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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
NOTE: Application Data Sheet (ADS) dated 8/1/24 is missing the Foreign Priority Information on page 3 of the ADS.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The name “nuesilin” should read “Neusilin”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The use of the term “Neusilin®”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 5, line 4 of par.2, “nuesilin” should read “Neusilin®”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The name “nuesilin” should read “Neusilin”.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 2, step (xv), line 2, “95±3°c” should read “95±3°C”.
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 1-7 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.
Claim 1, line 13, recites “Wherein the component (1.j flavouring agent)”, however, the flavoring agent is designated as element k. in claim 1, line 12. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear if element j. Di Basic Calcium Phosphate Anhydrous is being claimed as a flavoring agent, or if the claim intended to recite “Wherein the component (1.k flavouring agent)”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "Above step wet slurry…" in steps (xiv, xv). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (i.e., a prior step reciting “forming a wet slurry”).
Claim 2 recites the limitation "slit the film…" in step (xvi). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (i.e., a prior step reciting “forming a film”).
Claim 2, step (xv), recites “Coating of above wet slurry at process parameters of Coating Thickness 900-1150µ,…”. It is unclear what “coating a slurry” is being referred to. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear if whether the claim refers to coating a slurry or viscous solution with another substance (i.e., suspended or adhered to the surface of slurry or liquid) or if the claim refers to a process of coating, by spreading or pouring the slurry into a sheet (flat) mold, plate, tray (i.e., coating said sheet (flat) mold, plate, or tray and forming a sheet, film or strip from the slurry as it cools and/or dry (hardens or gelatinize).
Claim 2, step (xvi), recites “wherein the said ingredients are processed in heat….)”. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear if the claimed “processed” in relation to the ingredients is referring to a heating during the adding, and stirring with their respective RPMs and amount of time (minutes), the vacuum degassing, the coating thickness and drying in steps (i-xv), or if it refers to only a heating processing of the final slurry/mixture of ingredients in step (xvi), or a different additional processing including an additional or secondary vacuum degassing of the wet slurry.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "coating of the said wet slurry" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "coating of the said wet slurry" in lines 2-3. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear as to what wet slurry is being referred to since claim 1 does not positively recites any liquid, water, aqueous solution, etc.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "wherein the said coating process parameters are…" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "wherein the said coating process parameters are…" in line 2. The claim is indefinite because claim 1 does not positively recites any coating process parameters.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "wherein after post drying…" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "wherein after post drying…". The claim is indefinite because claim 1 does not positively recites any drying step.
Claims 6-7 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a base rejected claim.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman et al. [US20080274252A1], hereinafter Hoffman, Reh et al. [WO2018015360A1], hereinafter Reh, and Tilseth et al. [US20100227792A1], hereinafter Tilseth, evidenced by Millipore Sigma [Polyethylene Glycol (PEGs and PEOs), 2021], hereinafter Millipore, Innophos [Dicalcium Phosphate, Anhydrous, 2009], and coffeeAM [The science of water and coffee, 2021].
Regarding claim 1, Hoffman teaches a ready-to-mix disintegrating (dissolving) beverage strip composition [Hoffman, abstract, 0007, 0024] comprising;
Pullulan [Hoffman, abstract];
Propylene Glycol [Hoffman, 0013];
Maltodextrin [Hoffman, 0013];
Polyethylene Oxide [Hoffman, 0013], since the composition of Hoffman contains Polyethylene Glycol (which is also known as Polyethylene Oxide, see Millipore, p.1);
Glycerol [Hoffman, 0013];
Polysorbate 80 [Hoffman, 0015];
Sorbitol [Hoffman, 0013];
Flavouring agent (flavor additive) [Hoffman, 0018];
Hoffman does not teach the beverage strip composition comprising;
Green coffee extract (50%).
Reh teaches a ready-to-mix disintegrating (instant dissolvable beverage product) beverage composition in tablet form or the like (equivalent to strip) [Reh, p.6, l.14-23] comprising;
Green coffee extract (soluble coffee solids extracted from green coffee beans) [Reh, p.4, l.19-20; p.5, l.29-31; p.6, l.11-12; p.8, l.11-12], wherein said soluble coffee solids extracted from green coffee beans may be in the composition in amounts of from 2-50% [Reh, p.6, l.3-7; p.6, l.28-32].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a green coffee extract in amount of 50% as taught by Reh, in the composition of Hoffman, because Reh teaches that this would provide dissolvable beverage compositions that are useful as an ingredient for production of food or beverage products wherein the presence of coffee solids is desired, e.g., to impart coffee taste or flavor [Reh, p.6, l.23-26], as well as RTD (ready to drink) coffee beverages and instant beverage products suitable for preparation by dissolution of the dry composition in any suitable or desired liquid [Reh, p.6, l.14-23].
Hoffman does not teach the beverage strip composition comprising;
Neusilin UFL2;
Di Basic Calcium Phosphate Anhydrous.
Tilseth teaches a composition for a food product or dietary supplement [Tilseth, 0033] in solid tablet form comprising [Tilseth, 0064];
Neusilin UFL2 (as an adsorption agent) [Tilseth, 0029-0030, 0032, 0128, 0130];
Di Basic Calcium Phosphate Anhydrous [Tilseth, 0064] (also known as dicalcium phosphate anhydrous [Innophos, p.1]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Neusilin UFL2 and Di Basic Calcium Phosphate Anhydrous as taught by Tilseth, in the composition of Hoffman, because Tilseth teaches that using Neusilin UFL2 as an adsorption agent helps with formation of the product into a solid piece (i.e., tablet form) [Tilseth, 0029, 0128], and using Di Basic Calcium Phosphate Anhydrous as an excipient would help convert an active compound into a form suitable for its intended purpose [Tilseth, 0049].
Furthermore;
Claim 1 is considered a product-by-process claim. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed product. The determination of patentability is based upon the product structure itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Claims 2-5 are considered product-by-process claims. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed product. The determination of patentability is based upon the product structure itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). Further, in regards to the product limitation of slitting the film into the specific claimed size of 30mm x 40mm (width x Length) as recited in claim 2 step (xvi) and claim 5 manufacturing procedure, while Hoffman does not explicitly teach cutting the strips into the specific size of 30mm x 40mm (width x Length), Hoffman does teach that the strips may be cut into any desired size [Hoffman, 0022].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have cut the strips into any desired size, including the claimed size of 30mm x 40mm (width x Length), based on factors such as the desired concentration, the desired final taste strength in the beverage, and/or the desired total volume of beverage being prepared, cut into smaller size which makes it easy to store and use them, take up less space in a restaurant or home pantry than a conventional sweetener packages, and can be portable for on-the-go uses [Hoffman, 0022]. “Further it has been held that wherein the difference between the claims and the prior art was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patently distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04 IV A).” That is, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that different size ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips would provide for a variety of beverages having not only different strength (concentration) but also a variety of sizes according to the consumers need.
Regarding claim 6, Hoffman teaches the ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips of claim 1 disintegrate (dissolve) in hot coffee (equivalent to hot water since hot coffee is 98% water, see coffeeAM, Title). While Hoffman does not explicitly recites or use the same claim language of “does not retain any residual matter” when the strips dissolve, Hoffman teaches the strips dissolve well [Hoffman, 0027-0030, Examples 1-4], and the solubility and dissolution rate can be improved by the addition of salts [Hoffman, 0014]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips that does not retain any residual matter upon disintegration in hot water, because Hoffman already express interest in complete or improved dissolution of the strips by addition of salts, and because Examples 1-4 in Hoffman disclose that the strips dissolve well (equivalent to complete dissolution of strips with no undissolved or visible residues).
Regarding claim 7, Hoffman teaches the ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips of claim 1, wherein the beverage strips can be of different flavours (since flavoring agents may be added [Hoffman, 0018], and Hoffman does not teach any flavor limitation) including coffee (since the strip may be combined/added to coffee compositions [Hoffman, 0027, 0029]). Moreover, Hoffman teaches the strips may be used in various different types of foods and cooking methods. For example, the strips can be used in sauteing, stir frying, pan frying, grilling, broiling, roasting, steaming, simmering, braising, and stewing [Hoffman, 0026].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided strips of different flavours based on the particular food application and food type as taught by Hoffman [Hoffman, 0026].
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman [US20080274252A1], Reh [WO2018015360A1], and Tilseth [US20100227792A1], evidenced by Millipore [Polyethylene Glycol (PEGs and PEOs), 2021], Innophos [Dicalcium Phosphate, Anhydrous, 2009], and coffeeAM [The science of water and coffee, 2021] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sherwood et al. [US20080050498A1], hereinafter Sherwood, Yao et al. [CN112890061A], hereinafter Yao, Fukuda et al. [US20100143554A1], hereinafter Fukuda, Jung et al. [KR20100077781A], hereinafter Jung, Yang et al. [KR20200036279A], hereinafter Yang, Naef et al. [US20050181107A1], hereinafter Naef, Robinson et al. [US20140271988A1], hereinafter Robinson, Yuan et al. [CN109247482A], hereinafter Yuan, Cherukuri et al. [WO9300828A2], hereinafter Cherukuri, Ravenelle et al. [WO2021189141A1], hereinafter Ravenelle, Ragnarsson [US20170119006A1], Takeuchi [US20060172059A1], hereinafter Takeuchi, Wang [CN110810694A], Soquet et al. [US20140134309A1], hereinafter Soquet, and Jinan et al. [CN110856516A], hereinafter Jinan.
Regarding claim 2, (i-xvi), stirring speeds (RPM), stirring times (minutes), and order of adding ingredients, modified Hoffman teaches the ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips as claimed in claim 1, but does not teach the specific stirring speeds (RPM), stirring times (minutes), and order of adding ingredients as claimed.
However, Sherwood, directed to methods of making beverage compositions in solid form [Sherwood, 0003], teaches that raw material ingredients stirring (blending/mixing) speeds, and times may be set by sampling analysis to verify the minimum parameters of said stirring speeds and time necessary for uniform distribution of all ingredients [Sherwood, 0225].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform sampling analysis to verify the minimum parameters of said stirring speeds and time for the mixing of the ingredients as taught by Sherwood, in the method of making the ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips of Hoffman, because Sherwood teaches that this would allow to determine the appropriate stirring parameters necessary for uniform distribution of all the ingredients [Sherwood, 0225]. Moreover, absent any evidence of criticality, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the order of adding ingredients, stirring speeds and time for the mixing of the ingredients in order to obtain uniform distribution of all the ingredients [Sherwood, 0225]. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C), “Selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results; In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)”.
Regarding claim 2, (i), modified Hoffman teaches the ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips as claimed in claim 1, but does not teach the manufacturing procedure of the ready-to-drink disintegrating beverage strips comprise a quantity of purified water in a stainless steel container.
Sherwood, directed to methods of making beverage compositions in solid form [Sherwood, 0003], teaches the process of making beverage compositions in solid form comprise a first step of mixing or adding the ingredients into purified water (water being the first ingredient) contained inside a stainless steel mixing tank (container) [Sherwood, 0115, 0118].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a stainless steel container for mixing/stirring ingredients as taught by Sherwood, in the method of making the ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips of Hoffman, because Sherwood teaches that stainless steel mixing containers are suitable for mixing ingredients particularly purified water for the production of beverage compositions in solid form [Sherwood, 0003, 0115, 0118].
Modified Hoffman teaches the ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips as claimed in claim 1, but does not teach the manufacturing procedure of the ready-to-drink disintegrating beverage strips comprise weighing a quantity of purified water.
Yao, directed to methods of making functional beverage compositions in solid (tablet form) [Yao, abstract], teaches weighing a quantity of purified water [Yao, 0010].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to weigh a quantity of purified water as taught by Yao, in the method of making the ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips of Hoffman, because Yao teaches that this would allow to mix or add a sufficient or appropriate amount of water in relation to the weight of the other additional ingredients making the composition [Yao, 0010].
Modified Hoffman teaches the ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips as claimed in claim 1, but does not teach the manufacturing procedure of the ready-to-drink disintegrating beverage strips comprise the water being kept under stirring.
Fukuda, directed to methods of making beverage compositions in solid form [Fukuda, 0001, 0048, 0051], teaches the process of making beverage compositions in solid form comprise the water being kept under stirring prior to adding other ingredients [Fukuda, 0129].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have kept the water under stirring as taught by Fukuda, in the method of making the ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips of Hoffman, because Fukuda teaches that this would allow for the dissolution of the ingredients being further added [Fukuda, 0129].
Modified Hoffman teaches the ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips as claimed in claim 1, but does not teach the manufacturing procedure of the ready-to-drink disintegrating beverage strips comprise the water being stirred at 350 rpm.
Jung, directed to methods of making (functional powder) compositions in solid form [Jung, p.1, abstract], for beverages [Jung, p.11, par.10], teaches the process of making beverage compositions in solid form comprise purified water being kept under stirring at 50-500 rpm [Jung, p.11, par.8-10].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have kept the water under stirring at 50-500 rpm as taught by Jung, in the method of making the ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips of Hoffman, because Jung teaches that this stirring range of 50-500 rpm for purified water is suitable for the dissolution of functional ingredients [Jung, p.11, par.10].
Regarding claim 2, (ii), modified Hoffman teaches the ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips as claimed in claim 1, where Hoffman in view of Reh teaches the ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips comprising green coffee extract, Hoffman in view of Jung teaches the stirring of ingredients into purified water at 50-500 rpm, Hoffman in view of Fukuda teaches the water being kept under stirring prior to adding other ingredients, and Hoffman in view of Sherwood teaches a first step of mixing or adding the ingredients into purified water (water being the first ingredient) contained inside a stainless steel mixing tank as discussed above in claims 1 and 2(i), but does not explicitly teach a step of weighing a quantity of green coffee extract and added to step-i (purified water).
Yang, directed to functional coffee beverage compositions and methods of manufacturing thereof [Yang, abstract], teaches weighing a quantity of green coffee extract and added to purified water [Yang, 0007, 0027, 0030].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to weight a quantity of green coffee extract and add the green coffee extract to purified water as taught by Yang, into the method of making the ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips of Hoffman, because Yang explicitly teaches that in the method of manufacturing beverage compositions each component (including green coffee extract) may be first weighed according to the mixing ratio and then stirred/mixed [Yang, 0027].
Modified Hoffman teaches weighing a quantity of green coffee extract and adding it to step-i (weighed amount of purified water) kept under stirring at 50-500 rpm as discussed above, but does not explicitly teaches stirring for 5 minutes.
Naef, directed to solid beverage compositions comprising green coffee extract and methods of manufacturing thereof [Naef, abstract], teaches a coffee beverage product in which the ingredients including the coffee extract (soluble coffee ingredient) and water are mixed with a mixer-homogenizer (equivalent to stirring) for 3-5 minutes [Naef, Example 10, 0141-0143].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to stir the green coffee extract an water for 3-5 minutes as taught by Naef, into the method of making the ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips of Hoffman, because Naef teaches that stirring these ingredients for 3-5 minutes would combine, mix and homogenize well all the ingredients [Naef, 0143].
Regarding claim 2, (iii), modified Hoffman teaches the ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips as claimed in claim 1, where Hoffman teaches a weighed quantity of pullulan added to water [Hoffman, 0029], Hoffman in view of Yao teaches a weighed quantity of purified water [Yao, 0010], Hoffman in view of Sherwood teaches a first step of mixing or adding the ingredients into purified water (water being the first ingredient) contained inside a stainless steel mixing tank (container) [Sherwood, 0115, 0118], Hoffman in view of Fukuda teaches the water being kept under stirring prior to adding other ingredients [Fukuda, 0129], Hoffman in view of Jung teaches purified water being kept under stirring at 50-500 rpm [Jung, p.11, par.8-10], Hoffman in view of Yang teaches weighing a quantity of green coffee extract and added to purified water [Yang, 0007, 0027, 0030], and Hoffman in view of Naef teaches the coffee extract and water are stirred for 3-5 minutes [Naef, Example 10, 0141-0143].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hoffman to perform the weighing of purified water as taught by Yao, inside a stainless steel container as taught by Sherwood, the water being kept under stirring prior to adding other ingredients as taught by Fukuda, the purified water being kept under stirring at 50-500 rpm as taught by Jung, weighing a quantity of green coffee extract and added to purified water as taught by Yang, and the coffee extract and water being stirred for 3-5 minutes taught by Naef, because Hoffman already teaches a weighed quantity of pullulan added to water and other ingredients in order to make a ready-to-mix disintegrating (dissolving) beverage strip composition [Hoffman, abstract, 0007, 0024]. Additionally, it is not seen that the particular order of performing the addition of ingredients steps, and stirring for 350 rpm for 5 minutes would have provided a patentable distinction over the prior art because Hoffman already teaches a weighed quantity of pullulan and a weighed amount of water, Yao also teaches weighing of purified water, Sherwood teaches mixing or adding the ingredients into purified water contained inside a stainless steel container, Fukuda teaches the water being kept under stirring prior to adding other ingredients, Jung teaches purified water being kept under stirring at 50-500 rpm, Yang teaches weighing a quantity of green coffee extract and added to purified water, and Naef teaches the coffee extract and water are stirred for 3-5 minutes, and the particular order of performing these steps would have been prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)). Selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results; In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930), (MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C)).
Regarding claim 2, (iv), Hoffman teaches maltodextrin may be in the composition in amounts of from 1-30 wt% [Hoffman, 0013], while Hoffman does not explicitly recites weighing a quantity of maltodextrin, Hoffman implicitly teaches that the composition may have a weighed quantity of maltodextrin in the range of from 1-30 grams of maltodextrin per 100 grams of the total weight of the composition. In regards to the stirring at 500 rpm see Hoffman in view of Jung teaching the stirring of ingredients into purified water at 50-500 rpm [Jung, p.11, par.8-10], and regarding the stirring for 5 minutes see Hoffman in view of Naef teaching the raw material ingredients are stirred for 3-5 minutes [Naef, Example 10, 0141-0143].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a stirring speed of 500 rpm as taught by Jung, for an amount of time of 5 minutes as taught by Naef, into the method of making the ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips comprising maltodextrin of Hoffman, because Jung teaches that this stirring range of 50-500 rpm is suitable for the dissolution of functional ingredients [Jung, p.11, par.10], and Naef teaches that stirring ingredients for 3-5 minutes when making a composition would combine, mix and homogenize well all the ingredients [Naef, 0143].
Regarding claim 2, (v), Hoffman teaches Polyethylene Oxide, since the composition of Hoffman contains Polyethylene Glycol (which is also known as Polyethylene Oxide, see Millipore, p.1), and may be in the composition in amounts of from 1-30 wt% [Hoffman, 0013], while Hoffman does not explicitly recites weighing a quantity of Polyethylene Oxide, Hoffman implicitly teaches that the composition may have a weighed quantity of Polyethylene Oxide in the range of from 1-30 grams of Polyethylene Oxide per 100 grams of the total weight of the composition. In regards to the stirring at 500 rpm see Hoffman in view of Jung teaching the stirring of ingredients into purified water at 50-500 rpm [Jung, p.11, par.8-10], and regarding the stirring for 10 minutes see Hoffman in view of Yang teaching raw material ingredients in methods of making functional coffee beverage compositions are weighed and stirred [Yang, 0026] for about 10 minutes [Yang, 0030].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a stirring speed of 500 rpm as taught by Jung, for an amount of time of 10 minutes as taught by Yang, into the method of making the ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips comprising Polyethylene Oxide of Hoffman, because Jung teaches that this stirring range of 50-500 rpm is suitable for the dissolution of functional ingredients [Jung, p.11, par.10], and Yang teaches that stirring ingredients for about 10 minutes is suitable for dissolving and combining ingredients when making coffee beverage compositions [Yang, 0026, 0030].
Regarding claim 2, (vi), Hoffman teaches the ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips comprising a Flavouring agent (flavor additive) [Hoffman, 0018], Hoffman in view of Sherwood teaches weighing an amount of a flavor component (0-100 wt% of filler wherein filler includes flavoring agent) [Sherwood, 0097], (i.e., 2.95 grams of Sunkist® ready to mix (RTM) Spray Dried Orange Oil #61281165 flavoring [Sherwood, 0115]), Hoffman in view of Jung teaches the stirring of ingredients at 50-500 rpm [Jung, p.11, par.8-10], and Hoffman in view of Naef teaching the raw material ingredients are stirred for 3-5 minutes [Naef, Example 10, 0141-0143], however Hoffman does not explicitly teach the flavor component is specifically a solid flavor.
Robinson, directed to solid beverage compositions [Robinson, 0046, 0061] comprising green coffee extract [Robinson, 0065], teaches said beverage compositions may comprise solid flavor(s) (flavor powders) [Robinson, 0060].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a solid flavor component as taught by Robinson, in the method of making the ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips of Hoffman, because Hoffman already teaches the composition may comprise a flavor ingredient but simply did not mention the flavor ingredient was in solid form. Further, it would have been obvious to use a solid flavor component as taught by Robinson, because Robinson teaches that it is possible to incorporate at least one additive to the extract at any time during processing, wherein suitable additives includes various flavor components in solid form (i.e., dried coffee, soluble coffee, ground or pulverized cocoa beans, ground or pulverized vanilla beans, etc.) [Robinson, 0060], which would have provided the advantage and flexibility to an ordinarily skilled artisan to produce various beverage compositions having different flavor profiles.
Regarding claim 2, (vii), modified Hoffman in view of Tilseth teaches the composition of claim 1 comprising Di Basic Calcium Phosphate Anhydrous [Tilseth, 0064] (also known as dicalcium phosphate anhydrous [Innophos, p.1]), Hoffman in view of Jung teaches the stirring of ingredients at 50-500 rpm [Jung, p.11, par.8-10], however modified Hoffman does not explicitly teach a weighed quantity of Di Basic Calcium Phosphate Anhydrous.
Yuan, directed to solid beverage compositions and methods of making thereof [Yuan, 0001] teaches the method of making the solid beverage composition includes a step of weighing a quantity of dicalcium phosphate [Yuan, 0024].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have weighed a quantity of dicalcium phosphate as taught by Yuan, in the method of making the ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips of Hoffman, because modified Hoffman in view of Tilseth already teaches adding/using dicalcium phosphate anhydrous but simply did not mention weighing an amount. Further, it would have been obvious to have weighed a quantity of dicalcium phosphate as taught by Yuan, because Yuan teaches that this would allow for the preparation of an evenly mixed mineral premix [Yuan, 0023-0024], which can be incorporated into beverage compositions to provide mineral components such as calcium particularly to diabetic consumers that are in need thereof [Yuan, 0030].
Modified Hoffman in view of Yuan teaches the method of making the solid beverage composition including a step of weighing a quantity of dicalcium phosphate [Yuan, 0024], but are silent regarding stirring the dicalcium phosphate anhydrous for 2 minutes.
Cherukuri, directed to sweetener compositions [Cherukuri, Title], teaches a sweetener composition preparation method comprising adding a weighed quantity of dicalcium phosphate anhydrous into a mixing container and stirring for 2 minutes [Cherukuri, p.11, l.29-37; p.12, l.17-24; p.13, l.3-6].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have stir the dicalcium phosphate anhydrous for 2 minutes as taught by Cherukuri, in the method of making the ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips of Hoffman, because Hoffman is already interested in including sweeteners in the ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips composition [Hoffman, Title], and further it would have been obvious to stir the dicalcium phosphate anhydrous for 2 minutes as taught by Cherukuri, because Cherukuri teaches that stirring dicalcium phosphate anhydrous for 2 minutes in combination with other raw material ingredients is a suitable amount of time for mixing all the ingredients to produce a stabilized sweetener composition [Cherukuri, Title, p.11, l.29-37; p.12, l.17-24; p.13, l.3-6], which would have added the advantage in the method of Hoffman of having a sweetener that is stable or extended shelf life stability.
Regarding claim 2, (viii), modified Hoffman in view of Tilseth teaches the composition of claim 1 comprising Magnesium Aluminometasilicate or Neusilin UFL2 (as an adsorption agent), wherein said Magnesium Aluminometasilicate may be present in the composition in amounts of from 18-25% (18-25 grams per 100 grams in the total composition, therefore teaching a weighed quantity of Magnesium Aluminometasilicate) [Tilseth, 0029-0030], Hoffman in view of Jung teaches the stirring of ingredients at 50-500 rpm [Jung, p.11, par.8-10], but are silent regarding stirring the Magnesium Aluminometasilicate for 2 minutes.
Ravenelle, directed to edible solid dispersion compositions [Ravenelle, p.27, l.27-28], teaches a method of making the solid composition comprising mixing Magnesium Aluminometasilicate for 2 minutes [Ravenelle, p.33, l.14-15].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to stir the Magnesium Aluminometasilicate for 2 minutes as taught by Ravenelle, in the method of making the ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips of Hoffman, because Ravenelle teaches that stirring for this amount of time is suitable for mixing or combining Magnesium Aluminometasilicate with additional raw material ingredients when making solid compositions [Ravenelle, p.33, l.14-15].
Regarding claim 2, (ix), Hoffman teaches the ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips comprising Propylene Glycol [Hoffman, 0013] as discussed above in claim 1, wherein the Propylene Glycol may be present in the composition in amounts of up to 10 wt% (10 grams per 100 grams in the total composition, therefore teaching a weighed quantity of Propylene Glycol) [Hoffman, 0021], Hoffman in view of Jung teaches the stirring of ingredients at 50-500 rpm [Jung, p.11, par.8-10], and Hoffman in view of Naef teaches the raw material ingredients are stirred for 3-5 minutes [Naef, Example 10, 0141-0143] as discussed above in claim 2, (iii).
Regarding claim 2, (x), Hoffman teaches the ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips comprising Polysorbate 80 [Hoffman, 0015] as discussed above in claim 1, wherein the Polysorbate 80 may be present in the composition in amounts of up to 10 wt% (10 grams per 100 grams in the total composition, therefore teaching a weighed quantity of Polysorbate 80) [Hoffman, 0021], Hoffman in view of Jung teaches the stirring of ingredients at 50-500 rpm [Jung, p.11, par.8-10], and Hoffman in view of Naef teaches the raw material ingredients are stirred for 3-5 minutes [Naef, Example 10, 0141-0143] as discussed above in claim 2, (iii).
Regarding claim 2, (xi), Hoffman teaches the ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips comprising Sorbitol [Hoffman, 0013] as discussed above in claim 1, wherein the Sorbitol may be present in the composition in amounts of 1-30 wt% (1-30 grams per 100 grams in the total composition, therefore teaching a weighed quantity of Sorbitol) [Hoffman, 0013], Hoffman in view of Jung teaches the stirring of ingredients at 50-500 rpm [Jung, p.11, par.8-10], and Hoffman in view of Naef teaches the raw material ingredients are stirred for 3-5 minutes [Naef, Example 10, 0141-0143] as discussed above in claim 2, (iii).
Regarding claim 2, (xii), Hoffman teaches the ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips comprising Glycerol [Hoffman, 0013] as discussed above in claim 1, wherein the Glycerol may be present in the composition in amounts of 1-30 wt% (1-30 grams per 100 grams in the total composition, therefore teaching a weighed quantity of Glycerol) [Hoffman, 0013, 0027], Hoffman in view of Jung teaches the stirring of ingredients at 50-500 rpm [Jung, p.11, par.8-10], and Hoffman in view of Naef teaches the raw material ingredients are stirred for 3-5 minutes [Naef, Example 10, 0141-0143] as discussed above in claim 2, (iii).
Regarding claim 2, (xiii), Hoffman teaches the ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips comprising Flavouring agent (flavor additive) [Hoffman, 0018] as discussed above in claim 1, Hoffman in view of Sherwood teaches weighing an amount of a flavor component (0-100 wt% of filler wherein filler includes flavoring agent) [Sherwood, 0097], (i.e., 2.95 grams of Sunkist® ready to mix (RTM) Spray Dried Orange Oil #61281165 flavoring [Sherwood, 0115]) as discussed above in claim 2, (vi), Hoffman in view of Jung teaches the stirring of ingredients at 50-500 rpm [Jung, p.11, par.8-10] as discussed above in claim 2, (iii), and Hoffman in view of Yang teaching raw material ingredients in methods of making functional coffee beverage compositions are weighed and stirred [Yang, 0026] for about 10 minutes [Yang, 0030] as discussed above in claim 2, (v), however Hoffman does not explicitly teach the flavor component is specifically a liquid flavor.
Ragnarsson, directed to methods of making beverage compositions [Ragnarsson, abstract], teaches said beverage compositions may comprise flavoring agents [Ragnarsson, 0022] particularly liquid flavors [Ragnarsson, 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 liquid flavor as taught by Ragnarsson, in the method of making the ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips of Hoffman, because Ragnarsson teaches that this would provide an ordinarily skilled artisan the advantage to include a number of other ingredients, if desired, such as natural or artificial flavors, to achieve the desired strength of the flavor in the finished beverage and/or on the intended dilution factor of the beverage concentrate necessary to provide the finished beverage [Ragnarsson, 0022].
Regarding claim 2, (xiv), modified Hoffman teaches the above step wet slurry (i.e., all raw material ingredients dissolved in water at the required rpm and amount of time (minutes)), but are silent regarding the wet slurry being subjected to vacuum degassing.
Takeuchi, directed to compositions suitable for use in food products [Takeuchi, 0012], including but not limited to beverages and edible films (strips) using pullulan (as already taught by Hoffman) [Takeuchi, 0024], wherein the wet slurry (pullulan containing solution with other raw material ingredients dissolved in water) in the method of making the pullulan film/strip is subjected to vacuum degassing (removing bubbles under reduced pressure) [Takeuchi, 0194].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have subjected the wet slurry to vacuum degassing as taught by Takeuchi, in the method of making the ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips of Hoffman, because both are interested and directed to methods of making pullulan edible strips/films, and because Takeuchi teaches that this would produce pullulan edible strips/film having an inhibited moisture variation, where the film has a satisfactory stability to the change of temperature, can be heat-sealed and has a transparency and gloss and a satisfactory water-solubility. Further, the unpleasant taste of the product, which is originated from a surfactant, is reduced. An edible and water-soluble film prepared from the product can be advantageously used as a material for the secondary processing for the purpose of pinching, stacking, filling various substances such as foods and beverages, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, etc. [Takeuchi, 0194].
Regarding claim 2, (xv);
The coating thickness limitation:
As best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Hoffman teaches the method of making the ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips in some embodiments include films or strips formed from the slurry (mixed ingredients) by being cast onto a flat surface (equivalent to “coating” a flat mold) having a thickness of between about 0.002-0.02 inches (51-508µ) [Hoffman, 0019]. While Hoffman does not explicitly teach an embodiment where the films or strips have a thickness of 900-1150µ as claimed, Hoffman does teach that the film or strips can be prepared in any desired thickness since techniques of forming films using pullulan compositions are well known in the art, and methods for controlling the thickness of the film or strips are also well known [Hoffman, 0019]. Furthermore, Hoffman teaches films or strips having a thickness of up to 2.4mm (2400µ) [Hoffman, 0028], therefore it would be immediately envisagable to one of ordinary skill in the art that films or strips having a lower limit thickness of 0.002 inches (51µ) [Hoffman, 0019] and an upper limit thickness of 2.4mm (2400µ) [Hoffman, 0028] can be produced by the method of Hoffman.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have coated a flat surface with the wet slurry at process parameters of coating thickness 51-2400µ as taught by Hoffman in a method of making ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips, based on the particular application in which the ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips are being used (i.e., cold or hot beverages, which would have different dissolution rates due to the temperature in which the strips are being dissolved) and/or factors such as the viscosity, cooling/hardening rate of the slurry when is being casted onto a flat surface to form the films, sheets or strips.
The drying temperature and drying mode limitation:
Hoffman teaches the method of making the ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips comprises heated drying (equivalent to drying heating mode) [Hoffman, 0019], but does not explicitly teach the drying heating mode is performed indirectly, and the specific drying temperature of 95±3°C as claimed.
Soquet, directed to methods of making solid beverage compositions [Soquet, abstract] teaches that drying methods suitable for solid beverage compositions include drying by a flow of hot air (equivalent to indirect heating mode) using temperatures between 80-120°C [Soquet, 0096].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have dried the solid beverage composition using temperatures between 80-120°C, at indirect heating mode as taught by Soquet, in the method of making ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips of Hoffman, because Soquet teaches that drying by a flow of hot air using temperatures between 80-120°C is a suitable method for drying solid beverage compositions and provides the flexibility of using heated ambient air or with heated dry air [Soquet, 0096], particularly since Hoffman already teaches heated drying.
The drying time limitation:
Modified Hoffman in view of Soquet teaches the method and concepts (drying temperature and drying mode) discussed above, but are silent regarding the drying time being specifically 23 minutes as claimed.
Wang, also directed to methods of making solid beverage compositions [Wang, Title, abstract Espacenet Translation] comprising sweeteners [Wang, Title, abstract PE2E Translation], teaches a drying step performed for a time duration of from 20-30 minutes [Wang, 0052].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have dried the solid beverage composition for 20-30 minutes as taught by Wang, in the method of making ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips of Hoffman, because Wang teaches that this range of time is suitable for drying solid beverage compositions, and further because the claimed drying time of 23 minutes would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures due to various factors such as the amount of water (moisture %) present in the product, the temperature (higher/lower temperatures would require lower/higher amounts of time) and/or flow rate (air flow speed, higher/lower flow rate would require lower/higher amounts of time) of the heated air being blown on the product, and/or the thickness of the product (thicker/thinner strips would require higher/lower amounts of time).
Regarding claim 2, (xvi); Hoffman teaches the ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips being dried [Hoffman, 0019] as discussed above in claim 2, step (xv), and further teaches cutting the strips post drying into 22mm x 30mm rectangles to get the desired weight (i.e., 42mg strips) [Hoffman, 0027-0030, Examples 1-4], but does not explicitly teaches slit the film into the specific claimed size of 30mm x 40mm (width x Length). While Hoffman does not teach cutting the strips into the specific size of 30mm x 40mm (width x Length), Hoffman does teach that the strips may be cut into any desired size [Hoffman, 0022].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have cut the strips into any desired size, including the claimed size of 30mm x 40mm (width x Length), based on factors such as the desired concentration, the desired final taste strength in the beverage, and/or the desired total volume of beverage being prepared, cut into smaller size which makes it easy to store and use them, take up less space in a restaurant or home pantry than a conventional sweetener packages, and can be portable for on-the-go uses [Hoffman, 0022]. “Further it has been held that wherein the difference between the claims and the prior art was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patently distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04 IV A).” That is, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that different size ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips would provide for a variety of beverages having not only different strength (concentration) but also a variety of sizes according to the consumers need.
Regarding the ingredients are processed in heat for 2-5 minutes:
Hoffman teaches cutting the strips post drying to get the desired weight [Hoffman, 0027-0030, Examples 1-4], but does not explicitly teaches the said ingredients being processed in heat for 2-5 minutes.
Jinan teaches methods of making beverage strips (functional coffee strips), where the raw material ingredients are processed (mixed/stirred) in heat for 5-45 minutes [Jinan, claim 1, Espacenet Translation; p.22-23, 29 PE2E Translation].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have processed ingredients in heat for 5 minutes as taught by Jinan, in the method of making ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips of Hoffman, because both Jinan and Hoffman are directed to methods of making beverage strips. Further, it would have been obvious to process ingredients in heat for 5 minutes as taught by Jinan, because Jinan similarly to Hoffman teaches drying by vacuum prior to cutting the strips in order to make coffee functional food containing coffee, germanium mineral, and it has life-giving and body fatigue relieving properties [Jinan, claims 1, 5, 9, 0005 Espacenet Translation; p.22-23, 29 PE2E Translation].
Regarding the ingredients being processed in the particular order being claimed (steps i-xvi):
See claim 2, steps (i-xv) discussed above. Additionally, it is not seen that the particular order of performing the addition of ingredients steps, and stirring for 350 rpm for 5 minutes would have provided a patentable distinction over the prior art because while Hoffman does not explicitly teaches the specific particular order being claimed, nonetheless Hoffman teaches a method of making ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips, and the secondary references which are all directed to solid beverage compositions teach the additional ingredients, stirring rpms and amount of times for stirring. Selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results; In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930), (MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C)).
Further, attention is invited to In re Levin, 84 USPQ 232 and the cases cited therein, which are considered in point in fact situation of the instant case. At page 234, the Court stated as follows:
This court has taken the position that new recipes or formulas for cooking food which involve the addition or elimination of common ingredients, or for treating them in ways which differ from the former practice, do not amount to invention, merely because it is not disclosed that, in the constantly developing art of preparing food, no one else ever did the particular thing upon which the applicant asserts his right to a patent. In all such cases, there is nothing patentable unless the applicant by a proper showing further establishes a coaction or cooperative relationship between the selected ingredients which produces a new, unexpected and useful function. In re Benjamin D. White, 17 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 956, 39 F.2d 974, 5 USPQ 267; In re Mason et al., 33 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 1144, 156 F.2d 189, 70 USPQ 221.
No unexpected coaction or cooperative relationship between the selected ingredients which produces a new, unexpected and useful function has been established.
Regarding the wet slurry is subjected to vacuum degassing:
See claim 2, step (xiv) above, where modified Hoffman teaches the wet slurry (i.e., all raw material ingredients dissolved in water at the required rpm and amount of time (minutes) discussed in steps (i-xiii)), and modified Hoffman in view of Takeuchi teaches methods of making beverages and edible films (strips) comprising pullulan (as already taught by Hoffman) [Takeuchi, 0024], wherein the wet slurry (pullulan containing solution with other raw material ingredients dissolved in water) in the method of making the pullulan film/strip is subjected to vacuum degassing (removing bubbles under reduced pressure) [Takeuchi, 0194].
Regarding claim 3, see claim 2, (xiv) discussion below, where modified Hoffman in view of Takeuchi teaches the method of making the pullulan film/strip is subjected to vacuum degassing (removing bubbles under reduced pressure) [Takeuchi, 0194].
Regarding claim 4, The coating thickness limitation: (coating thickness of 900-1150µ), see claim 2, (xv) discussion below, where Hoffman teaches the method of making the ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips formed from the slurry (mixed ingredients) by being cast onto a flat surface (equivalent to “coating” a flat mold) having a thickness of between about (51-508µ) [Hoffman, 0019], and up to a thickness of up to 2.4mm (2400µ) [Hoffman, 0028], and further teaches that the film or strips can be prepared in any desired thickness since techniques of forming films using pullulan compositions are well known in the art, and methods for controlling the thickness of the film or strips are also well known [Hoffman, 0019].
The drying temperature and drying mode limitation:
See claim 2, (xv) discussion below, where Hoffman teaches the method of making the ready-to-mix disintegrating beverage strips comprises heated drying (equivalent to drying heating mode) [Hoffman, 0019], and Hoffman in view of Soquet, (directed to methods of making solid beverage compositions [Soquet, abstract]) teaches that drying methods suitable for solid beverage compositions include drying by a flow of hot air (equivalent to indirect heating mode) using temperatures between 80-120°C [Soquet, 0096].
The drying time limitation:
See claim 2, (xv) discussion below, where modified Hoffman in view of Soquet teaches the method and concepts (drying temperature and drying mode) discussed above, and modified Hoffman in view of Wang, (which is also directed to methods of making solid beverage compositions [Wang, Title, abstract Espacenet Translation] comprising sweeteners [Wang, Title, abstract PE2E Translation]), teaches a drying step performed for a time duration of from 20-30 minutes [Wang, 0052].
Regarding claim 5, see claim 2, (xvi) discussion below, where Hoffman teaches cutting the strips post drying into 22mm x 30mm rectangles to get the desired weight (i.e., 42mg strips) [Hoffman, 0027-0030, Examples 1-4], and further teaches that the strips may be cut into any desired size [Hoffman, 0022], such as a size that makes it easy to store and use them, take up less space in a restaurant or home pantry than a conventional sweetener packages, and can be portable for on-the-go uses [Hoffman, 0022].
Conclusion
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
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights