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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This application is a US national phase of PCT/IL2024/050101, filed January 25, 2024, with provisional applications 63/441314, filed January 26, 2024, and 63/445735, filed February 15, 2023.
Applicant’s amendment filed October 24, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 9, 21-22, and 24-29 are canceled, and claims 1-2, 4-5, 10, 12-13, 18, 20, and 23 are amended.
The previous objections to the drawings and claims, and 112(b) rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-20 in the Non-Final office action mailed June 24, 2025 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments to the drawings and claims filed October 24, 2025.
Currently claims 1-8, 10-20, and 23 are pending and under examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 3, & Claim 19, lines 4-5, needs to be changed to “…ultraviolet (UV) radiation s algal synthesis of…” to be grammatically correct.
Claim 1 and its dependent claims all recite “unopposed B12”, which is not a standard scientific term and should be replaced with “methylcobalamin, 5-deoxyadenosylcobalamin or other metabolically active forms of B12” as disclosed in [0020] of the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-8, 10-20, and 23 are directed to a composition described as a spirulina product produced by certain methods from Arthrospira spp under photosynthetically controlled conditions, wherein the spirulina product has more bioavailable B12 than pseudo-B12. While these claims make reference to certain process steps used to cultivate and extract the composition, in their broadest reasonable interpretation they are seen as being directed to the product itself, and to be infringed by any product that could have been produced by a process comprising the recited steps, regardless of whether the reference disclosing them literally describes such a process.
Claims 1-2, 17, and 19-20 recite the spirulina product has at least (X)µg/100g of unopposed B12. This is interpreted as the amount of unopposed B12 in relation to the amount of spirulina product. For example, claim 1 recites “and at least 0.7 µg/100g of unopposed B12” is interpreted as 0.7 µg of unopposed B12 in 100g of spirulina product.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
(new rejection) Claims 1 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 19 as amended recite “photosynthetically controlled conditions that include at least 1000kJ/mol of ultraviolet (UV) radiation”, and appears to depart from the claims as originally filed and the specification does not support an amount of UV radiation of at least 1000kJ/mol with no upper limit. The Specification only describes UV radiation intensities of 1000-10,000 kJ/m2 [0028]. Therefore considered new matter. See MPEP 2163.05.
If Applicant believes that such support is present in the specification and claimed priority documents, Applicant should point, with particularity, to where such support is to be found.
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.
Claim 23 remains 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 23 recites the broad recitation “between 700 and 1500 µmol/(m2s)”, and the claim also recites “between 70-150 µmol/m2s” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
(maintained) Claims 1-8, 10-20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a product of nature without significantly more.
The Supreme Court has required analysis based on a 3-part test for subject
matter eligibility.
- Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of
matter?
- Step 2A (The Judicial Exceptions): Prong 1: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature), or an abstract idea?
-Step 2A (The Judicial Exceptions): Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
- Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception?
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 and 23 recite a spirulina product made of Arthrospira spp. and compositions comprising the spirulina product, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: Yes).
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 and 23 recite a judicial exception as they are drawn to a product of nature. Claims 1-8, 10-20 and 23 are drawn to a spirulina product made of Arthrospira spp. cultivated under photosynthetically controlled conditions, wherein the spirulina product has more bioavailable B12 than pseudo-B12. Claims 10-12 are drawn to a nutritional supplement comprising the spirulina product, and claims 13-18 are drawn to a food product comprising the spirulina product. As evidenced by the Specification, spirulina are typically made of cyanobacteria, such as Arthrospira spp., grown in open ponds and/or other solar-based cultivation systems. The Specification discloses spirulina products which comprise more bioavailable B12 than pseudo-B12, which has previously not been reported in prior art in naturally occurring Spirulina itself. However, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the instant claims read on any Spirulina product with B12. The product as claimed does not require any pseudo B12 to be present, however, it is also noted that pseudo B12 is a naturally occurring compound. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the instant claims is a product with natural B12. Since B12 is a natural product, derived from Spirulina, the claimed spirulina product is a product of nature judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes). The particular amounts of B12 recited in the instant claims do not contribute markedly different characteristics to the natural product itself (B12 from Spirulina). The product itself can be consumed a food or nutritional supplement therefore these claimed forms do not add markedly different characteristics to the natural product, nor does adding water to the product to prepare a water extract or drying biomass or a water extract. Fractionated compound from a Spirulina product containing B12 also read on a product containing B12 from Spirulina and thus do not distinguish the product from naturally occurring B12. The product by process limitations recited in the instant claims do not add markedly different characteristics to the product since there is no evidence that B12 produced in this manner is different from naturally occurring B12 from Spirulina, regardless if it is produced due to natural or synthetic light/irradiance.
Claims 1-8, 10-20 and 23 recite naturally occurring elements which are not markedly different from the product’s naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state. The claims recite generic compositions comprising the spirulina product, such as a pharmaceutical composition, a nutritional supplement, and food product, and as discussed in the Specification, it is a widely used practice to formulate compositions comprising spirulina. As such, the claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong 2: No), nor do they recite additional elements that exceed the judicial exception (Step 2B: No).
Thus, instant claims 1-8, 10-20, and 23 are not patent eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(maintained) Claims 1-8, 10-14, 17-20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Berzin et al. (WO2021234700A1, cited in PTO-892 mailed 6/24/2025, hereinafter “Berzin”), as evidenced by Tzachor et al. (Discov Food 4, 69 (2024), pgs. 1-14, cited in PTO-892 mailed 6/24/2025, hereinafter “Tzachor”).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-6, 19-20, and 23, Berzin teaches photosynthetically controlled spirulina and extracts of spirulina made from Arthrospira platensis cultivated in controlled light conditions (abstract). Berzin teaches the spirulina was cultivated under the conditions of 31 ± 2⁰C and pH 10.8 ± 0.2, and under two light sources: full-range solar spectrum at irradiance of 750 μmol/(m2 s) and red/blue/UV at irradiance of 750 μmol/(m2 s) (claims 1-3, 17-19). Berzin teaches the cultivation methods were performed in an ultra-high-density culture having a density between 3g/l and 10g/l and under ultraviolet radiation intensity of between 70- 150 μmol/m2s ([0024], claim 19). Although Berzin is silent regarding the UV light having at least 1000 kJ/mol, Berzin teaches the the UV radiation at intensities of 1,000-10,000 kJ/m2 [0048], which are the same intensities recited in the instant Specification. Berzin teaches the same culture method requirements for the claimed product as disclosed in the Specification and recited in instant claims 1, 5-6, 19 and 23. Therefore the referenced product would inherently have the increased availability of unopposed B12 as the claimed product, thus anticipating the claims. Similarly, the limitations in claims 1, 2-3, and 19-20 reciting the concentrations of unopposed B12 would also be inherently present in the referenced product.
Regarding claims 4 and 7, Berzin teaches both cultures were water-extracted using physical freeze-thawing for cellular disruption, obtaining one Solar Spirulina extract and one LED Spirulina extract (claims 1, 4, 17, 20).
Regarding claim 8, Berzin teaches a pharmaceutical composition comprising fractionated compounds of the spirulina extract (claim 5).
Regarding claims 10-14 and 17-18, Claims 10-12 are directed to a nutritional supplement and claims 13-14 are directed to a food product, both comprising the spirulina product of claim 1. Berzin teaches a sublingual spray formulation comprising the spirulina extract and also a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier (claims 9-11). Although Berzin does not explicitly disclose the sublingual spray formulation is a nutritional supplement or food product, the claims are anticipated by the nature of the spray formulation, which would be administered orally, thus could be considered either a nutritional supplement or food product (e.g. a drink or drink additive). As discussed above, the recited concentrations of unopposed B12 in the food product of claim 17 would be inherently present in the referenced product. Similarly, the limitations of a reduced, zero, or negative carbon footprint of the food product due to the inclusion of the spirulina product would also be inherently present, as evidenced by Tzachor. Tzachor discloses the same Photosynthetically Controlled Spirulina (PCS) product produces carbon–neutral and nutritious biomass containing unopposed, biologically active vitamin B12, in levels comparable to beef (abstract).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
(maintained) Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berzin as applied to claims 1-8, 10-14, 17-20, and 23 above, and further in view of Garuda et al. (US 20240349755 A1, cited in PTO-892 mailed 6/24/2025, hereinafter “Garuda”).
As discussed above claims 1-8, 10-14, 17-20, and 23 are anticipated by Berzin, Berzin does not teach a meat analogue or baked good that comprises a fractionated compound of the spirulina product.
However, Garuda teaches edible plant-based protein compositions that include spirulina and can be formulated as a plant-based meat alternative product or as an egg-less bakery product, thus meeting the limitations of the claims (claims 48, 51).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to formulate a food product comprising the PCS spirulina taught by Berzin into a plant-based meat analogue/alternative or plant-based bakery product comprising spirulina as taught by Garuda with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to formulate a food product into various plant-based food items such as a meat product alternative or bakery item that comprise the nutritious PCS spirulina product taught by Berzin, which would be a healthier alternative to ultra-processed food products taught by Garuda.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
(maintained) Claims 1-8, 19-20, and 23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8, and 17-20 of copending Application No. 17/925986 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘986 anticipate the present claims.
Independent claim 1 of ‘986 claims a product made from Arthrospira spp cultivated under photosynthetically controlled conditions. Independent claim 17 claims a method of making such a product comprising cultivating Arthrospira spp under photosynthetically controlled conditions. Dependent claims 2-4 and 18-20 further require that the organism be cultivated under specific photosynthetically controlled conditions and extracted by cycles of freezing and thawing that are the same as those recited in the present claims. Therefore even though the product described by the claims of ‘986 is not specifically identified as containing unopposed B12, it is reasonably expected that it is the same composition recited in the present claims and therefore anticipates the present claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
(maintained) Claims 1-8, 10-20, and 23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8-9, 11, and 17-20 of copending Application No. 17/925986 in view of Garuda.
Regarding claims 10-16, as discussed above, instant claims 1-8, 19-20, and 23 are anticipated by ‘986. Claims 9 and 10 of ‘986 recite a sublingual spray formulation comprising the spirulina extract of claim 1, but does not explicitly recite the sublingual spray is a nutritional supplement or food product recited in the present claims.
However, Garuda teaches edible plant-based protein compositions that include spirulina and can be formulated as a plant-based meat alternative product or as an egg-less bakery product, thus meeting the limitations of claims 13-16 (claims 48, 51). Garuda also teaches the edible plant-based protein compositions can be formulated into a nutrition food comprising spirulina, which meets the limitations of claims 10-12 (pg. 4, Table 1).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to formulate a product that can be taken orally comprising the PCS spirulina recited by ‘986 into a plant-based nutritional supplement or food product such as a meat analogue/alternative or plant-based bakery product comprising spirulina as taught by Garuda with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to formulate a nutritional supplement or food product into various plant-based food items such as a meat product alternative or bakery item that comprise the nutritious PCS spirulina, which would be a healthier alternative to ultra-processed food products taught by Garuda.
Regarding claims 17-18, although ‘986 does not recite the unopposed B12 concentrations nor the carbon footprint result, the referenced product would have the same inherent properties as the claimed product, thus anticipating the present claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding response directed to the 101 rejection, Applicant argues natural spirulina do not receive the recited intensity of UV radiation, do not have the recited conditions that upregulate algal synthesis of unopposed B12, and do not include the recited more bioavailable B12 than pseudo-B12, or at least 0.7pg/100g of unopposed B12, which distinguishes the claimed product from natural spirulina. Applicant argues that the invention as recited in the claims does not fall under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the Supreme Court's three-part test for subject matter eligibility, as it is not a product of nature, and the claims indeed do recite additional elements beyond a product of nature.
As discussed above in the maintained 101 rejection, the claimed spirulina product is a natural product regardless of whether or not it subjected to natural or synthetic light, and does not contribute to markedly different characteristics from natural spirulina, thus the rejection is maintained.
Regarding response directed to the 102 rejection, Applicant argues that, while the cultivation conditions in the present invention and in Berzin may be similar, no corresponding spirulina product having more bioavailable B12 than pseudo-B12 (positive balance of bioavailable B12) was known before the time of the claimed invention. In fact, the recited spirula products are surprising and unexpected, as all other known spirulina products have more pseudo-B12 than bioavailable B12. Applicant argues Berzin only considers the upregulation of c-phycocyanin, sorbitol and adenosine derivates, not B12; and teaches the anti-inflammatory effect of the Berzin spirulina product at low doses being effective; and Berzin only refers to the water-based component of the extract, while in the present invention both water soluble and insoluble fraction of the extract provide more bioavailable B12. Applicant also argues that the Examiner is prohibited from using Tzachor as part of the prior art rejection, since it was published a year after the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In response, the Examiner would like to point to MPEP 2112, “There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003)”. The fact that Berzin is silent on the upregulated unopposed B12 in the spirulina product made by the same product by process as claimed, does not obviate anticipation. Also the reference Tzachor is used as an evidentiary reference, thus does not require the same time limitations in relation to the filing date, as do the teachings of prior art.
Regarding response directed to the 103 rejection, Applicant argues Garuda does not relate to spirulina in any specific manner, nor does Garuda relate to B12 in spirulina or to the known prevalence of pseudo-B12 in spirulina products. Thus, Garuda in combination with Berzin does not suggest the recited meat analogue or baked good the recited spirulina product or any fraction thereof having more bioavailable B12 than pseudo-B 12.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, 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, Berzin teaches the claimed spirulina product, and Garuda teaches food formulations comprising spirulina, thus it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modigy the food products as taught by Garuda by including the spirulina taught by Berzin.
Applicant did not address or argue the outstanding non-statutory double patenting rejections in the Remarks filed 10/24/2025. Applicant should submit an argument under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)270-0938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm EST.
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, Louise Humphrey can be reached at (571) 272-5543. 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.
/JESSICA EDWARDS/
Examiner
Art Unit 1657
/LOUISE W HUMPHREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1657