DETAILED ACTION
Background
The amendment dated February 12, 2026 (amendment) amending claims 1, 4 and 8-9 and canceling claims 2-3 and 5-7 has been entered. Claims 1, 4 and 8-9 as filed with the amendment have been examined. In view of the amendment, all outstanding claim objections have been withdrawn. Claims 10-20 have been withdrawn from consideration as drawn to a non-elected invention.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 8, at line 1 after “according to claim 1,” insert -- wherein--, and,
at line 2 after “granulated feed A,” delete [[ wherein]]; and,
In claim 9, at line 1 after “according to claim 1,” insert -- wherein--, and,
at line 2 after “granulated feed A,” delete [[ wherein]]”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PL191262 B1 to Kuerzinger et al (Kuerzinger), of record, in view of US2009/0186130 A1 to Butler (Butler), AU2006216144 B2 to Shimoe et al. (Shimoe), of record, US2018/0199598 A1 to Lanter (Lanter), of record, DE10359530 A1 to Becken et al. (Becken), of record, and CN108371264 A1 to Yu (Yu), of record.
All references to Kuerzinger, Becken and Yu and refer to the Clarivate machine translation, a copy of which was included with a prior Office action.
Unless otherwise disclosed, percentages (%) without units are considered to be weight %s (wt%) and wt% and mass% are considered interchangeable.
The Office interprets the claimed “particle size” of a granulated feed in claim 1 as including the size of any one or more granules in a granulated feed, including any kind of particle or granule size (e.g. length). Accordingly, the recited claims include compositions wherein any one or more particles in granulated feed A is smaller than one particle in granulated feed B.
Regarding instant claims 1 and 4, Kuerzinger at Abstract on page 2 discloses a foodstuff for exotic fish (“aquarium feed”) that comprises a gelling agent (“raw materials” including a “slow-release binding agent” that is “gel-like in water”) and a natural nutriment or natural food. At page 3, 6th full paragraph, Kuerzinger discloses its aquarium feed as a sticky gel (“paster feed”) intended especially for feeding warm and cold-water ornamental fish. Further, at page 3, 7th full paragraph, Kuerzinger discloses that its aquarium feed comprises from 0.1% to 10% by weight of a gelling agent, based on the total mass of the aquarium feed, within which range lies the claimed 1 to 9 wt% of a slow-release binding agent, and from 1% to 20% by weight of natural food. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", the Office considers that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.I. The ordinary skilled artisan in Kuerzinger would have found it obvious to use the claimed amount of slow-release binding agent in its aquarium feed because Kuerzinger discloses the claimed amounts of slow-release binding agent as desirable for making an aquarium feed.
Further, Kuerzinger discloses at page 3, 8th and 9th full paragraph, cellulose ether, such as hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose, and natural resins such as pectin as desirable slow-release adhesives in its slow-release binding agents. Further still, Kuerzinger discloses at the paragraph bridging pages 4 and 5 extruded granules (“raw materials” as “granulated feed”) as its aquarium feed; and, at page 5, 3rd full paragraph Kuerzinger discloses reducing the size of its granular aquarium feed and making the outside of the granule softer to enable smaller fish to feed. Kuerzinger discloses a large aquatic animal feed in Example 1 and a small aquatic animal feed in Example 2.
Kuerzinger does not disclose an aquarium feed comprising 15-35 wt% granulated feed A and 64-80 mass% granulated feed B, wherein a particle size of granulated feed A is smaller than the particle size of granulated feed B. Further, Kuerzinger does not disclose separately granulated feeds and slow-release binding agents wherein the slow-release binding agent comprises an attractant, and wherein the attractant is at least one of: an animal based attractant, a plant based attractant, or a synthetic attractant, wherein the animal based attractant is at least one of: an aquatic animal protein powder or an insect protein powder, wherein the plant based attractant is at least one of: corn flour, wheat flour, or mugwort leaf powder, and wherein the synthetic attractant is at least one of: betaine, allicin, or sodium glutamate.
In addition, Kuerzinger does not disclose a slow-release binding agent wherein a mass ratio of an attractant to slow-release adhesive is 1:(0.5-10) as in claim 4.
The Office interprets the slow-release binding agent of claim 1 as including at least one attractant selected from an animal based attractant, a plant based attractant and synthetic attractant.
Butler at [0001] discloses aquatic feeds for (at [0002]) ornamental fish and that is adaptable to alternative aquatic animals and environments. At [0008], Butler discloses water soluble capsules enclosing one or more aquatic animal foodstuffs, wherein (at [0026]) multiple foodstuffs can be encapsulated including larger granules and smaller granules together. In addition, at [0039] Butler discloses soft shelled capsules formed about the foodstuffs. At claim 3, Butler discloses the capsule comprising a gelling agent.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Butler for Kuerzinger to include in its aquarium feed its slow-release binding agent as a shell or outer layer encapsulating two granulated feeds wherein one has a particle size as a granulated feed A that is smaller than the particle size of a granulated feed B as in Butler. Both references disclose aquarium feeds for ornamental fish comprising soft gelling agents to hold the feeds together. The ordinary skilled artisan in Kuerzinger would have desired to have two separate granulated feeds, with one having a larger particle size than the other as in Butler to feed fish of more than one size in one application consistent with the matching of fish size to feed size as disclosed in Kuerzinger. In addition, the ordinary skilled artisan in Kuerzinger would have desired to place its gelling slow-release binding agent on the outside of its aquarium feed as an encapsulant to contain the multiple granules in its aquarium feed as in Butler.
Shimoe discloses at page 6 (of 32), line 33 to page 7, line 4 discloses a core-shell type solid feed (“aquarium feed”) feed for large-sized fishes, which comprises a shell composed of an agglutinant substance (“slow-release adhesive”) and a nutrient for a fish feed (“attractant”) and a core which is itself a fish feed bonded by the slow-release binding agent. Further, at page 9 of 32, lines 4-30 Shimoe discloses as nutrients a fish powder (“animal based attractant” as “aquatic animal protein powder”), grain flours from wheat or corn (“plant based attractant”); and, further discloses the slow-release binding agent as comprising at least 15 wt% of slow-release adhesive, or a mass ratio of attractant to slow-release adhesive of at least 0.85:0.15 or at least 1:0.17, which the claimed mass ratio of attractant to the slow-release adhesive of from 1:(0.5-10) overlaps. See MPEP 2144.05.I. Further, Shimoe discloses that the optimal amount of slow-release adhesive varies and is not limited; and, (at page 12 of 32) Shimoe discloses that its shell can comprise a widely variable thickness of 5 to 95% of the aquarium feed. The ordinary skilled artisan in Shimoe would have found it obvious to form a slow-release binding agent having the claimed mass ratio of attractant to slow-release adhesive because Shimoe discloses that the claimed amounts of slow-release binding agent and attractant is desirable for making a fish feed such as to handle more of a granulated feed as a core material, or when using less of a stronger attractant, or a weaker adhesive or both.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Shimoe for Kuerzinger as modified by Butler to include an attractant including aquatic animal protein powder, wheat flour or corn flour in its slow-release binding agent in a mass ratio of attractant to the slow-release adhesive of from 1:(0.5-10). All references disclose fish feeds comprising a slow-release binding agent and granulated feeds. The ordinary skilled artisan in Kuerzinger as modified by Butler would have desired to include the claimed ratio of the claimed animal based attractant or plant based attractant in its slow-release binding agent to better attract fish to feed while keeping the overall aquarium feed comprising only 1 to 9 wt% of slow-release binding agent as in Kuerzinger unbroken in use.
Becken at Abstract on pages 1-2 discloses a paste like fish feed ball (3) (Fig. 1) ("aquarium feed") with two groups of constituents (1, 2) each a "granulated feed" wherein the particle size of one of the granulated feeds is greater than the particle size of the other granulated feed. Further, Becken at page 4, 2nd to last full paragraph discloses one granulated feed ground to a fine particle size as in granulated feed A, and at page 4, last full paragraph discloses that larger granulated feed particles having a first diameter of 0.5 to 1 mm as in granulated feed B.
Yu at page 3, starting at “(1) preparation of composite feed” discloses a granulated feed have a 80 to 100 mesh particle size, or about 150 to 180 microns, or 0.15 to 0.18 mm. Further, Yu at (2) and (3) at the top of page 4 discloses binding the granulated feed particles together with a sustained-release binder, followed by drying to form the bound feed.
Lanter at [0019] and [0023] discloses aquatic feeds comprising two distinct pellets ("granulated feeds") as distinct pellets the have different densities and different particle sizes from one another. Lanter at [0045] discloses an aquarium feed comprising two granulated feeds of different particle sizes wherein the granulated feed having the smaller particle size comprises an amount of 15.5 wt% or less of smaller, denser granulated feed particles, which the claimed 15-35 mass% of granulated feed A overlaps. See MPEP 2144.05.I. The ordinary skilled artisan in Lanter would have found it obvious to include the claimed amount of granulated feed A as smaller feed particles in an aquarium feed because Lanter discloses that such an amount of smaller granulated feed A provides a desirable aquarium feed for a population of multiple sizes of fish and for feeding fish that feed at different depths.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Becken and Yu for Kuerzinger as modified by Butler to include larger particles of granulated feed B having a particle size of greater than 0.3 mm and less than or equal to 1 mm as in Becken and smaller particles of granulated feed A having a particle size greater than 0.1 mm and less than or equal to 0.3 mm as in Yu. All references disclose aquarium feeds comprising granulated feed particles and a binder layer of a slow-release binding agent. The ordinary skilled artisan in Kuerzinger as modified by Butler would have desired to include the larger granulated feed having the claimed particle size as in Becken and the smaller granulated feed having the claimed particle size as in Becken and Yu to provide an aquarium feed that distributes feed at multiple depths or that feeds fish having different mouth sizes.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Lanter for Kuerzinger as modified by Butler to include in its mixture of granulated feeds from 15 to 35 mass% of granulated feed A having a smaller particle size, based on the total mass of the aquarium feed. Both Lanter and Kuerzinger as modified by Butler disclose aquarium feeds comprising mixtures of distinct granulated feeds. The ordinary skilled artisan in Kuerzinger as modified by Butler would have desired to include the claimed amount of smaller granulated feed particles A as in Lanter to help judiciously distribute its feed to fish of various sizes as desired in Kuerzinger. The resulting aquarium feed of Kuerzinger as modified by Butler and Lanter would have included the claimed amount of 1-9 wt% of a slow-release binding agent as in Kuerzinger, based on the total mass of the aquarium feed; and it would also have as the remainder a total of 64 to 80 mass% of granulated feed B having a larger particle size, based on the total mass of the aquarium feed as in Kuerzinger as modified by Butler.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PL191262 B1 to Kuerzinger et al (Kuerzinger), of record, in view of US2009/0186130 A1 to Butler (Butler), AU2006216144 B2 to Shimoe et al. (Shimoe), US2018/0199598 A1 to Lanter (Lanter), DE10359530 A1 to Becken et al. (Becken) and CN108371264 A1 to Yu (Yu) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN112602858 A to Chen (Chen), of record, and CN1736241 A to Ai et al. (Ai), of record.
All references to Ai and Chen refer to the Clarivate machine translation, a copy of which was included with an earlier Office action.
As applied to claim 1, Kuerzinger at Abstract, page 3, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th full paragraph, at the paragraph bridging pages 4 and 5 and, at page 5, 3rd full paragraph as modified by Butler at [0001]-[0002], [0008], [0026], [0039] and claim 3, Shimoe at page 6 (of 32), line 33 to page 7, line 4 and page 9 of 32, lines 4-30, Lanter at [0019], [0023] and [0045], Becken at page 4, 2nd to last and last full and Yu at page 3, starting at “(1) preparation of composite feed” discloses an aquarium feed as a paster feed that comprises 1 to 9 mass% of slow-release binding agent comprising an attractant and a slow-release adhesive that is gel-like in water, 15-35 mass% of a granulated feed A and 64 to 80 mass% of a granulated feed B wherein the particle size of granulated feed A is smaller than the particle size of granulated feed B.
Kuerzinger as modified by Butler, Shimoe, Lanter, Becken and Yu does not disclose an aquarium feed wherein the granulated feed A that comprises the following raw materials in percentage by mass, based on the total mass of the aquarium feed: 10-55% of fish protein powder, 0-45% of shrimp, 0-20% of corn flour, 0-20% of yellow mealworm protein powder, 0-9% of Daphnia, 2-35% of soybean powder, 2-15% of beer yeast powder, 1.5-2.5% of garlic powder, 0.4-15% of pigment, 0.5-5% of lecithin, 0.5-1% of vitamin complex and 0.5-1% of trace element complex as in claim 8. Further, Kuerzinger as modified by Butler, Shimoe, Lanter, Becken and Yu does not disclose a granulated feed B that comprises the following raw materials in percentage by mass, based on the total mass of the aquarium feed: 10-55% of fish protein powder, 0-45% of shrimp, 0-20% of corn flour, 0-20% of yellow mealworm protein powder, 0-9% of Daphnia, 2-35% of soybean powder, 2-15% of beer yeast powder, 1.5-2.5% of garlic powder, 0.4-15% of pigment, 0.5-5% of lecithin, 0.5-1% of vitamin complex and 0.5-1% of trace element complex as in claim 9.
The Office interprets the claimed as referring to a mass% solids content which does not account for the moisture content of a granulated feed.
Regarding the claimed 0-45% of shrimp, 0-20% of corn flour, 0-20% of yellow mealworm protein powder, 0-9% of Daphnia, the Office considers these as optional claim limitations. While the Office considers optional limitations, the claims themselves do not require them.
However, Kuerzinger in the paragraph bridging pages 3 and 4 discloses as natural foods used in the feed: saltwater crabs (Artemia), krill, water fleas (Daphnia), water fleas (Gammarus), mud tubular worms (Tubifex), red mosquito larvae (Chironomus), mosquito larvae white (Chaoborus), black mosquito (Culex) larvae, planktons (Cyclops), shrimp, brood as well as meal from worms, fish eggs, crab eggs, mussel meat and fish meat., such as (on page 2 at Description, 2nd full paragraph) Daphnia and (at Example 2 on page 5) from 1 to 10 wt% of dye (pigment). Further, Kuerzinger at page 3, 7th full paragraph discloses in addition, optionally, vitamins, minerals, flavors, baits, dyes and/or carotenoids, plasticizers and preservatives. The ordinary skilled artisan in Kuerzinger would have found it obvious to include the claimed amount of pigment and the claimed amount of Daphnia in its aquarium feed because Kuerzinger discloses that the claimed amounts of pigment and Daphnia provide, respectively a desirable attractant and food source for an aquarium feed.
Lanter at [0022] discloses feed particles of different particle sizes that have the same nutritional profile as one another. The ordinary skilled artisan in Kuerzinger would have desired to formulate multiple granulated feeds, each having different particle sizes but the same nutrients as in Lander to enable distribution of the feed to multiple depths or sizes of fish as in Lanter at [0023]. Further, Lanter at [0029] discloses fish feeds comprising 0.1 to 3 wt% minerals, including trace minerals, which the claimed 0.5 to 1 wt% of trace element complex lies within. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", the Office considers that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.I. The ordinary skilled artisan in Lanter would have found it obvious to use the claimed amount of trace element complex in its granulated feed as Lanter discloses that the claimed amount of trace element complex is a desirable amount to use in making a granulated feed.
Ai at embodiment 2 on page 3 discloses adhesive granulated fish feeds, and at Abstract on page 1 discloses granulated fish feeds comprising 35-45 mass% fish meal (fish protein powder), 10-20 mass% shrimp meal, 3-6 mass% yeast powder, 5-10 mass % hydrolyzed fish protein, 1-3 mass% inorganic salt mixture (“trace element complex”), 1-3 mass% vitamin mixture, which the claimed 0.5 to 1 mass% of vitamin complex overlaps, 0.01-0.05 mass% tomato red (colorant), 0.05-0.08 mass% quinoline (colorant), and 5-8 mass% soybean lecithin, which the claimed 0.5 to 5 mass% lecithin overlaps. See MPEP 2144.05.I. The ordinary skilled artisan in Ai would have desired to use the claimed amount of lecithin and vitamin complex in its granulated feed as Ai discloses that the claimed amount of lecithin and of vitamins is a desirable amount to use in making a granulated feed. The Office considers the amount of fish protein powder disclosed in Ai to be 35-45 mass% plus 5-10 mass% or 40 to 55 mass%.
Chen at Abstract on pages 1-2 and claim 1 discloses a fish feed bound by an adhesive, wherein a fish feed formulation comprises 30-35 mass% bean cake (“soybean powder”), fish meal, corn powder, Artemisiae (mugwort powder), and 2-5 parts garlic powder, which the claimed amount of 1.5 to 2.5 mass% of garlic powder overlaps. See MPEP 2144.05.I. The ordinary skilled artisan in Chen would have desired to use the claimed amount of garlic powder in its granulated feed as Chen discloses that the claimed amount of garlic powder which includes allicin is a desirable amount to use in making a granulated aquarium feed. A the top of p. 4, Chen discloses a step six of making granulated feeds. The Office considers the claimed soybean powder to include the granulated form of dried, crushed bean cake disclosed in Chen.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Lanter, Ai, and Chen for Kuerzinger as modified by Butler, Shimoe, Lanter, Becken and Yu to use the claimed amount of a trace element complex as in Lanter, the claimed amount of fish protein powder, vitamin mixture and lecithin as in Ai, and the claimed amount of soybean powder and garlic powder as in Chen, and the claimed amount of pigment as in Kuerzinger. All references disclose granulated fish feeds comprising a nutrient mix. The ordinary skilled artisan in Kuerzinger as modified by Butler, Shimoe, Lanter, Becken and Yu would have desired to use the claimed amounts of all the claimed ingredients in claims 8 and 9 as disclosed in Lanter, Ai and Chen to formulate a desirable, nutritious fish feed.
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendment dated February 12, 2026, the following rejections have been withdrawn as mott:
The rejections of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite in regard to the term “different particle sizes” in claim 1, and in regard to the recited “percentage” (%) in claims 2, 8 and 9 for lacking a basis or denominator;
The rejections of claims 1 and 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE10359530 A1 to Becken et al.;
The rejections of 1-2 and 4-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AU2006216144 B2 to Shimoe et al. in view of US2018/0199598 A1 to Lanter;
The rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AU2006216144 B2 to Shimoe et al. in view of US2018/0199598 A1 to Lanter, DE10359530 A1 to Becken et al. and CN108371264 A1 to Yu; and,
The rejections of claims 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AU2006216144 B2 to Shimoe et al. in view of US2018/0199598 A1 to Lanter, CN1736241 A to Ai et al., CN112602858 A to Chen and PL191262 B1 to Kuerzinger et al.
Regarding the positions taken in the remarks accompanying the amendment dated February 12, 2026 (Reply) in regard to DE10359530 A1 to Becken et al. (Becken) and AU2006216144 B2 to Shimoe et al. (Shimoe) with respect to claims 1-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on those references as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding the positions taken in the remarks accompanying the amendment dated February 12, 2026 (Reply), the Office has fully considered the positions but does not find them persuasive for the following reasons:
Regarding the position taken in the Reply alleging that the granulated feed of different particle sizes in independent claim 1 is intended to cooperate with the gel-like properties of the slow-release binding agent to achieve coordinated sustained release of large and small particles, the Office does not disagree. However, respectfully it is not clear if or how a difference in performance exists between the claimed feed and that of an aquarium feed having the same amount of the same slow-release adhesive agent and the same combination of granulated feeds as that claimed.
Regarding the position taken in the Reply alleging that the primary characteristic of paster feed is its adhesiveness so that it adheres to specific surfaces to achieve fixed-point placement of the feed; the position taken that the gel layer formed after the feed enters the water securely locks in the feed particles, preventing release of the feed particles to the greatest extent possible; and, that release of a certain amount of feed only occurs upon the application of mechanical force (such as pulling or biting generated by fish nibbling), the Office finds these positions unpersuasive. Respectfully the Office finds the adhesive feed disclosed at the Abstract and page 3, 6th full paragraph of Kuerzinger to be a paster feed that forms a durable soft gel in water.
Regarding the position taken in the Reply that the claimed paster feed is patentable as it uses a slow-release binding agent for adhesion to tank walls and to prevent pellet settling; and, that the claimed aquarium feed targets mostly small or medium-sized ornamental fish, thus not requiring large amounts of binder to form large blocks, respectfully the Office finds that at least Kuerzinger discloses use of the same amount of the same slow-release adhesive for the same purpose of feeding small fish as in the alleged position. In any case, the positions taken amount to arguments which are not themselves evidence. See MPEP 716.01(c).II.
Regarding the position taken in the Reply that the purpose of using binders in Shimoe and Lanter is entirely different from the use of the slow-release binding agent in the claims and that use of binders in Ai and Chen is essentially the same as in Shimoe and Lanter, respectfully the Office the Office does not rely on any of Shimoe, Lanter, Ai or Chen for its binder disclosure. Further, the Office only accords weight to an intended use feature to the extent that it results in a structural difference between the claimed aquarium feed and that of the art. See MPEP 2111.02.II. The claims recite no difference in structure for an aquarium feed in comparison to the art cited in the current rejection.
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 ANDREW E MERRIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-H 8:00A-5:30P and alternate Fridays 8:30A-5P.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nikki H Dees can be reached at (571) 270-3435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.E.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights