DETAILED ACTION
Background
The amendment dated July 21, 2026 (amendment) amending claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, 13-21 and 29-30, adding new claim 31 and canceling claims 2, 6, 11-12 and 22-28 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, 13-21 and 29-31 as filed with the amendment have been examined. In view of the amendment, all outstanding claim objections have been withdrawn.
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 1, 5, 7, 14 and 31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, at line 7 after “weight” insert -- of the fast-, moderate- and slow-fermenting dietary fibers--;
and, at line 9 after “weight” insert -- of the fast-, moderate- and slow-fermenting dietary fibers--;
In claim 5, at the last line before “larch tree” insert --a --;
In claim 7, at line 3 after “weight” insert -- of the fast-, moderate- and slow-fermenting dietary fibers--;
at line 5 after “weight” insert -- of the fast-, moderate- and slow-fermenting dietary fibers--; and,
at line 7, after “weight” insert -- of the fast-, moderate- and slow-fermenting dietary fibers--;
In claim 14, at line 5 after “wherein, in an” put --in vitro-- in italics; and,
In claim 31, at line 10 after “wherein, in an” put --in vitro-- in italics.
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, 3-5, 7-10, 13-21 and 29-31 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.
Regarding instant claims 1, 5, 8-10, 14 and 31, the dietary composition “consisting of” dietary fibers as recited in claims 1, 14 and 31 is indefinite in scope because it is not clear whether or not applicant intends to include anything other than dietary fiber in the claimed composition. The independent claims 1, 14 and 31 all recite a composition that consists of dietary fiber and nothing else. However, claim 10 recites a unit-dose dietary supplement; and the instant specification at [0047]-[0048] makes clear that the claimed composition takes the form of a supplement comprising at least one ingredient other than dietary fiber in a fiber or tablet, a solution or suspension, gel, emulsion, spray, aerosol or any form of mixture. Further, claim 5 recites an extract of the larch tree, which the art of US2013/0331354 A1 to Philippov et al. (Philippov), of record, at [0061] discloses to be a composition containing the recited arabinogalactan and dihydroquercetin, a polyphenol which is not dietary fiber. Still further, as recited in claim 8 a dietary composition further comprises an excipient or carrier, whereas claim 9 recites a dietary composition “comprising a formulation”. In addition, the instant specification does not disclose anything or provide any guidance about the recited extract of the larch tree or its composition that distinguishes the claimed extract from the polyphenol containing larch extract of Philippov, much less any way of making such an extract.
In claims 1, 5, 8-10, 14 and 31, the scope of the ingredients in each of the claims is unclear and thus the claims themselves are unclear.
The Office interprets the claims as reciting a dietary composition wherein the dietary fibers themselves consist of one or more fast-fermenting dietary fibers, one or more moderate-fermenting dietary fibers and one or more slow-fermenting dietary fibers and the composition includes at least the other ingredients as needed to form a dietary supplement and to use the recited larch extract.
Claims 3-4, 7, 13, 15-21 and 29-30 are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Whereas claim 1 recites a dietary composition consisting of one or more slow-fermenting dietary fibers, one or more moderate-fermenting dietary fibers and one or more fast-fermenting dietary fibers, claim 5 recites an extract of the larch tree, which the art of US2013/0331354 A1 to Philippov et al. (Philippov), of record, at [0061] discloses to be a composition containing dihydroquercetin, a polyphenol which is not a dietary fiber; claim 8 recites a dietary composition further comprising a carrier or excipient; claim 9 recites a dietary composition “comprising a formulation” and thus including other ingredients aside from dietary fiber; and claim 10 recites a unit-dose dietary supplement. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 3-4, 13-21 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0027191 A1 to Norton et al. (Norton) in view of US2005/0112217 A1 to Khoo (Khoo), of record, and as evidenced by US2022/0079189 A1 to Jaworski et al. (Jaworksi), of record, US5,616,569 to Reinhart (Reinhart), of record, and US2005/0118299 A1 to Vickers et al. (Vickers), of record.
The Office interprets the claims as reciting a dietary composition wherein the dietary fibers consist of one or more fast-fermenting dietary fibers, one or more moderate-fermenting dietary fibers and one or more slow-fermenting dietary fibers and the composition includes at least the other ingredients as needed to form a dietary supplement and to use the recited larch extract.
Regarding instant claims 1, 3-4, 14 and 31, Norton at Abstract discloses a method of orally administering a composition containing fermentable fiber in a dietary composition (“an effective amount of a dietary fiber” claims 14 and 31) comprising fiber as a mixture of beet pulp (“one or more beet-derived fibers” - claims 3 and 31 as “moderate-fermenting dietary fibers”); gum arabic, xanthan gum, gum talha or carob bean gum (“fast-fermenting dietary fiber” as mannan-oligosaccharides (MOS)- claim 4); and arabinogalactan (“slow-fermenting dietary fiber”) to a companion animal to improve its gastrointestinal health (“supporting gastrointestinal health” - claim 31). Further, at [0028], Norton discloses supplements in liquid form, such as drinking water or topping to be added to food. Further, 2 at [0103]-[0104] and the accompanying Table, Norton discloses daily feeding dogs a supplement mixed with its food, wherein the dietary fiber composition in the gravy consists of 0.4 weight parts of beet pulp, 0.5 weight parts xanthan gum and 5.3 weight parts of short chain oligofructose (“fast-fermenting dietary fibers”).
Norton does not disclose an Example of a dietary fiber composition wherein the fiber consists of one or more of a fast-fermenting dietary fiber, one or more moderate-fermenting dietary fibers and one or more slow-fermenting dietary fibers as in claims 1 and 31. Further, Norton does not disclose an example of a dietary composition, wherein (a) the one or more fast-fermenting dietary fibers or mannan-oligosaccharides are present in an amount of about 5wt% to about 15wt%, based on total combined fiber weight; (b) the one or more beet-derived fibers or moderate-fermenting dietary fibers is present in an amount of about 35wt% to about 55wt%, based on total combined fiber weight; and (c) the one or more slow-fermenting dietary fibers is present in an amount of about 35 wt% to about 55 wt% of the total combined fiber weight as in claims 1 and 31. However, the ordinary skilled artisan in Norton would have found it obvious to combine one or more of each of a slow-fermenting dietary fiber, a moderate-fermenting dietary fiber and a fast-fermenting dietary fiber because Norton at the Abstract discloses that desirable dietary fiber compositions beet fiber as a moderate-fermenting dietary fiber combined with the claimed fast-fermenting dietary fibers as gums and slow-fermenting dietary fibers as arabinogalactans.
Khoo at the Abstract on page 1 discloses causing a companion animal to ingest a composition comprising an excreta odor reducing effective amount of a fiber with another odor reducing agent. The composition disclosed at [0032]-[0034] of Khoo includes at least two of a fast-fermenting dietary fiber, a moderate-fermenting dietary fiber; and a non-fermentable dietary fiber. Further, the Office considers the claimed slow-fermenting dietary fibers as including the non-fermentable dietary fiber of Khoo At [0032], Khoo discloses compositions comprising from about 40 to about 60 wt% of fermentable fiber, based on the total weight of fiber, and the balance (about 40 to 60 wt%, based on total combined fiber weight, which the claimed 35 to 55 wt% of one or more slow-fermenting dietary fibers in claims 1 and 31 overlaps) being non-fermentable fiber and comprising (at [0033]) about 5 to about 50 wt% moderately fermentable fiber, based on total fiber weight, which the claimed 35 to 55 wt% of moderate-fermenting dietary fibers in claims 1 and 31 overlaps, and (at [0034]) about 10 wt% to about 15 wt% of one or more highly fermentable fibers or fast-fermenting dietary fibers, based on total fiber weight. 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 would have found it obvious in view of Khoo for Norton to formulate its dietary fiber composition so as to include the claimed amounts of one or more fast-fermenting dietary fibers, one or more slow-fermenting dietary fibers and one or more moderate-fermenting dietary fibers because Khoo discloses that desirable dietary supplements for companion animals comprise the claimed amounts of such fibers.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Khoo for Norton to formulate its dietary fiber composition so as to include the claimed amounts of one or more fast-fermenting dietary fibers, one or more slow-fermenting dietary fibers and one or more moderate-fermenting dietary fibers. Both references disclose supplemental compositions of blends of fast-, moderate- and slow-fermenting dietary fibers for companion animals and methods of administering them to improve gastrointestinal health. The ordinary skilled artisan in Norton would have desired to use the dietary fiber blend in Khoo to improve the biome or other gut health indicia of companion animals because both references disclose the same fibers in blends as desirable dietary supplements for companion animals.
Further, as evidence of the effect of the dietary fiber composition disclosed in Norton, Jaworski at [0076]-[0079] discloses that dietary fiber compositions of fast digesting fiber are fermented in the cecum of the animal, that slow digesting fiber is fermented in the large intestine of the animal, and that resistant or slow digesting fiber is in the large intestine of the animal or not at all. Accordingly, the Office considers the recited one or more fast-fermenting dietary fibers, one or more moderate-fermenting dietary fibers, and one or more slow-fermenting dietary fibers as characterized by a different fermentation rate and/or a location of fermentation along the gastrointestinal tract of the companion animal as in claim 1 as including the various disclosed fibers in the composite dietary fiber composition of Norton at the Abstract.
Still further and regarding instant claims 18, 20-21, Norton at [0063] discloses that the claimed method of administering dietary fiber blends to a companion animal improves levels of beneficial bacteria relative to harmful bacteria and improves fecal quality associated with loose stools. The Office considers the dietary fiber composition of Norton as modified by Khoo to be substantially the same thing as the claimed composition and, further, considers method of administering to a companion animal a dietary fiber composition as disclosed in Norton as modified by Khoo to be substantially the same thing as the claimed method. Further, Accordingly, absent a clear showing as to how the composition and method of Norton as modified by Khoo differs from that as claimed, the Office considers the method disclosed in Norton at the Abstract, [0028] and [0063] as modified by Khoo at the Abstract and [0032]-[0034] as comprising a composition wherein, in an in vitro stool assay, fermentation with the dietary fiber composition produces higher microbial species richness relative to an otherwise identical composition comprising only one of the fast-fermenting dietary fiber, the moderate-fermenting dietary fiber, and the slow-fermenting dietary fiber as in claim 14; as comprising a method that supports stool consistency in the companion animal as in claim 18; as comprising a method wherein administration of the dietary fiber composition supports bowel regularity in the companion animal as in claim 20; and as comprising a method wherein the dietary fiber composition maintains or promotes taxonomic richness of the gastrointestinal microbiome as in claim 21. See MPEP 2112.01.I.
Regarding instant claim 13, Norton discloses in the Abstract, [0028] and Example 2 compositions comprising no pumpkin derived fiber, bran or barley.
Regarding instant claims 15, 17, 19 and 30, Norton discloses at [0015] feeding dogs (claims 19 and 30) and in Examples 1, 2 and 3 discloses a liquid supplement mixed with dog food (claim 17) as part of a daily feeding (claim 15) dogs.
Regarding instant claim 16, Example 1 of Norton at [0102] discloses feeding 1 ounce (about 28.5 g) of a fiber composite containing gravy composition comprises about 6 wt% of dietary fiber or about 2 g of fiber, depending on the size of the dog.
Regarding instant claim 29, the Office considers the method of feeding companion animals a dietary fiber composition of Norton as modified by Khoo as being substantially the same thing as the claimed method. Accordingly, absent a clear showing as to how the method of Norton as modified by Khoo differs from that as claimed, the Office considers the method disclosed at Norton at the Abstract, [0028] and [0063] as modified by Khoo at the Abstract and [0032]-[0034] as comprising a method wherein in an in vitro stool assay, fermentation with the dietary fiber composition results in higher relative abundance of Lachnospiraceae and/or Ruminococcaceae relative to an otherwise identical composition comprising no dietary fiber as in claim 29.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Whether taken alone or in combination, the art of record and the art found after a diligent search fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed dietary composition comprising dietary fiber, wherein the fiber consists of (a) one or more mannan-oligosaccharide fast-fermenting dietary fibers present in an amount of about 5wt% to about 15wt%, based on total combined fiber weight; (b) one or more beet-derived moderate-fermenting dietary fibers present in an amount of about 35wt% to about 55wt%, based on total combined fiber weight; and (c) and arabinogalactan and/or an extract of larch tree as one or more slow-fermenting dietary fibers present in an amount of about 35 wt% to about 55 wt% of the total combined fiber weight.
CN106036085 A to Luo et al. (Luo) at the Abstract on page 1 discloses an additive for an animal feed comprising a composite fiber comprising oat, wheat bran, microcrystalline cellulose, beet pulp, pea fiber, lentinan, oligosaccharide, inulin, konjac gum, sodium alginate and corn starch. At page 3, 3ʳᵈ full paragraph, Luo discloses a dietary fiber composition comprising oat bran, wheat bran, bagasse, pea fiber, lentinan, fruit oligosaccharide, inulin and konjak gum. Luo does not disclose an arabinogalactan and/or an extract of larch tree slow-fermenting dietary fiber, or disclose 35 wt% to about 55 wt% of the total combined fiber weight of the arabinogalactan and/or an extract of larch tree. Further, Luo does not disclose a dietary composition comprising moderate-fermenting dietary fibers present in an amount of about 35wt% to about 55wt%, based on total combined fiber weight in the composition.
US2005/0112217 A1 to Khoo (Khoo) at the Abstract on page 1 discloses causing a companion animal to ingest a composition comprising an excreta odor reducing effective amount of a fiber with another odor reducing agent. The composition disclosed at [0032]-[0034] of Khoo includes at least two of a fast-fermenting dietary fiber, a moderate-fermenting dietary fiber; and a non-fermentable dietary fiber and comprising (at [0033]) about 5 to about 50 wt% moderately fermentable fiber, based on total fiber weight, (at [0034]) about 10 wt% to about 15 wt% of one or more highly fermentable fibers or fast-fermenting dietary fibers and the balance (about 40 to 60 wt%, based on total combined fiber weight) being non-fermentable fiber or slow-fermenting dietary fiber. Khoo does not disclose an Example of a dietary fiber composition wherein the at least one fast-fermenting dietary fiber comprises mannan-oligosaccharides (MOS), the at least one moderate-fermenting dietary fiber is a beet-derived fiber; and the at least one slow-fermenting fiber is arabinogalactan and/or an extract of a larch tree or an arabinogalactan.
US 2017/0027191 A1 to Norton et al. (Norton) at Abstract discloses a method of orally administering a composition containing fermentable fiber in a dietary composition comprising fiber as a mixture of beet pulp; gum arabic, xanthan gum, gum talha or carob bean gum; and arabinogalactan to a companion animal to improve its gastrointestinal health. Further, at [0028], Norton discloses supplements in liquid form, such as drinking water or topping to be added to food. Further, in Examples 1, 2 and 3, Norton discloses daily feeding dogs its fiber composition as a supplement mixed with its food. Norton does not provide an example wherein the dietary fibers consist of one or more mannan-oligosaccharide fast-fermenting dietary fibers, one or more beet-derived moderate-fermenting dietary fibers and one or more arabinogalactan and/or an extract of larch tree as one or more slow-fermenting dietary fibers. And Norton does not disclose a composition wherein the fiber consists of fast-fermenting dietary fibers present in an amount of about 5wt% to about 15wt%, based on total combined fiber weight moderate-fermenting dietary fibers present in an amount of about 35wt% to about 55wt%, based on total combined fiber weight; and slow-fermenting dietary fibers present in an amount of about 35 wt% to about 55 wt% of the total combined fiber weight in the composition.
US2013/03313541 to Philippov et al. (Philippov) at Abstract discloses a method of improving animal feed efficiency by including in a food a dietary fiber composition comprising a flavonoid and wherein the fiber comprises a larch arabinogalactan. Further, at [0051] and [0053] Philippov discloses feeding monogastric animals including domestic pets including (at [0072]) dogs and cats. At [0060], Philippov discloses that arabinogalactan comprises a prebiotic. Philippov does not disclose a blend of fibers or disclose any moderate-fermenting dietary fibers or fast-fermenting dietary fibers, or any amounts thereof.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Amendment
The Declaration of Holly Ganz (Ganz Declaration) under 37 CFR 1.132 filed on July 21, 2026 is sufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-4 and 8-30 under 35 U.S.C. §102 as allegedly being anticipated by US2005/0112217 (Khoo), as evidenced by US2022/0079189 (Jaworksi), US5,616,569 (Reinhart), and US2005/0118299 (Vickers); and of claims 5-7 that are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Khoo, as evidenced by Jaworski, Reinhart and Vickers in view of the above references and further in view of US2013/0331354 (Philippov). However, please be advised that Vickers is cited as evidence of the impact of various dietary fibers on the gut biome, and not as a secondary reference because the same dietary fibers are disclosed in the Khoo as those claimed.
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendment dated July 21, 2026, the following rejections are withdrawn as moot:
The rejections of claims 3-4 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in regard to the term “longer-chain” in claim 3 and the recited wt%s of mannan-oligosaccharides in claim 7;
The rejections of claims 1-4, 8-10, 13 and 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN106036085 A to Luo et al.;
The rejections of claims 1-4 and 8-30 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US2005/0112217 A1 to Khoo, as evidenced by US2022/0079189 A1 to Jaworski et al., US5,616,569 to Reinhart and US2005/0118299 A1 to Vickers et al.; and,
The rejections of claims 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2005/0112217 A1 to Khoo slow-fermenting dietary fibers in view of US2013/03313541 to Philippov et al., as evidenced by US2022/0079189 A1 to Jaworski et al., US5,616,569 to Reinhart and US2005/0118299 A1 to Vickers et al.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to any outstanding anticipation rejections and the art of Luo and Khoo have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument, including teaching away.
Regarding the position taken in the Reply that Khoo teaches away from the instant claims because it includes ginger, respectfully Khoo is no longer cited as a primary reference but rather to establish ethe desirability of the claimed amount of various dietary fibers. In addition, Khoo by disclosing ginger does not teach away from use of the fiber in ginger which is reasonably included in at least one of fibers consisting of slow-fermenting dietary fibers, moderate-fermenting dietary fibers and fast-fermenting dietary fibers. Further, as the claims themselves include polyphenols such as in a larch tree extract, the Office finds that the claims include other polyphenols like gingerol as well as other materials within the scope of the claimed composition which does not appear to be fully closed-ended.
Regarding the position taken in the Reply and unexpected results, the alleged comparison to a single-fiber formulation does not address any of the closest art of Norton or Khoo, each of which discloses fiber blends.
Regarding the position taken on species richness and inherency, respectfully the position conflates the Office’s burden of establishing a prima facie case which requires only substantial evidence on the record as a whole with the standard of necessary inherency. To establish inherency or a reasonable basis for holding that an art reference meets an alleged property, the Office only needs to provide reasonable evidence that inherency may result. In this case, the evidence is the sameness of the claimed fiber and that fiber disclosed in the art. MPEP 2112.01. In fact, were the law as applicants state it would fall to the Office to find every property and inherent result claimed or alleged; that position is not tenable!
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.
/ANDREW E MERRIAM/Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights