches that CADESI-4 is the simplest and quickest method to use in animals with skin/cutaneous lesions, and also have satisfactory validity, reliability and sensitivity to change [Olivry, p.1, Results, Conclusion].
Moreover, in regards to the recitation of “wherein”, the scope of the claim is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a "wherein" clause limited a process claim where the clause gave "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to treat an animal having an initial Canine Atopic Dermatitis Extent and Severity Index (CADESI) score, and wherein the method ameliorates skin conditions as defined by a decrease of the initial CADESI score after 15 days of being fed as taught by DuBourdieu, wherein the CADESI score is a CADESI-4 score as taught by Olivry, in the method of modified Weber after feeding the animal with the hypoallergenic palatable composition, because all are directed to methods of treating/managing weight, allergies and skin/cutaneous adverse conditions in animals (specifically targeting the health of animals), and further because DuBourdieu teaches that after treatment with the invention there was visible growth in hair at lesion site and reduction in scabbed and lichenified skin, thus providing for a decrease of the initial CADESI score of 5 to a CADESI score of 2, after 15 days of being fed the composition (hypoallergenic palatable composition of Weber in view of Hayek, Dierking, Danset and DuBourdieu), showing skin health improvement when using the invention [DuBourdieu, 0080]. Lastly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the CADESI-4 score as taught by Olivry, because Olivry teaches that CADESI-4 is the simplest and quickest method to use in animals with skin/cutaneous lesions, and also have satisfactory validity, reliability and sensitivity to change, which is why the International Committee on Allergic Diseases of Animals (ICADA) recommends the CADESI-4 over other CADESI to score skin lesions of atopic dermatitis in animals enrolled in clinical trials [Olivry, p.1, Results, Conclusion].
Regarding claim 4, modified Weber teach the methods and concepts discussed above in claim 1, but is silent regarding the at least partially hydrolysed proteins having a molecular weight ranging from about 1,000 Da to about 11,000 Da.
Hayek teach feeding the hypoallergenic palatable composition to animals, the composition comprising hydrolyzed protein and fiber [Hayek, Abstract, 0009-0010, 0027-0028], wherein the at least partially hydrolysed proteins have a molecular weight of 1.5 kDa (1,500 Da) [Hayek, 0010].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the claimed hydrolysed proteins having a molecular weight ranging from about 1,000 Da to about 11,000 Da as taught by Hayek, into the method for achieving weight management in an animal in need thereof of Weber, because Hayek teach using proteins with high level (at least 99% [Hayek, 0010]) of hydrolysis (complete hydrolysis) [Hayek, 0046] as the sole protein source [Hayek, 0001, 0009], which are characterized by having lower molecular weight [Hayek, 0010], since high molecular weight proteins suggests low level of hydrolysis which are known to be responsible for food allergies [Hayek, 0003].
Regarding claims 5-6, modified Weber teach the methods and concepts discussed above in claim 1, but is silent regarding the hydrolysed proteins comprise proteins from a vegetal origin, wherein the vegetal origin comprises corn, wheat, pea, soy and/or rice origin.
Danset teach the animal food and methods of use said animal food for achieving weight management [Danset, 0021, 0030] and with cutaneous adverse food reaction (CAFR) [Danset, 0020, 0041, 0037-0040], discussed above in claim 1, wherein the proteins may be from a vegetal origin, wherein the vegetal origin comprises corn, wheat, pea, soy and/or rice origin [Danset, 0047].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the claimed proteins from a vegetal origin, wherein the vegetal origin comprises corn, wheat, pea, soy and/or rice as taught by Danset, into the method of Weber, because Danset teach that using proteins from plant sources would provide the option of producing an animal derived meat free animal food product that still provides a protein source by using meat substitutes [Danset, 0047].
Regarding claim 7, modified Weber teach the composition further comprises, on a dry matter basis, about 15% or less by weight of fat (10.9% by weight of dry matter of fat), based on the total weight of dry matter of the composition [Weber, Table 1, HPHF composition].
Regarding claim 11, modified Weber teach wherein the composition comprises from about 14% to about 18% (17.5%) of crude fibers [Weber, Table 1, HPHF composition].
Claim(s) 8-9, 12-13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber in view of Hayek, Dierking, Danset, DuBourdieu, and Olivry as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Flanagan et al. [Success of a weight loss plan for overweight dogs…, 2017], hereinafter Flanagan.
Regarding claims 8, and 12, modified Weber teaches the method for achieving weight management in an animal in need thereof, wherein the animal affected with cutaneous adverse food reaction (CAFR), and wherein the method ameliorates skin conditions associated with the animal having CAFR as discussed in claim 1 rejection, but is silent regarding the composition further comprising, on a dry matter basis, about 30% or less by weight of starch, based on the total weight of dry matter of the composition as required by claim 8, and wherein the composition further comprises from about 4% to about 13% of crude fat as required by claim 12.
Flanagan teaches a method for achieving weight management in an animal [Flanagan, p.1, Intro], using food compositions [Flanagan, p.1, Methods]. The disclosure teach a food composition comprising on a dry matter basis, about 30% or less by weight of starch, based on the total weight of dry matter of the composition. See page 5, Table 2, Dry food 1, having a total content of 100g for dry food, excluding the 9.5g of moisture would have 90.5g dry matter, comprising 17.5g of starch; 17.5g starch/90.5g dry matter = 0.19 x (100) = about 19% of starch dry matter basis [Flanagan, p.5, Table 2, Dry Food 1], wherein the composition further comprises from about 4% to about 13% (9.5%) of crude fat [Flanagan, p.5, Table 2, Dry Food 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the claimed about 30% or less by weight of starch and from about 4% to about 13% of crude fat as taught by Flanagan, into the invention of modified Weber, since both are directed to methods of using pet food compositions for achieving weight management in a pet animal, and because Flanagan teach that this would provide methods for using dry or wet or a mixture of dry and wet food compositions depending upon consumer preference, comprising high amounts of protein and fiber with lower amount of starch in diets that are designed to be complete and balanced for all essential nutrients even when fed at an energy intake that would invoke weight loss, wherein said formulations may vary in ingredients [Flanagan, p.4, Weight loss diets].
Regarding claim 9, modified Weber teaches the methods and concepts discussed in claim 1 rejection, and further teach wherein the Metabolizable Energy (ME) of the composition is about 3,200 kcal/kg or less (2,900 kcal/kg) [Weber, Table 1, HPHF composition], but is silent regarding the Metabolizable Energy (ME) of the composition being measured according to the modified Atwater factorial equation of the National Research Council 2006.
Flanagan teaches the food composition comprise 9.5% crude fat (CF), 30% crude protein (CP), and 28.8% NFE [Flanagan, p.5, Table 2, Dry Food 1]. And based on the modified Atwater factorial equation of the National Research Council 2006 provided by Applicant on page 23, lines 1-3 of the instant Specification:
ME (kcal/kg)=10 x [(3.5 x CP)+(8.5 x CF)+(3.5 x NFE)];
CP=Crude Protein; CF=Crude Fiber; NFE=Nitrogen Free Extract
ME (kcal/kg)=10 x [(3.5 x 30)+(8.5 x 9.5)+(3.5 x 28.8)];
ME (kcal/kg)=10 x [(105)+(80.7)+(100.8)];
ME (kcal/kg)=10 x [(286.5)];
ME (kcal/kg)=2,865 kcal/kg
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the claimed Metabolizable Energy (ME) of the composition being measured according to the modified Atwater factorial equation of the National Research Council 2006 into the invention of modified Weber, since both disclose Metabolizable Energy (ME) that are about 3,200 kcal/kg or less (2,900 kcal/kg) [Weber, Table 1, HPHF composition], and (2,595 kcal/kg) [Flanagan, p.5, Table 2, Dry Food 1] which are values that already satisfy the claim, but simply did not used the modified Atwater factorial equation of the National Research Council 2006 to calculate said (ME), and because Flanagan CP, CF and NFE values in the composition already provide for the Metabolizable Energy (ME) claimed.
Regarding claims 13, 16 and 20, Weber teaches a method for achieving weight management in an animal in need thereof, the method comprising:
feeding the animal with a high protein, high fiber (HPHF) diet palatable composition designed for weight loss [Title, Abstract], comprising:
from about 25% (32.6% dry matter basis; see calculation of % dry matter basis above in claim 1) of at least partially hydrolyzed proteins;
from about 17.4% to about 23% (19% dry matter basis; see calculation of % dry matter basis above in claim 1) of crude fibers; and
from about 4% to about 12% (8%) moisture [Weber, Table 1, HPHF composition, List of Ingredients].
Weber teaches the method for achieving weight management in an animal using the food composition discussed above, but is silent regarding the composition being a hypoallergenic palatable composition required in claim 13.
Hayek teaches feeding a hypoallergenic palatable composition for animals, comprising hydrolyzed protein and fiber [Hayek, Abstract, 0009-0010, 0027-0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the claimed feeding an animal with a hypoallergenic palatable composition as taught by Hayek, into the method for achieving weight management in an animal in need thereof of Weber since both are directed to methods of using and/or making pet food compositions comprising hydrolyzed proteins and fiber and both are also interested in weight management, and further it would have been obvious to include the hypoallergenic palatable composition of Hayek because Hayek teach that the hypoallergenic composition of the invention is suitable for animals as a method of managing and/or diagnosing food allergies which are associated with weight loss (weight management), utilizing hydrolyzed protein as the sole protein source to reduce antigen production and allergic reactions along with a fiber source which provides acceptable stool formation [Hayek, Abstract, 0001-0002, 0009], which when combined with Weber’s invention would provide for hypoallergenic palatable food compositions suitable for weight management of animals that also suffer from food related allergies.
Modified Weber teaches the method for achieving weight management in an animal in need thereof, as discussed in claim 13 rejection, but is silent regarding the hydrolysed proteins comprising at least about 95% of hydrolysed proteins as required by claim 13, and 100% of hydrolysed proteins as required by claim 16, based on the total weight of proteins in the composition.
Dierking teaches hypoallergenic palatable pet food compositions and methods for using such compositions [Dierking, 0022, 0032]. Dierking discloses that the hypoallergenic pet food compositions can include both “low allergen” and “ultra-low allergen” configurations. The latter can include hydrolysate as the source of at least about 95% of protein nutrition, at least about 99% of protein nutrition, or 100% of protein nutrition, where protein nutrition includes free amino acid(s). For example, a protein hydrolysate which lacks any full-length protein and comprises only oligopeptides (partially hydrolyzed) and free amino acids (100% or fully hydrolyzed) can be a source of protein nutrition [Dierking, 0042].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the claimed 95% of hydrolysed proteins, and 100% of hydrolysed proteins into the invention of modified Weber, in view of Dierking, since both are directed to methods of using and/or making pet food compositions comprising hydrolyzed proteins, since modified Weber in view of Hayek already teach a high degree of protein hydrolysis (complete hydrolyzed proteins) is required to eliminate allergic reactions [Hayek, 0046]. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Weber with the teachings of Dierking, because Dierking teach that using the hypoallergenic palatable pet food compositions of the invention, when administered to a subject animal, evokes less allergic response (“low allergen” or partially hydrolyzed 95%), and/or no allergic response is detected (“ultra-low allergen” or fully hydrolyzed 100%) following administration of a hypoallergenic formulation [Dierking, 0039, 0042].
Modified Weber teaches the method for achieving weight management in an animal in need thereof, feeding the animal with the hypoallergenic palatable composition discussed above, but is silent regarding wherein the animal is affected with cutaneous adverse food reaction (CAFR), and wherein the method ameliorates skin conditions associated with the animal having CAFR.
While modified Weber does not explicitly recite the animal is affected with cutaneous adverse food reaction (CAFR), and wherein the method ameliorates skin conditions associated with the animal having CAFR, given that the method of achieving weight management in an animal using food compositions that are high in hydrolyzed protein and fiber based on the disclosure in Weber combined with the teachings in Hayek of feeding a hypoallergenic palatable composition for animals, comprising hydrolyzed protein and fiber for treating food related allergies in animals, where both Weber and Hayek disclose a food composition that is substantially similar to that in instant claims, it is the examiner's position that the method and composition for managing weight and food allergies made by the process of Weber in view of Hayek would inherently have the instantly claimed method for achieving weight management in an animal in need thereof, the method comprising: feeding an animal with a hypoallergenic palatable composition wherein the animal is affected with cutaneous adverse food reaction (CAFR), and wherein the method ameliorates skin conditions associated with the animal having CAFR. Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
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, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Moreover, it is known in the art to use hypoallergenic food compositions comprising hydrolyzed proteins for weight management and treating cutaneous adverse food reaction (CAFR) in animals as taught by Danset below.
Danset teaches feeding an animal with a pet food product for use in animal health [Danset, 0001]. The food of Danset’s invention is not only suitable for use in a method for achieving weight management in an animal [Danset, 0021, 0030] but also for animals affected with cutaneous adverse food reaction (CAFR), ameliorating skin conditions associated with the animal having CAFR [Danset, 0020, 0041, 0037-0040].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the methods and compositions of modified Weber in view of Hayek, Dierking and Danset for feeding an animal affected with cutaneous adverse food reaction (CAFR), and wherein the method ameliorates skin conditions associated with the animal having CAFR, since all are directed to methods of using and/or making pet food compositions specifically targeting the health of animals (Weber already express interest in weight management and Hayek already express interest in food allergies management, both using food compositions with hydrolyzed protein and fiber), and because Danset is interested in both weight management [Danset, 0021, 0030] and cutaneous adverse food reaction (CAFR) management [Danset, 0020, 0041, 0037-0040]. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Weber with the teachings of Danset because Danset also recognize the use of hydrolyzed protein for foods suitable for ameliorating CAFR [Danset, 0040], and further teaches that that a high enough level of hydrolysis is necessary in order to avoid CAFR [Danset, 0041].
Modified Weber does not teach, a food composition comprising from about 4% to about 13% of crude fat required by claim 13, or from about 8% to about 12% of crude fat required by claim 20.
Flanagan teaches a method for treating obese pet dogs [Flanagan, p.1, Intro]. The disclosure teach a dry food composition comprising from about 4% to about 13% and from about 8% to about 12% of crude fat (9.5% crude fat) [Flanagan, p.5, Table 2, Dry Food 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the claimed about 4 to about 13% and about 8% to about 12% of crude fat as taught by Flanagan, into the invention of Weber, since both are directed to methods of using pet food compositions for achieving weight management in a pet animal. Doing so would provide methods for using palatable pet food compositions in diets that are designed to be complete and balanced for all essential nutrients even when fed at an energy intake that would invoke weight loss [Flanagan, p.4, Weight loss diets].
Modified Weber teaches the method for achieving weight management in an animal in need thereof, the method comprising feeding the animal with a hypoallergenic palatable composition, but is silent regarding the animal having an initial Canine Atopic Dermatitis Extent and Severity Index (CADESI-4) score, and wherein the method ameliorates skin conditions as defined by a decrease of the initial CADESI-4 score after 15 days of being fed the hypoallergenic palatable composition.
DuBourdieu teaches a food composition for treating atopic dermatitis in animals [DuBourdieu, Abstract], wherein the affected animal (adverse skin/cutaneous condition such as atopic dermatitis and pruritus) has an initial CADESI score (score of 5 before treatment), and wherein the method ameliorates skin conditions as defined by a decrease of the initial CADESI score (score of 2 after treatment) after 15 days (8 weeks) of being fed the composition [DuBourdieu, 0080].
In regards to the CADESI score being specifically CADESI-4 score;
Olivry teaches that CADESI-4 is the simplest and quickest method to use in animals with skin/cutaneous lesions, and also have satisfactory validity, reliability and sensitivity to change [Olivry, p.1, Results, Conclusion].
Moreover, in regards to the recitation of “wherein”, the scope of the claim is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a "wherein" clause limited a process claim where the clause gave "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to treat an animal having an initial Canine Atopic Dermatitis Extent and Severity Index (CADESI) score, and wherein the method ameliorates skin conditions as defined by a decrease of the initial CADESI score after 15 days of being fed as taught by DuBourdieu, wherein the CADESI score is a CADESI-4 score as taught by Olivry, in the method of modified Weber after feeding the animal with the hypoallergenic palatable composition, because all are directed to methods of treating/managing weight, allergies and skin/cutaneous adverse conditions in animals (specifically targeting the health of animals), and further because DuBourdieu teaches that after treatment with the invention there was visible growth in hair at lesion site and reduction in scabbed and lichenified skin, thus providing for a decrease of the initial CADESI score of 5 to a CADESI score of 2, after 15 days of being fed the composition (hypoallergenic palatable composition or modified Weber), showing skin health improvement when using the invention [DuBourdieu, 0080]. Lastly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the CADESI-4 score as taught by Olivry, because Olivry teaches that CADESI-4 is the simplest and quickest method to use in animals with skin/cutaneous lesions, and also have satisfactory validity, reliability and sensitivity to change, which is why the International Committee on Allergic Diseases of Animals (ICADA) recommends the CADESI-4 over other CADESI to score skin lesions of atopic dermatitis in animals enrolled in clinical trials [Olivry, p.1, Results, Conclusion].
Regarding claim 14, modified Weber teaches the methods and concepts discussed above in claim 13, but is silent regarding the at least partially hydrolysed proteins having a molecular weight ranging from about 1,000 Da to about 11,000 Da.
Hayek teaches feeding the hypoallergenic palatable composition to animals, the composition comprising hydrolyzed protein and fiber [Hayek, Abstract, 0009-0010, 0027-0028], wherein the at least partially hydrolysed proteins have a molecular weight of 1.5 kDa (1,500 Da) [Hayek, 0010].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the claimed hydrolysed proteins having a molecular weight ranging from about 1,000 Da to about 11,000 Da as taught by Hayek, into the method for achieving weight management in an animal in need thereof of Weber, because Hayek teach using proteins with high level (at least 99% [Hayek, 0010]) of hydrolysis (complete hydrolysis) [Hayek, 0046] as the sole protein source [Hayek, 0001, 0009], which are characterized by having lower molecular weight [Hayek, 0010], since high molecular weight proteins suggests low level of hydrolysis which are known to be responsible for food allergies [Hayek, 0003].
Regarding claims 17-18, modified Weber teaches the methods and concepts discussed above in claim 13, but is silent regarding the hydrolysed proteins comprise proteins from a vegetal origin, wherein the vegetal origin comprises corn, wheat, pea, soy and/or rice origin.
Danset teaches the animal food and methods of use said animal food for achieving weight management [Danset, 0021, 0030] and with cutaneous adverse food reaction (CAFR) [Danset, 0020, 0041, 0037-0040], discussed above in claim 13, wherein the proteins may be from a vegetal origin, wherein the vegetal origin comprises corn, wheat, pea, soy and/or rice origin [Danset, 0047].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the claimed proteins from a vegetal origin, wherein the vegetal origin comprises corn, wheat, pea, soy and/or rice as taught by Danset, into the method of Weber, because Danset teach that using proteins from plant sources would provide the option of producing an animal derived meat free animal food product that still provides a protein source by using meat substitutes [Danset, 0047].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 6, first paragraph, Applicant arguments are directed to the rejections of claims 1, 3-7, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103, and further urges that Weber is completely silent regarding any hypoallergenic palatable compositions and simply discloses a composition comprising high protein and high fiber for the purpose of increasing the satiety of the pet food composition for improving weight loss. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Hayek is relied upon for teaching of a hypoallergenic palatable composition for animals, comprising hydrolyzed protein and fiber. Therefore, because Weber is also directed to animal feed compositions using the same raw materials as Hayek (hydrolyzed proteins and fiber), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the use of these same materials for the purpose of weight management and skin related allergies particularly for animals in need of both weight control and allergy control treatments.
On page 6, paragraphs 3-4, and page 7, paragraph 1, Applicant urges that Hayek's disclosure regarding "weight management" contradicts the core teachings of Weber, and as such, a skilled artisan would not be motivated to combine them because Hayek states, "[flood allergies often result in dermal and gastrointestinal disease in dogs, which can develop food hypersensitivities from the age of 2 months to over 12 years. Other symptoms associated with food allergies in dogs include chronic diarrhea, malabsorption of nutrients, weight loss, abdominal pain, and lethargy." See Hayek at[0002] (emphasis added). As such, weight loss according to Hayek's disclosure is a detrimental effect of allergies. Hayek is teaching that the disclosed hypoallergenic food composition would be useful for preventing symptoms such as weight loss, therefore, Hayek teaches away from including a hypoallergenic composition for weight loss, and a skilled artisan would not be motivated to use Hayek's hypoallergenic composition and modify Weber's composition that is intended to promote weight loss. This argument is not persuasive because the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that animal weight loss managed by a feed that is designed to help for weight management, as well as a feed that is also hypoallergenic would be different from animal weight loss caused by allergies. That is, an animal that loses weight while being fed with a composition that meets the animal nutritional requirements (healthy weight loss) would be different from an animal that loses weight solely due to allergy reasons (unhealthy weight loss). This is also evidenced by Applicant’s Non-Patent Literature (NPL, Kellems, Livestock Feeds and Feeding, 2006) submitted on 5/29/26 (not relied upon for the rejection of record), which disclose that by providing a special formulated diet that has lower energy concentration but still provides the essential nutrients required for maintenance would prevent the animal to suffer from malnutrition [Kellems, 8.3 Obesity, p.5, par.4-5]. Furthermore, the evidence of Nelson (NPL, Nelson et al., Small animal internal medicine, 2012), also submitted by Applicant on 5/29/26 (not relied upon for the rejection of record), disclose that it is known in the art that high fiber animal feed is commonly used for weight loss [Nelson, p.4, par.5], and high protein diets can increase fat loss while maintaining or increasing lean body mass [Nelson, p.6, par.1, under Table 54-6]. Additionally, as previously disclosed by Kellems above, Nelson also disclose that while food reduction may provide for weight loss, this is not desired because this practice would predispose the animal to malnutrition and unhealthy weight loss [Nelson, p.4, par.4]. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that a skilled artisan would incorporate the teachings of Hayek of using an hypoallergenic palatable composition for helping an animal suffering from allergies to lose weight in a healthy manner, into the method of Weber which is also directed to weight management of animals, with reasonable expectation of success. Furthermore, Hayek explicitly teaches the reason to use a hypoallergenic palatable ingredients is to manage and/or diagnose food allergies [Hayek, Abstract], and while Hayek does teach that weight loss is one of various symptoms caused by food allergies, Hayek does not teach that all animals suffering from food allergies would necessarily suffer from weight loss, as there are many other adverse reactions that are caused by food allergies (i.e., chronic diarrhea, malabsorption of nutrients, abdominal pain, and lethargy [Hayek, 0002]) and some animals may or may not suffer from all or some of these adverse reactions depending of the type of allergen (type of protein), the type of animal, breed, size and/or the particular allergen sensitivity in the animal, due to factors such as genetical predisposition and/or their gut health (i.e., gut bacteria balance/imbalance) which varies from animal to animal.
On page 7, paragraphs 2-5, and page 8, paragraph 1, Applicant urges that Danset does not teach a method of ameliorating skin conditions associated with CAFR as defined by a decrease in a CADESI-4 score, and that Danset merely states that "flavours used in dry pet foods mostly consist of animal proteins, and although they are generally hydrolyzed, the level of hydrolysis may be not high enough, resulting in peptides which still are recognized by the immune system and may generate CAFR. Therefore, not using flavor on an extruded pet food such as that described in the present invention, would reduce the risk of CAFR." See Danset at [0041] (emphasis added). As such, Danset teaches that flavors that contain hydrolyzed proteins should be avoided altogether to reduce the risk of CAFR. This teaching is a preventative measure for avoiding CAFR, which is distinct from a method of ameliorating skin conditions associated with CAFR, which entails the animal already having CAFR. This argument is not persuasive because Danset implicitly teach the importance of the level of hydrolysis in proteins and states that proteins with high level of hydrolysis are necessary to avoid the immune system recognizing peptides that generate CAFR, and while Danset teach that not using flavors derived from animal proteins that are generally hydrolyzed to some degree on an extruded pet food would reduce the risk of CAFR, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that flavors derived from animal proteins that are totally hydrolyzed or to a high degree would also reduce the risk of CAFR. Moreover, the rejection is based on the combination of references where modified Weber in view of Hayek and Dierking already teach the method for achieving weight management in an animal in need thereof, feeding the animal with a hypoallergenic palatable composition, wherein hypoallergenic palatable pet food compositions and methods for using such compositions include “low allergen” and “ultra-low allergen” configurations, and wherein “ultra-low allergen” include hydrolysate as the source of at least about 95% of protein nutrition, at least about 99% of protein nutrition, or 100% of protein nutrition, where protein nutrition includes free amino acid(s). For example, a protein hydrolysate which lacks any full-length protein and comprises only oligopeptides (partially hydrolyzed) and free amino acids (100% or fully hydrolyzed) can be a source of protein nutrition [Dierking, 0022, 0032, 0042]. Therefore, as explained above, modified Weber in view of Hayek, Dierking and Danset teaches the method of ameliorating skin conditions associated with CAFR because the treatment of CAFR is primarily dietary and if a pet animal that has been fed a composition that triggered the CAFR is switched or fed with the hypoallergenic palatable food composition of modified Weber would eventually decrease the CAFR since the animal is not being exposed to the offending food ingredient(s) (complete unhydrolyzed or low-hydrolyzed proteins).
On page 8, paragraph 2, Applicant urges that Danset does not teach a method of feeding an animal a composition comprising hydrolysed proteins, does not disclose any compositions with hydrolysed proteins, only uses crude proteins, which are specifically not hydrolysed proteins (See Danset at [0045]), and that a skilled artisan would not use Danset's teachings to modify Weber with hydrolysed proteins because Danset explicitly teaches that such compositions (those with hydrolysed proteins) should be avoided. This argument is not persuasive because while Danset teaches that a typical pet food of the invention contains about 20-30% crude protein, modified Weber in view of Hayek and Dierking already teach feeding with completely hydrolyzed proteins to address food allergy related illnesses in animals. Additional Danset does not explicitly exclude the use of completely or highly hydrolyzed proteins, Danset merely states that proteins with a level of hydrolysis that is not high enough should be avoided as these will cause CAFR.
On page 8, paragraph 3, Applicant urges that while Danset teaches a method of weight loss in an animal, Danset, however, Danset achieves this by reducing the fat content in the disclosed compositions. Danset states, "consequently, fat restriction in weight loss diets reduces calorie density, which helps to reduce calorie intake." See Danset at[0034]. In contrast, Weber achieves weight loss by using a composition with high fiber, and high protein. These strategies for achieving weight loss are separate and distinct methods from each other. As such, a skilled artisan would not be motivated to combine such teachings to arrive at the claimed invention, especially when the claimed invention is not directed to a specific fat content at all. This argument is not persuasive because while Weber uses high-protein high-fiber feed compositions to achieve weight management, and Danset uses fat restriction to achieve weight management, these are both concepts well known in the art that are commonly used by themselves and/or in combination for the same purpose of weight management as evidenced by Applicant’s own NPL reference of Kellems (not relied upon for the rejection of record and only used as evidentiary art) which teaches that two known methods for achieving weight loss include: 1) reducing the amount of the pet regular diet fed (equivalent to restricting feed or certain ingredients in feed as taught in the method of Danset); and 2) provide a specially formulated diet that has a lower energy concentration (equivalent to lower fat as also taught in the method of Danset) but still provides the essential nutrients (high amounts of hydrolyzed protein and fiber) required for maintenance (as taught in the method of Weber) [Kellems, p.5, par.4, 8.3 Obesity]. Further, while Weber achieves weight loss by using a composition with high fiber, and high protein, Weber also already teaches that the high-protein, high-fiber (HPHF) pet food compositions are also considered having “low-fat” [Weber, p.6, left column, last paragraph], which in combination with being high in protein and fiber would increase the weight management effect in the animal being fed. Moreover, Danset is not relied upon for the specific composition of his invention, Danset is relied upon for teaching that the level of protein hydrolysis needs to be high (which is already taught by Dierking) in order to obtain compositions that are suitable for treating food allergies in animals, which in turn would make said compositions suitable for feeding animals affected with cutaneous adverse food reaction (CAFR).
On page 9, paragraphs 1-3, Applicant urges that DuBourdieu treats atopic dermatitis by administering active ingredients such as ceramides, lipoxygenase inhibitors, antihistamines, and omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids. See DuBourdieu at [0023] and that such active ingredients are critical for treating atopic dermatitis, specifically by providing ceramides in combination with another active ingredient, such as those listed above, through oral administration which is critical for achieving a synergistic beneficial therapeutic effect on the animal. See DuBourdieu at [0034]. Therefore, it is clear that DuBourdieu requires such active ingredients to treat atopic dermatitis and a skilled artisan would not be motivated to remove such critical elements from DuBourdieu when modifying Weber or any other combination of the prior art relied upon, because a skilled artisan would know that ceramide in combination with another active ingredient (e.g., lipoxygenase inhibitors, antihistamines, and omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids) is required to treat atopic dermatitis. This argument is not persuasive because while DuBourdieu treats atopic dermatitis by administering active ingredients such as ceramides, lipoxygenase inhibitors, antihistamines, and omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids, nonetheless DuBourdieu treats atopic dermatitis and the instant claims does not preclude the use of these active ingredients such as ceramides, lipoxygenase inhibitors, antihistamines, and omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids in an animal feed composition for a method of feeding an animal with a pet food product for use in animal health or well-being. In fact, the Examiner notes that Weber teaches the pet food composition used in the method of for achieving weight management in an animal in need thereof includes animal fats, fish oil, and soya oil (soybean oil) [Weber, p.3, list of ingredients], and dietary fats such as fish oil supplements rich in n-3 fatty acid (omega-3) offer effective treatment for dogs with skin conditions such as atopic dermatitis as evidenced by Kirby (not relied upon for the rejection of record, only used as evidence) [Kirby, p.2, left column, Effects of n-3 fatty acids; right column, Dietary supplementation of n-3 fatty acids for skin disorders], and inclusion of both n-6 and n-3 fatty acids (omega 3 and 6) have beneficial effect on skin health of dogs due to direct enrichment of Essential Fatty Acids (EFA) and possible sparing effect of alpha-Linoleic Acid (ALA) on Linoleic Acid (LA) in skin ceramide fractions [Kirby, p.3, right column, Clinical Summary, First paragraph]. Moreover, the reference of Veterian Key (not relied upon for the rejection of record, only used as evidence) disclose that protein is important for the maintenance and development of skin and coat health [Veterian Key, p.1, par.2, Protein and Skin Health], and Essential Fatty Acids (EFA) supplementation and dietary manipulation of EFA metabolism have efficacy in the treatment of skin disorders in animals, where substances of interest include omega-3 (or n-3) fatty acids present in fish oil (taught by Weber) and flax oil (flaxseed oil), and omega-6 (or n-6) fatty acids present in corn, safflower, sunflower, soy and canola oils [Veterian Key, p.4, par.4-5, Essential Fatty Acids and Skin Disease, Therapeutic Role of omega-6 and omega-3 Fatty Acids], which are all substances present in DuBourdieu’s animal food composition, fish, flax (flaxseed) [DuBourdieu, 0051], corn, soy (soybean), and canola oil [DuBourdieu, 0055, 0067], as well as in Hayek (fish and flax (flaxseed) oils [Hayek, 0023]), and in Dierking (soy (soybean), safflower, sunflower, and canola oils [Dierking, 0047]) food compositions. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that the fish oil containing food composition of Weber, and the flax oil (flaxseed oil), corn, safflower, sunflower, soy and canola oils containing food composition of modified Weber in view of Hayek, Dierking, Danset, DuBourdieu and Olivry would provide for a method of achieving weight management in an animal in need thereof, wherein the animal is affected with cutaneous adverse food reaction (CAFR) and has an initial Canine Atopic Dermatitis Extent and Severity Index (CADESI-4) score, and wherein the method ameliorates skin conditions associated with the animal having CAFR as defined by a decrease of the initial CADESI-4 score after 15 days of being fed the hypoallergenic palatable composition.
On page 9, last paragraph, and pages 10-11, Applicant similarly argues the rejection of claims 8-9, 12-13, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103, over the same references of Weber in view of Hayek, Dierking, Danset, DuBourdieu and Olivry, and further urges that Flanagan merely discloses studies to determine the efficacy of a dietary weight loss intervention in obese pet dogs. See Flanagan, at Introduction. Flanagan fails to cure the deficiencies of the prior art relied upon. Namely, Flanagan fails to provide a method of weight management that is also capable of ameliorating skin conditions associated with an animal having CAFR. This argument is not persuasive for the same reasons explained above in regards to the same limitations shared with rejected claims 1, 3-7, and 11, and further because the rejection is based on the combination of Weber in view of Hayek, Dierking, Danset, DuBourdieu, and Olivry as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Flanagan, wherein Flanagan is only relied upon for the teaching of a method for achieving weight management in an animal, feeding said animal with a composition comprising on a dry matter basis, about 30% or less by weight of starch, based on the total weight of dry matter of the composition. See page 5, Table 2, Dry food 1, having a total content of 100g for dry food, excluding the 9.5g of moisture would have 90.5g dry matter, comprising 17.5g of starch; 17.5g starch/90.5g dry matter = 0.19 x (100) = about 19% of starch dry matter basis [Flanagan, p.5, Table 2, Dry Food 1], wherein the composition further comprises from about 4% to about 13% (9.5%) of crude fat [Flanagan, p.5, Table 2, Dry Food 1], (reading on the instantly claimed limitations of a composition further comprising, on a dry matter basis, about 30% or less by weight of starch, based on the total weight of dry matter of the composition as required by claim 8, and wherein the composition further comprises from about 4% to about 13% of crude fat, as required by claim 12), and further teaches the food composition comprise 9.5% crude fat (CF), 30% crude protein (CP), and 28.8% NFE [Flanagan, p.5, Table 2, Dry Food 1]. And based on the modified Atwater factorial equation of the National Research Council 2006 provided by Applicant on page 23, lines 1-3 of the instant Specification: Flanagan teaches a composition with a Metabolizable Energy (ME) of 2,865 kcal/kg, (reading on the instantly claimed limitation of a composition further comprising a Metabolizable Energy (ME) of the composition being measured according to the modified Atwater factorial equation of the National Research Council 2006), which one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized, because all are directed to methods of using pet food compositions for achieving weight management in a pet animal, and because Flanagan teach that this would provide methods for using dry or wet or a mixture of dry and wet food compositions depending upon consumer preference, comprising high amounts of protein and fiber with lower amount of starch in diets that are designed to be complete and balanced for all essential nutrients even when fed at an energy intake that would invoke weight loss, wherein said formulations may vary in ingredients [Flanagan, p.4, Weight loss diets]. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Flanagan into the method of Weber, because both disclose Metabolizable Energy (ME) that are about 3,200 kcal/kg or less (2,900 kcal/kg) [Weber, Table 1, HPHF composition], and (2,595 kcal/kg) [Flanagan, p.5, Table 2, Dry Food 1] which are values that already satisfy the claim, but Weber simply did not use the modified Atwater factorial equation of the National Research Council 2006 to calculate said (ME), and because Flanagan CP, CF and NFE values in the composition already provide for the Metabolizable Energy (ME) claimed.
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 LUIS EUGENIO DIOU BERDECIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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.
/LUIS EUGENIO DIOU BERDECIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights