DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 1-2, 7, 8-9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (US 2015/0128489) (cited by applicant on IDS dated 1/31/20) in view of Bostdorff (US 2013/0263503) and Suntych (WO 2016/033350).
Regarding Claim 1, Yamada discloses a horticulture lighting system, comprising:
a lighting device (light source 1 and 2) configured to provide horticulture light;
a control system (control unit 3) configured to control the lighting device to provide according to a predetermined time scheme (time setting unit 4) and as function of a sensor signal (“The time setting unit 4 may include a photo-sensor” Paragraph [0028]) a light pulse (Figure 6; “white light irradiated from first light source”) of horticulture light in a spectral wavelength region,
wherein the spectral wavelength region at least comprises blue light (“the first light source 1… includes blue light having a peak wavelength at about 455 nm” Paragraph [0023]), the first light pulse period at least partially precedes a second period in which a second horticulture light is provided (Figure 6; sunlight), the second period is longer than the first light pulse period (Figure 6), the lighting device is configured to provide the second horticulture light (“In case where the plant growing system 10 is employed in a fully-closed plant production factory on which the sunlight is not irradiated, the first light source 1 and the second light source 2 is on/off controlled based on, e.g., a photophase/dark phase schedule of an artificial light source used in cultivating the plant P.” Paragraph [0045]) the control system (control unit 3) is configured to provide the light pulse of horticulture light and the second horticulture light according to a predefined scheme (Figure 6; light source 1, light source 2, artificial light source; Paragraph [0045]), and the predefined scheme is based on a day-night rhythm (Figure 6 shows a daytime and nighttime rhythm lighting scheme)
Yamada fails to disclose the control system being configured to provide the light pulse at least at dawn, the control system receiving the sensor signal from a thermal sensor configured to detect plant temperature, a first light pulse period selected from a range of 1-40 min, wherein the control system is configured to analyze the plant temperature to choose a secondary wake-up time during a single 24 hour period.
However, Bostdorff teaches the horticulture lighting system wherein the control system is configured to provide the light pulse at dawn (“the stroboscopic lamp 14 is cycled on and off during a morning period 116 and an evening period 120, in each of which there is substantially no natural light available to the plant 20.” Paragraph [0039]).
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 have provided the control system of Yamada, with the light pulse at dawn as taught by Bostdorff, with reasonable expectation of success, since exposure to a pulse of light of high intensity in the morning has shown to increase the rate of growth in most plants.
Additionally, Suntych teaches a similar lighting system wherein the control system receiving the sensor signal from a thermal sensor configured to detect plant temperature (“one or more sensors 602, 604, 606 and 608 are associated with each plant… The conditions associated with the plant or organism which may be monitored include but are not limited to, soil moisture, air temperature, leaf temperature” Paragraph [0078]; “The data from the one or more sensors 602, 604, 606 and 608 is analyzed by the MLC 102. Based on the information from the sensors, the MLC 102, through the photon emission modulation controller 104, the MLC 102 is able to adjust the intensity, duty cycle and frequency of each specific color spectrum photon pulse 608 and 610” Paragraph [0080]); a first light pulse period selected from a range of 1-40 min (“Examples of the photon pulse duration may include but is not limited to, 0.01 microseconds to 5 minutes” Paragraph [0086]), and wherein the control system is configured to analyze the plant temperature to choose a secondary wake-up time during a single 24 hour period (Paragraphs [0078] and [0080]; “The system of the present disclosure also allows for other durations between photon pulses including but not limited one microsecond to 24 hours” Paragraph [0086]).
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 have modified the photo sensor of Yamada, with the thermal sensor of Suntych, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help prevent the plants from overheating, while maintaining a healthy growth environment, and to have modified the light pulse period of Yamada to have a period selected from a range of 10-40 minutes as taught by Suntych, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to promote growth of the plant, accelerate bloom time, and increase water retention in a quick and efficient manner, and to have modified the pulse of Yamada, to have a second pulse within a 24 hour period based on plant temperature as taught by Suntych, with reasonable expectations of success, in order to help customize the lighting conditions to the needs of the plant to help ensure healthy growth (Suntych Paragraph [0080]).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Yamada teaches the horticulture arrangement of Claim 1. Yamada further discloses the horticulture lighting system, wherein the light pulse of blue light includes light having a wavelength selected from a range of 425-475 nm (“includes blue light having a peak wavelength at about 455 nm” Paragraph [0023]).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Yamada teaches the horticulture arrangement of Claim 1. Yamada further discloses the horticulture lighting system, wherein the lighting device comprises a first lighting device (first light source 1) and a second lighting device (second light source 2), wherein the first lighting device is configured to provide at least blue horticulture light (“the first light source 1 emits, e.g., daylight white light which includes blue light having a peak wavelength at about 455 nm” Paragraph [0023]), wherein the horticulture lighting system is configured to provide the light pulse with at least the first lighting device (Figure 6), and wherein the second lighting device is configured to provide at least the second horticulture light having one or more wavelengths selected from one or more wavelength ranges selected of the group consisting of (i) 625-675 nm and (ii) 700-850 nm (“The light emitted from the second light source 2 is the far-red light having a peak wavelength in a range from 685 nm to 780 nm.” Paragraph [0024]), the horticulture lighting system further comprising a sensor (“photo-sensor” Paragraph [0028]), wherein the sensor is configured to monitor a parameter of a plant and to provide a corresponding sensor signal, and wherein the control system (control unit 3) is configured to provide the light pulse according to a predetermined relation between sensor signal and horticulture lighting properties of one or more of the light pulse of horticulture light and the second horticulture light (“The time setting unit 4 may include a photo-sensor to detect the intensity of sunlight (natural light), so that the irradiation timing of the first light source 1 may be determined by detecting the brightness around the plant P with the photo-sensor.” Paragraph [0028]).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Yamada teaches the horticulture lighting system of Claim 1. Yamada further discloses the horticulture arrangement comprising a horticulture lighting system according to claim 1; and a support for support of the plants (Plant is planted in ridge F Paragraph [0022] Fig. 4- see Applicant’s definition of support).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Yamada teaches the horticulture arrangement of Claim 8. Yamada further discloses the horticulture arrangement, the first lighting device is configured as one or more of uplighter (lower light sources 1c; Figure 4) and side lighter (lateral light source 1b), and wherein the second lighting device is configured as one or more of side lighter (lateral light source 2b) and down lighter (upper light source 2a).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Yamada teaches the horticulture arrangement of Claim 1. Yamada further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage device with computer-executable instructions thereon that (“the control unit 3 has a microcomputer” Paragraph [0026]; “the time setting unit 4 may include a solar-time switch which stores the sunset times…the time setting unit 4 may be included in the control unit 3.” Paragraph [0028]), when executed by one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations configured to actuate the horticulture lighting system of claim 1 (“a control unit 3 configured to control the first and the second light source 1 and 2 to perform respective irradiation operations,” Paragraph [0022]).
Claims 3, 5, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Bostdorff and Suntych as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reynoso et al. (US8847514).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Yamada teaches the horticulture arrangement of Claim 1.
Yamada fails to disclose the horticulture lighting system, wherein the light pulse has an average irradiance of n pmol/m2/s photons over the light pulse period and wherein at least 0.5 h preceding and at least 0.5 h following to the light pulse, the average irradiance of the second horticulture light in the same spectral region as of the horticulture light of the light pulse are each at maximum 0.75*n pmol/m2/s photons.
However, Reynoso teaches the horticulture lighting system, wherein the light pulse has an average irradiance of n pmol/m2/s photons over the light pulse period (“photosynthetic photon flux or PPF, measured in micro-moles of photons per meter squared, per second.” Col 15 lines 47-48) and wherein at least 0.5 h preceding and at least 0.5 h following to the light pulse (blue λ1 peak around 11am); Figure 6), the average irradiance of the second horticulture light (red λ2) in the same spectral region as of the horticulture light of the light pulse are each at maximum 0.75*n pmol/m2/s photons (Figure 6).
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 have modified the second light source of Yamada, with the second light source having a maximum of 75% of the irradiance of the light pulse within plus or minus half an hour as taught by Reynoso, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to create a short day treatment to the plant which promotes the growth of the plant, accelerates bloom time, and increases water retention in a quick and efficient manner.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Yamada teaches the horticulture arrangement of Claim 1. Yamada further discloses the horticulture lighting system, wherein a high intensity period (Figure 6; hours 21-2) with second horticulture light intensity alternates with a low intensity period (Figure 6; hours 2-21) with no second horticulture light intensity or less second horticulture light intensity than in the high intensity period (Figure 6).
Yamada fails to disclose the horticulture arrangement wherein the control system is configured to provide the light pulse within a time period of 0.5 h preceding and 0.5 h following a start of the high intensity period, wherein the high intensity period and low intensity period are each at least an hour, and wherein a time averaged intensity of the second horticulture light during the low intensity period is at maximum 50% of a time averaged intensity of the second horticulture light during the high intensity period.
However, Reynoso teaches the horticulture arrangement wherein the control system is configured to provide the light pulse (blue λ1 peak around 11am) within a time period of 0.5 h preceding and 0.5 h following a start of the high intensity period (red λ2 starting around 10:30am; Figure 6), wherein the high intensity period and low intensity period are each at least an hour (Figure 6), and wherein a time averaged intensity of the second horticulture light during the low intensity period (red λ2 before 10:30am) is at maximum 50% of a time averaged intensity of the second horticulture light during the high intensity period (red λ2 around 11am; Figure 6).
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 have modified the light pulse and second light of Yamada with the time scheme and intensity of Reynoso, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to create a shorter day treatment to the plant which promotes the growth of the plant, accelerates bloom time, and increases water retention in a quick and efficient manner.
Regarding Claim 18, modified Yamada teaches the horticulture lighting arrangement of Claim 1.
Yamada fails to disclose wherein the first light pulse period precedes and at least partially overlaps the second period.
However, Reynoso teaches a similar lighting system wherein the first light pulse period (blue λ1 peak around 11am; Figure 6) precedes and at least partially overlaps the second period (red λ2 Figures 7 and 8).
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 have modified the light pulse of Yamada to partially overlap the second horticultural light period as taught by Reynoso, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to maintain enough light throughout the day to provide healthy conditions for the plant.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Bostdorff and Suntych as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Daniels (US 2017/0188531).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Yamada teaches the horticulture arrangement of Claim 8.
Yamada fails to disclose the horticulture arrangement, wherein the control system is further configured to provide an elevated CO2 concentration by means of a device for providing CO2 at least during the light pulse period.
However, Daniels teaches a similar horticulture arrangement, wherein the control system is further configured to provide an elevated CO2 concentration by means of a device for providing CO2 at least during the light pulse period (“Gasses, such as CO2 can be injected into the ambient air” Paragraph [0048]).
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 have provided the control system of Yamada with the means of providing CO2 as taught by Daniels, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase photosynthesis, spurring accelerated plant growth.
Claims 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Bostdorff and Suntych as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ogawa et al. (AU 2010329035).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Yamada teaches the horticulture arrangement of Claim 1. Yamada further discloses the system wherein the control system is configured to provide during the first light pulse period a radiant fluence of 20,000-100,000 pmol/m2 photons (“the first light source 1 irradiates light around the plant P at an irradiance of 0.01 W/m2 or more” Paragraph [0025]).
Yamada fails to disclose the system, wherein the control system is configured to provide during the first light pulse period the light pulse with an irradiance of 10-70 pmol/m2/s photons,
However, Ogawa teaches a similar horticulture lighting system wherein the control system is configured to provide during the light pulse period the light pulse with an irradiance of 10-70 pmol/m2/s photons (“it is preferable that the photosynthesis photon flux density is within the range from about 10 pmol/m2/s to about 1000 pmol/m2/s, and more preferably from about 50 pmol/m2/s to about 500 pmol/m2/s.” Page 32 lines 3-7).
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 have modified the light pulse of Yamada, with the irradiance of 10-70 pmol/m2/s of Ogawa, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to promote preferable shoot and root growth conditions.
Claims 11, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (US 2015/0128489) (cited by applicant on IDS dated 1/31/20) in view of Bostdorff (US 20130263503), Suntych (WO 2016/033350), and Ogawa et al. (AU 2010329035).
Regarding Claim 11, Yamada discloses a method of providing horticulture light (light source 1 and 2) to plants in a horticulture arrangement, the method comprising:
providing, by a control system and according to a predetermined time scheme (time setting unit 4) and as a function of a sensor signal, a light pulse of horticulture light from a lighting device in a spectral wavelength region (Figure 6; “white light irradiated from first light source”),
wherein the spectral wavelength region at least comprising blue light (“includes blue light having a peak wavelength at about 455 nm” Paragraph [0023]) the first light pulse period at least partially precedes a second period of second horticulture light (Figure 6; sunlight, light source 2), the second period is longer than the light pulse period (Figure 6), the lighting device is configured to provide the second horticulture light (“In case where the plant growing system 10 is employed in a fully-closed plant production factory on which the sunlight is not irradiated, the first light source 1 and the second light source 2 is on/off controlled based on, e.g., a photophase/dark phase schedule of an artificial light source used in cultivating the plant P.” Paragraph [0045]) the control system (control unit 3) is configured to provide the light pulse of horticulture light and the second horticulture lights according to a predefined scheme (Figure 6; light source 1, light source 2, artificial light source; Paragraph [0045]), and the predefined scheme is based on a day-night rhythm (Figure 6 shows a daytime and nighttime rhythm lighting scheme)
Yamada fails to disclose the control system being configured to provide the light pulse at least at dawn, the control system receiving the sensor signal from a thermal sensor configured to detect plant temperature of the plants in the horticulture arrangement, and analyzing by the control system the plant temperature to choose a secondary wake-up time during a single 24 hour period, a first light pulse period selected from a range of 1-40 min, with an irradiance of 10-70 pmol/m2/s photons.
However, Bostdorff teaches the horticulture lighting system wherein the control system is configured to provide the light pulse at dawn (“the stroboscopic lamp 14 is cycled on and off during a morning period 116 and an evening period 120, in each of which there is substantially no natural light available to the plant 20.” Paragraph [0039]).
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 have provided the control system of Yamada, with the light pulse at dawn as taught by Bostdorff, with reasonable expectation of success, since exposure to a pulse of light of high intensity in the morning has shown to increase the rate of growth in most plants.
Additionally, Suntych teaches a similar method wherein the control system receiving the sensor signal from a thermal sensor is configured to detect plant temperature (“one or more sensors 602, 604, 606 and 608 are associated with each plant… The conditions associated with the plant or organism which may be monitored include but are not limited to, soil moisture, air temperature, leaf temperature” Paragraph [0078]; “The data from the one or more sensors 602, 604, 606 and 608 is analyzed by the MLC 102. Based on the information from the sensors, the MLC 102, through the photon emission modulation controller 104, the MLC 102 is able to adjust the intensity, duty cycle and frequency of each specific color spectrum photon pulse 608 and 610” Paragraph [0080]), and analyzing by the control system the plant temperature to choose a secondary wake-up time during a single 24 hour period (Paragraphs [0078] and [0080]; “The system of the present disclosure also allows for other durations between photon pulses including but not limited one microsecond to 24 hours” Paragraph [0086]), and a first light pulse period selected from a range of 1-40 min (“Examples of the photon pulse duration may include but is not limited to, 0.01 microseconds to 5 minutes” Paragraph [0086]).
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 have modified the photo sensor of Yamada, with the thermal sensor of Suntych, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help prevent the plants from overheating, while maintaining a healthy growth environment, and to have modified the light pulse period of Yamada to have a period selected from a range of 10-40 minutes as taught by Suntych, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to promote growth of the plant, accelerate bloom time, and increase water retention in a quick and efficient manner, and to have modified the pulse of Yamada, to have a second pulse within a 24 hour period based on plant temperature as taught by Suntych, with reasonable expectations of success, in order to help customize the lighting conditions to the needs of the plant to help ensure healthy growth (Suntych Paragraph [0080]).
Additionally, Ogawa teaches the method with the light pulse irradiance of 10-70 pmol/m2/s photons (“it is preferable that the photosynthesis photon flux density is 5 within the range from about 10 pmol/m 2 /s to about 1000 pmol/m 2 /s, and more preferably from about 50 pmol/m 2 /s to about 500 pmol/m 2 /s.” Page 32 lines 3-7).
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 have modified the light pulse of Yamada with the irradiance of 10-70 pmol/m2/s of Ogawa, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to promote preferable shoot and root growth conditions.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Yamada teaches the horticulture arrangement of Claim 11. Yamada further discloses the method when the light pulse of horticulture light is provided as function of a sensor signal (“photo-sensor” Paragraph [0028]), wherein the light pulse is directed to an abaxial part of leaves of the plant (light source 1c; Figure 4), and wherein the method further comprises monitoring a parameter of a plant and providing the light pulse according to a predetermined relation between a parameter value and horticulture lighting properties (“The time setting unit 4 may include a photo-sensor to detect the intensity of sunlight (natural light), so that the irradiation timing of the first light source 1 may be determined by detecting the brightness around the plant P with the photo-sensor.” Paragraph [0028]) of the light pulse of the horticulture light.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Yamada teaches the horticulture arrangement of Claim 11. Yamada further discloses the method, wherein the light pulse of blue light includes light having a wavelength selected from a range of 425-475 nm (“the first light source 1 emits, e.g., daylight white light which includes blue light having a peak wavelength at about 455 nm” Paragraph [0023]), wherein the method further comprises providing during the first light pulse period a radiant fluence of 20,000- 100,000 pmol/m2 photons (“the first light source 1 irradiates light around the plant P at an irradiance of 0.01 W/m2 or more” Paragraph [0025]).
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Bostdorff, Suntych, and Ogawa as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Reynoso et al. (US8847514).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Yamada teaches the horticulture arrangement of Claim 11. Yamada further discloses the method, wherein a high intensity period (Figure 6; hours 21-2) with second horticulture light intensity alternates with a low intensity period with no second horticulture light intensity or less second horticulture light intensity than in the high intensity period (Figure 6; hours 2-21), wherein the second horticulture light is received as solar light and/or provided by a lighting device (light source 2).
Yamada fails to disclose the method wherein the method further comprises providing the light pulse within a time period of 0.5 h preceding and 0.5 h following a start of the high intensity period, wherein the high intensity period and low intensity period are each at least an hour, and wherein a time averaged intensity of the second horticulture light during the low intensity period is at maximum 50% of a time averaged intensity of the second horticulture light during the high intensity period.
However, Reynoso teaches the method wherein the method further comprises providing the light pulse (blue λ1 peak around 11am Figure 6) within a time period of 0.5 h preceding and 0.5 h following a start of the high intensity period (red λ2 starting around 10:30am; Figure 6), wherein the high intensity period and low intensity period are each at least an hour (Figure 6), and wherein a time averaged intensity of the second horticulture light during the low intensity period (red λ2 before 10:30am) is at maximum 50% of a time averaged intensity of the second horticulture light during the high intensity period (red λ2 around 11am; Figure 6).
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 have modified the light pulse and second light of Yamada with the time scheme and intensity of Reynoso, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to create a short day treatment to the plant which promotes the growth of the plant, accelerates bloom time, and increases water retention in a quick and efficient manner.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Yamada teaches the horticulture arrangement of Claim 11.
Yamada fails to disclose the method, wherein the first light pulse period precedes and at least partially overlaps the second period.
However, Reynoso teaches a similar lighting system wherein the first light pulse period (blue λ1 peak around 11am; Figure 6) precedes and at least partially overlaps the second period (red λ2 Figures 7 and 8).
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 have modified the light pulse of Yamada to partially overlap the second horticultural light period as taught by Reynoso, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to maintain enough light throughout the day to provide healthy conditions for the plant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/4/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 2 “The claim language requires analyzing plant temperature "to choose a secondary wake-up time." The most that Suntych teaches is delaying time between individual pulses. There is no analysis of plant temperature to determine a second wake-up time. There is simply delay between two pulses.” The Office respectfully disagrees. Suntych teaches the analysis of temperature to determine when the pulse occurs (Paragraph [0078] describes monitoring plant temperature with a leaf temperature sensor. Paragraph [0080] further describes the data from the sensors being used “The data from the one or more sensors 602, 604, 606 and 608 is analyzed by the MLC 102. Based on the information from the sensors, the MLC 102, through the photon emission modulation controller 104, the MLC 102 is able to adjust the intensity, duty cycle and frequency of each specific color spectrum photon pulse 608 and 610 of each individual photon emitter 106, 602, 604 and 606, or to adjust the intensity, duty cycle and frequency of a group of photon emitters based on the needs of the individual plants 618, 620, 622, and 624 associated with a specific sensor 602, 604, 606 and 608 or the needs of the plants as a whole.”). Additionally, the term “second wake-up time” does not have a special definition within the specification and therefore can be read broadly. As there is no specific time, wavelength, or duration claimed in which this “wake-up time” must occur, outside of the fact that it is based on plant temperature, then any second pulse, or even any change in lighting could teach this limitation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALANNA PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Joshua Huson can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642