DETAILED ACTION
Previous Rejections
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/16/2025, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 - Obviousness
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lafond et al (US 2023/0039674 A1), in view of Harkins et al (USP 12,213,952) and further in view of Takemoto et al (AU 2021/271500 A1), Yusong et al (CN 113577092 A), Fuwa et al (US 2019/0124952 A1), KR 2010/0068564 A, Zhang et al (US 2013/0344217 A1), Scribner et al (US 2021/0100738 A1) and Takihara et al (TWI 679940 B).
Lafond taught a beverage [0029] comprising about 0.1-75 % each of L-theanine (e.g., neurocalming compound) and magnesium (e.g., oxygen-rich hydration complex, high-oxygen active compound), about 0.1-80 % rhodiola extract (e.g., high-oxygen active compound) [claim 10]; and, excipients, including sweeteners and flavor agents (e.g., reads on additive) [0059].
Lafond did not teach pyridine nucleotides, quinone-based coenzymes, neurotransmitter precursors, an olive oil extract, or amounts thereof, as recited in claim 1. Lafond did not teach amounts of additives, as recited in claim 1. Lafond did not teach wherein the beverage is formulated to enhance mitochondrial function, oxygen utilization and antioxidant defense, nano-sized oxygen bubbles of about 30 nm to 300 nm in diameter, at least 30 ppm dissolved molecular oxygen and about 1.0 to 2.5 ppm dissolved molecular hydrogen, as recited in claim 1.
Harkins taught beverage enhancing ingredients comprising nicotinamide mononucleotide (NMN) and Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) (e.g., pyridine nucleotide, quinone-based coenzyme) [Abstract and Example 3].
Harkins was silent amounts of NMN and CoQ10.
Takemoto taught beverages [claim 11] comprising NMN [abstract] at 0.05 to 70 wt. % [0023].
Yusong taught liquids [claim 10] comprising 0.08-100.02 parts coenzyme Q [claim 2].
Since Lafond generally taught beverages, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include, within Lafond, NMN and CoQ10, as taught by Harkins. The ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to include, within Lafond, beverage enhancing ingredients, as taught by Harkins; and, amounts thereof, as taught by Takemoto and Yusong.
The combination of Lafond, Takemoto and Yusong did not teach an olive oil extract.
Fuwa taught beverages comprising hydroxytyrosol (e.g., olive extract) [abstract, ¶ 0001]. Hydroxytyrosol is known as one of the major polyphenolic components present in olives, and is known to have antioxidant activity. It is generally known that the antioxidant activity is useful for prevention and amelioration of lifestyle-related diseases. Thus, the development of foods and beverages containing such antioxidant ingredients has been strongly expected [0004]. Fuwa taught 6 % hydroxytyrosol [0090, 0099, 0103, 0107].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include, within the combination of Lafond, Takemoto and Yusong, 6 % hydroxytyrosol, as taught by Fuwa et al. The ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to include a compound generally known as useful for the prevention and amelioration of lifestyle-related diseases, as taught by Fuwa [0001, 0004, abstract].
The combination of Lafond, Takemoto, Yusong and Fuwa did not teach a neurotransmitter precursor and amounts thereof.
KR 2010/0068564A taught a health beverage that contained 0.01 to 15 % by weight 5-hydroxytryptophan [abstract; page 4, 3rd and 2nd from last paragraphs], wherein 5-hydroxytryptophan has anti-inflammatory efficacy [page 3, 6th – 8th paragraphs].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include, within the combined teachings of Lafond, Yusong and Fuwa, 0.01 to 15 % by weight 5-hydroxytryptophan, as taught by KR 2010/0068564A. The ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to include an agent with anti-inflammatory efficacy, as taught by KR 2010/0068564A [page 3, 6th – 8th paragraphs].
The combined teachings of Lafond, Takemoto, Yusong, Fuwa and KR 2010/0068564A did not teach amounts of additives.
Zhang taught sweetener compositions and uses thereof in beverages [abstract], comprising between about 1% and 60 % sucrose [claims 14, 16-17].
Since Lafond taught beverages generally comprising sweeteners, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include, within the combined teachings of Lafond, Takemoto, Yusong, Fuwa and KR 2010/0068564A, 1-60 % sucrose, as taught by Zhang et al. The ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to enhance the sweetness of the beverage, as taught by Zhang at claims 14 and 16-17.
The combined teachings of Lafond, Takemoto, Yusong, Fuwa, KR 2010/0068564A and Zhang did not teach wherein the beverage is formulated to enhance mitochondrial function, oxygen utilization and antioxidant defense; nano-sized oxygen bubbles of about 30 nm to 300 nm in diameter; at least 30 ppm dissolved molecular oxygen.
Scribner taught an oxygen delivery beverage [title] comprising microbubbles (1 µm taught at [0034]) containing oxygen [claim 1], including molecular oxygen and hydrogen [0035], encapsulated in gas-filled particles (e.g., reads on dissolved) [claim 14]. Amounts of oxygen included amounts sufficient to fully oxygenate an individual [0010]. In an embodiment, the microbubbles were delivered by an infusion system [0076]. The microbubbles desirably enabled and/or facilitated the transport of oxygen across tissue membranes into and/or through an organism's cells for satisfactory treatment effects [0002], which was important since oxygen is one of the basic essentials for sustaining life [0003]. Scribner was drawn to a non-invasive, easily portable beverage that could quickly deliver oxygen to a patient, or other individual for short term and/or long term delivery, and in a safe and easily-used manner [0009].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include, within the combined beverage of Lafond, Takemoto, Yusong, Fuwa, KR 2010/0068564A and Zhang, microbubble oxygenation, comprising 1 µm bubbles, as taught by Scribner et al. The ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to include a non-invasive, easy way to quickly deliver oxygen to a patient or individual for satisfactory treatment effects, since oxygen is one of the basic essentials for sustaining life [0002-0003, claim 1, title and abstract].
The combined teachings of Lafond, Takemoto, Yusong, Fuwa, KR 2010/0068564A, Zhang and Scribner did not teach about 1.0 to 2.5 ppm dissolved molecular hydrogen.
Takihara taught a method for adjusting the flavor balance of a liquid food or drink, which was characterized by bringing a hydrogen-containing gas, at a concentration of 3.0 ppm or less (e.g., dissolved molecular hydrogen taught at the penultimate paragraph of page 4), into contact with a liquid food or drink raw material. The disclosure also provided a flavor balance adjusting agent for a liquid food or drink, characterized by containing a hydrogen-containing gas as an active ingredient. The flavor balance adjusting method and flavor balance adjusting agent of the liquid food and drink improved flavor, and reduced or alleviated bad flavors [abstract and page 2 at the 4th line].
The instant claim 1 recites about:
9-13 % pyridine nucleotide
12-16 % quinone-based coenzyme
8-12 % neurocalming compound
9-13 % neurotransmitter precursor
12-16 % high-oxygen active compound
4-7 % olive extract
4-9 % rhodiola extract
12-18 % oxygen-rich hydration complex
20-30 % additive
30 nm to 300 nm oxygen bubbles
At least 30 ppm molecular oxygen and 1.0 to 2.5 ppm molecular hydrogen
Lafond taught: 0.1-75 % each of L-theanine (e.g., neurocalming compound) and magnesium (e.g., oxygen-rich hydration complex, high-oxygen active compound), about 0.1-80 % rhodiola extract (e.g., high-oxygen active compound); and, excipients, including sweeteners and flavor agents (e.g., reads on additive).
Takemoto taught: NMN (e.g., pyridine nucleotide) at 0.05 to 70 wt. %.
Yusong taught: 0.08-100.02 parts coenzyme Q (quinone-based coenzyme).
Fuwa taught: 6 % hydroxytyrosol (e.g., olive oil extract).
KR 2010/0068564A taught: 0.01 to 15 % by weight 5-hydroxytryptophan (e.g., neurotransmitter precursor).
Zhang taught: 1% and 60 % sucrose (e.g., additive).
Scribner taught bubbles sized 1 µm. Scribner taught dissolved molecular oxygen and hydrogen, with oxygen included in amounts sufficient to fully oxygenate an individual, but was specifically silent the concentration, as recited (e.g., at least 30 ppm oxygen). Nevertheless, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include dissolved molecular oxygen within beverages at the desired concentration, in order to form an optimal beverage. The ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated by Scribner’s guidance to include oxygen in amounts sufficient to fully oxygenate an individual.
Takihara taught hydrogen at a concentration of 3.0 ppm or less.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 A.
Further regarding claim 1, the claim recites “wherein the beverage is formulated to enhance mitochondrial function, oxygen utilization and antioxidant defense”. The instant Specification disclosed [0010] that beverages formulated with microbubble oxygenation enhances bioavailability and stability, which optimizes cellular metabolism, mitochondrial function, and oxygen utilization.
It appears that the beverage of the instant claims (e.g., formulated with microbubble oxygenation) and that of the combined teachings (e.g., formulated with microbubble oxygenation) of the prior art would reasonably be expected to have substantially the same physical and chemical properties (e.g., optimized cellular metabolism, mitochondrial function, and oxygen utilization). Inherent features need not be recognized at the time of the invention. There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. MPEP 2112 II. It should be noted that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. If the prior art teaches the identical chemical compounds, then the properties that the Applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see MPEP 2112).
As to claim 1, the claim requires bubbles sized about 30 nm to 300 nm in diameter. Scribner taught bubbles sized 1 µm (1,000 nm). It is noted that no surprising effect has been provided in the present application coming from the claimed specific regimen, if compared with the oxygenated bubbles of the combined teachings of Lafond, in view of Yusong, Fuwa, KR 2010/0068564A, Zhang, Scribner and Takihara et al.
It is considered that in the absence of any effect linked to such a feature over those known from the prior art, the single structural modification such as variation of diameter belongs to common experimental design that a skilled person, who is aware that for the oxygenation of beverages, microbubble oxygenation is required, would optimize in routine experiments. In the absence of evidence (experimental versus comparative data) in the present application showing that the specific diameter possesses an unexpected, surprising effect compared to the oxygenated bubbles known in the prior art, no inventive step can be acknowledged. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). In this case, the general conditions of microbubble oxygenation to oxygenate beverages have been taught by the prior art; as such, it would not have been inventive for the skilled artisan to have discovered the optimum diameter of the bubbles via routine experimentation.
Further, the instant claim 1 recites “wherein the oxygen-enhanced adaptive functional beverage is produced under cold-sterile microbubble oxygenation at a temperature of about 4 º C to 8 º C, generating nano-sized oxygen bubbles of about 30 nm to 300 nm in diameter……, wherein the oxygen-enhanced adaptive functional beverage comprises oxygen and hydrogen introduced via sequential microbubble infusion”. The limitation of producing the oxygen-enhanced adaptive functional beverage is a product-by-process limitation. Product by process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.
Even though the product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. 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. In the instant case, the beverage of the combined teachings of the prior art, comprising all claimed ingredients, reads on the claimed oxygen-enhanced adaptive functional beverage. As such, the patentability of the instant beverage does not depend on its method of production, and the Applicant’s limitation regarding the process of preparing the oxygen-enhanced adaptive functional beverage is not patentable, in view of the combined teachings of Lafond, Yusong, Fuwa, KR 2010/0068564A, Zhang, Scribner and Takihara et al. MPEP 2113.
The combined teachings of Lafond, Yusong, Fuwa, KR 2010/0068564A, Zhang, Scribner and Takihara et al, read on claims 1 and 4-9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that the cited art does not address or recognize the claimed integrated biochemical-physical system (e.g., formulation produced under cold-sterile microbubble oxygenation at 4-8 º C, to generate bubbles of about 30 nm to 300 nm in diameter.
The Examiner disagrees. The limitation regarding how the beverage is produced is a product-by-process limitation, which does not receive patentable weight in product claims. Even though the product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. 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. In the instant case, the beverage of the combined teachings of the prior art, comprising all claimed ingredients, reads on the claimed oxygen-enhanced adaptive functional beverage. As such, the patentability of the instant beverage does not depend on its method of production, and the Applicant’s limitation regarding the process of preparing the oxygen-enhanced adaptive functional beverage is not patentable, in view of the combined teachings of Lafond, Yusong, Fuwa, KR 2010/0068564A, Zhang, Scribner and Takihara et al. MPEP 2113.
Applicant argued that each of the cited references lie outside of the Applicant’s field of oxygen-adaptive bioenergetic beverage technology. Applicant argued that the references represent unrelated technical domains.
The Examiner disagrees. In response to the Applicant's argument that the cited prior art is non-analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2141.01(a). In this case, the claims are not drawn towards a technology, but rather to a beverage comprising ingredients. Each of the references are drawn to beverages individually, and, collectively, disclose the claimed ingredients.
In response to Applicant's argument that the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See MPEP 2145.
In the instant case, the claims were rejected with a motivation to combine rationale, rather than with hindsight reasoning, as alleged. As previously discussed, each reference teaches a beverage, and, collectively, the combined beverages teach the claimed ingredients. The obviousness rationales, and the motivation to combine the references, were disclosed in the body of the rejections (see the Outstanding 8/13/25 Non-Final Office Action).
Applicant argued that even though some prior art disclosed broad ranges or generic ranges, no art overlaps the Applicant’s critical composition window.
The Examiner disagrees. The Applicant has not shown a criticality of the claimed ranges. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In the instant case, the cited art disclosed ingredients at amounts that overlap claimed amounts. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 A. Absent a showing of unexpectedness, the claimed amounts are rendered prima facie obvious over the teachings of the combined teachings of the prior art. MPEP 716.01
Applicant argued that the claimed “enhanced mitochondrial function, oxygen utilization, and antioxidant defense” are not inherent in Scribner, where the claimed invention employs droplets at 30-300 nm, and Scribner taught microbubbles at 1-1000 µm.
The Examiner disagrees. The claimed invention does not appear patentably distinct from the combined teachings of the prior art, and it does not appear that the Applicant has presented evidence otherwise.
Regarding Scribner’s diameter, claim 1 requires bubbles sized about 30 nm to 300 nm in diameter. Scribner taught bubbles sized 1 µm (1,000 nm).
It is noted that no surprising effect has been provided in the present application coming from the claimed specific regimen, if compared with the oxygenated bubbles of the combined teachings of Lafond, in view of Yusong, Fuwa, KR 2010/0068564A, Zhang, Scribner and Takihara et al. It is considered that in the absence of any effect linked to such a feature over those known from the prior art, the single structural modification such as variation of diameter belongs to common experimental design that a skilled person, who is aware that for the oxygenation of beverages, microbubble oxygenation is required, would optimize in routine experiments.
In the absence of evidence (experimental versus comparative data) in the present application showing that the specific diameter possesses an unexpected, surprising effect compared to the oxygenated bubbles known in the prior art, no inventive step can be acknowledged. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). In this case, the general conditions of microbubble oxygenation to oxygenate beverages have been taught by the prior art; as such, it would not have been inventive for the skilled artisan to have discovered the optimum diameter of the bubbles via routine experimentation.
Applicant argued that the claimed invention represents a novel biochemical-physical system with proven, unexpected performance.
The Examiner notes the allegation of a novel biochemical-physical system with proven, unexpected performance, as disclosed by the Applicant in the instant Specification at paragraphs [0001 and [0008]. But, these allegations are merely attorney argument since they are unsupported by fact. The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. MPEP 2145(I). It does not appear that the Applicants have provided evidence in support of these conclusions. As such, the Applicants have the burden of proffering data and establishing results as unexpected and significant. Evidence of unexpected properties may be established by direct or indirect comparative tests. MPEP 716.02(b)(I)(II)(III).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lafond et al (US 2023/0039674 A1), in view of Harkins et al (USP 12,213,952), further in view of Takemoto et al (AU 2021/271500 A1), Yusong et al (CN 113577092 A), Fuwa et al (US 2019/0124952 A1), KR 2010/0068564 A, Zhang et al (US 2013/0344217 A1), Scribner et al (US 2021/0100738 A1), Takihara et al and further in view both of Kharazmi et al (US 2022/0088045 A1) and KR 2024/0092735A.
The U.S.C. 103 rejection over Lafond, Yusong, Fuwa, KR 2010/0068564A, Zhang, Scribner and Takihara et al was previously described.
The combined teachings of the prior art did not teach pyridine nucleotides as plant-based microencapsulated.
Kharazmi taught active components introduced into water to form a beverage [abstract], where the active components included NAD and NMN [0021]. Encapsulation protected active agents from surrounding environments; and, served to control the release of active materials over a desired time (e.g. when exposed to a particular environment) or at a desired rate. Additionally, nanoencapsulated components served to aid in delivering particular components to targeted cells, or to targeted compartments in cells, where the components can directly act on cellular targets [0025-0026], which was of particular benefit when the active composition included NAD+ or NMN [0036]. As per Kharaxmi, encapsulation may be performed by any of a number of methods known in the art, such as encapsulation by liposomes, a conventional encapsulation process [0027].
Kharazmi taught that NAD is an important enzyme cofactor involved in numerous redox reactions in the body, and that there is a need to increase NAD levels to help reduce age-related defects [0006]. Kharazmi suggests that supplementation with NMN may bypass a rate limiting de novo synthesis step to raise NAD levels, of which extracellular uptake levels are low [0007]. As per Kharazmi, there is a need for a combination supplementation that addresses age-related symptoms [0008].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include, within the combined teachings of Lafond, Yusong, Fuwa, KR 2010/0068564A, Zhang, Scribner, and Takihara et al, encapsulated NAD and NMN, as taught by Kharazmi. The ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to address age-related symptoms by protecting (e.g., encapsulation) active components (e.g., NMN and NAD) that directly act on cells, in a controlled release over a desired time, as taught by Kharazmi [0005-0008, 0021, 0025-0027 and 0036].
The combined teachings of Lafond, Yusong, Fuwa, KR 2010/0068564A, Zhang, Scribner, Takihara et al and Kharazmi, did not teach plant-based microencapsulation, as instantly recited.
KR 2024/0092735A taught liposomes formed by encapsulating physiologically active substances, by a liposome formulation (formulated into beverages, taught at the [first paragraph of page 3; 3rd from last paragraph of page 6]), while enhancing health advantages by using β-sitosterol, which is a vegetable sterol (e.g., reads on plant-based), as a sterol component constituting a membrane of the liposome [abstract]. The liposomes were sized at about 1,000 nm (e.g., reads on microencapsulated) or less [page 8, midway at section entitled “Nanoscale”].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include, within the combined teachings of Lafond, Yusong, Fuwa, KR 2010/0068564A, Zhang, Scribner, Takihara et al and Kharazmi, plant-based microencapsulation of physiologically active substances, as taught by KR 2024/0092735A. The ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to include, within the liposomes of the combined prior art, a health enhancing membrane constituent (e.g., vegetable sterol), as taught by KR 2024/0092735A at the abstract.
Response to Arguments
The rejection over claim 2 is newly applied, and has not been traversed.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lafond et al (US 2023/0039674 A1), in view of Harkins et al (USP 12,213,952), further in view of Takemoto et al (AU 2021/271500 A1), Yusong et al (CN 113577092 A), Fuwa et al (US 2019/0124952 A1), KR 2010/0068564 A, Zhang et al (US 2013/0344217 A1), Scribner et al (US 2021/0100738 A1), Takihara et al and further in view of KR 2024/0092735A.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Lafond, Yusong, Fuwa, KR 2010/0068564A, Zhang, Scribner and Takihara et al was previously described.
Additionally, Yusong taught coenzyme Q (quinone-based coenzyme), as previously discussed.
However, the combined teachings of the prior art did not disclose liposomally encapsulated quinone coenzymes, as recited in claim 3.
Nevertheless, KR 2024/0092735A taught coenzyme q10-loaded liposomes formed by encapsulating coenzyme q10 (coq10), which is a physiologically active substance, by a liposome formulation, and a method for providing good stability when incorporated into food (e.g., beverages taught at [first paragraph of page 3; 3rd from last paragraph of page 6]), under storage, and while enhancing health advantages by using β-sitosterol, which is a vegetable sterol, as a sterol component constituting a membrane of the liposome [abstract]. KR 2024/0092735A was drawn to health benefits of the coenzyme q10-loaded liposomes [page 3, last paragraph], including anti-aging effects [page 4, 2nd paragraph]. Encapsulation of coq10 increases its solubility, stability, cell permeability and absorption rate in the body [page 4, 3rd and 4th paragraphs].
Since the combined teachings of the prior art taught beverages comprising coenzyme Q, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include, within the combined teachings of the art, liposomally encapsulated coq10, as taught by KR 2024/0092735A. The ordinarily skilled artisan would have been so motivated, because the encapsulation of coq10 increases its solubility, stability, cell permeability and absorption rate in the body, as taught by KR 2024/0092735A [page 4, 3rd and 4th paragraphs].
Response to Arguments
The rejection over claim 3 is newly applied, and has not been traversed.
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 CELESTE A RONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5192. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 8 AM-6 PM.
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, Kaup S Sahana can be reached at 571-272-6897. 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.
/CELESTE A RONEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612