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 .
Applicants Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 10/23/2025 has bee received and entered. The claims do not appear to have been amended and all are marked as (original). However, the claims entered 8/5/2021 that were examined in the previous action only totaled 17 claims, while the current amendment provides 20 claims where newly added claims 18-20 are marked as original.
Applicants are reminded that proper status identifiers and editor marks are necessary for compliant claim amendments in future submissions.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 4/4/2025 was acknowledged. Upon review it was found that the basis of all the groups is detecting changes in a redox indicator as a correlative to growth potential or feed efficiency, and general methods, computer methods and the system tools required to practice such a method do appear to be considerations for all the claims as pending.
Accordingly, the restriction requirement was withdrawn.
Newly added claims 18-20 are consistent with the examined invention.
Claims 1-20, drawn to a system for sorting fish, a computer implemented method of preparing fish for potential growth and to a computer implemented method of preparing fish for predicted growth are pending and currently under examination.
Priority
This application filed 8/5/2021 is a CIP of 15/754126 (abandoned) which claims benefit to US provisional application 62/586578 filed 11/15/5017 and which is a national stage filing of PCTUS16/48006 filed 8/22/2016 which claims benefit to US provisional application 62/208433 filed 8/21/2015;
and is related to 16/875755 filed and 17/394933 by virtue of claim of priority to 15/754126.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 2/26/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The IDS contains an office action from Brazil and appears to have a translation for a related to foreign applications, but do not provide a context or specific claims or references that are discussed in the actions. It has been reviewed for what is provided within them, but the relevant application material such as specification, claims and cited references have not been used for the review.
Additionally, it was noted that the listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement, citing for example starting at [0005] and list in [00136]. No comments have been made regarding these citations.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
Response to Applicants arguments
Applicants note the different limitations with respect to rates and raising the selected animals that demonstrate a possible high feed efficiency, and they argue the scope of the claims are distinct and do not overlap.
In response, the limitations of the issued claims were acknowledged, however in the analysis the limitations and what they encompassed were assessed, however it was found that animals encompass fish and other aquatic organisms, while US Patent 12210013 is specifically directed to fish and aquatic organisms. With respect to the instant claims and the recitation of limitations for the specific analysis of the redox state, these more specific steps are clearly encompassed by the broader patents that issued and appear to provide obvious steps for performing the assay. The record has been reviewed, and there does not appear to be any evidence that the differences with the breadth of the claims provide for any unobvious outcomes, and thus appear to be obvious variations of assaying the redox state in animals such as aquatic animals/organisms and based on the correlation to efficiency, choosing the identified animals for further propagation or use. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
The basis of the rejections have been updated to include the amendments to the claims.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11674953. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the methods of ‘953 are comprised within the instant claims and require the same steps of measuring a redox value, in ‘953 it is NADH, and once the correlation is observed breeding or selecting the animal. ‘953 does not specifically claim fish, but broadly encompasses any animal. The instant claims do not require any specific conditions, but given the correlation and guidance the methods of the instant claims can be applied to fish in a variety of growth conditions in the preparations of fish and aquatic organisms to assess optimal growth conditions or to predict growth under a variety of conditions. A copy of claim 1 of ‘953 is provided for comparison to the pending claims:
1 A method of identifying and using an animal with high feed efficiency, said method comprises
determining reducing equivalent, production in a skeletal muscle tissue sample from the animal, wherein the reducing equivalent, production in the skeletal muscle tissue sample is inversely related to feed efficiency, wherein if the reducing equivalent production in the skeletal muscle tissue sample is below a predetermined threshold, then the animal from which the skeletal muscle tissue sample was obtained has a high feed efficiency compared to animals having reducing equivalent production above the predetermined threshold, wherein the reducing equivalent production is NADH; and
breeding the animal identified as having high feed efficiency or using the animal identified as having high feed efficiency for production of an animal product.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12210013. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the methods of ‘013 are comprised within the instant claims and require the same steps of measuring a redox value for embryonic fish and juvenile aquatic organisms, and once the correlation is observed breeding or selecting the animal by removing individuals. ‘013 provides for two measurements to observe a change to identify the highest metabolism, but the instant claims broadly do not exclude when the measurement is taken or how many times the assay is performed to provide the data that is analyzed. The instant claims do not require any specific conditions, but given the correlation and guidance the methods of the instant claims can be applied to fish in a variety of growth conditions in the preparations of fish and aquatic organisms to assess optimal growth conditions or to predict growth under a variety of conditions. In ‘013 the final step is ‘selectively removing’ which appears to comprise separating and as such separating containers that were assayed. A copy of claim 1 of ‘013 is provided for comparison to the pending claims:
A method
a) introducing a redox indicator to each individual in a pool of embryonic fish or iuvenile aquatic organisms at TO:
b) producing a selection of embryonic fish or juvenile aquatic organism by
i) [[a.]] measuring whole body metabolic rate of each individual in the pool of embryonic fish or juvenile aquatic organisms, wherein metabolic rate is measured using a colormetric/fluorescent redox assay comprising measuring a fluorescence value at time TO; measuring a fluorescence value at time T1 after time TO; and determining the change in fluorescence between T1 and TO to determine a metabolic rate; and
ii) selectively removing .
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 stand rejections and newly added claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim analysis
Claim 1 has not been amended and still is drawn a product which provides a method of assessing embryonic fish and juvenile aquatic organisms based on a redox indicator value and wherein the redox values are evaluated by examining and organizing the distribution of the observed values from different containers and providing an indication when there is a difference in the redox values between the containers. Newly added claims 18-20 narrow the type of aquatic organism to one that is farmed (claim 18) or a specific species (claims 19-20). Together, dependent claims more specifically set forth the number of containers analyzed and the types of fish or organisms that are present in the containers.
Independent claim 8 is a computer implemented method similar to claim 1 but more broadly as three steps where a redox indicator is provided to the container with the intent of measuring whole body metabolic rate but appears to be an intended interpretation and does not limit the indicator, having and using a system to determine values associated with fluorescence of the indicator and sequentially moving and organizing containers based on the redox values.
Independent claim 17, is an automated computer method which more generally applies the method steps similar to claims 1 and 8 but more broadly only requires measuring redox indicator as an indicator of metabolic rate and then sorting containers based on threshold measurements until the containers are sorted.
Response to Applicants arguments
Applicants provide an overview for the 101 analysis citing 2106, noting that the inclusion of a judicial exception does not make a claim patent ineligible, and provide an overview the computer implemented method of claim 1. Applicants assert that the claims have similar framework as in the Ariosa claim which were found patent eligible.
In response, it is unclear what framework is being referred to because the claims of Ariosa are directed to isolating a form of cfDNA from blood plasma that contains both fetal and maternal DNA (that was not previously recognized) and producing fragments that were less than a 1000bp which would represent a higher fraction from the fetus. The present claims provide for a redox state, and in the record this was previously demonstrated for example Renquist (2014) provides a rapid assay for predictive growth of aquaculture based on metabolic rate, and provides the same assay as the specification for the use of the AlmaBlue assay in zebrafish and tilapia and suggest use in oysters, and more specifically that preliminary data supports that the measurement of redox state using this assay can predict growth. Unlike the observation that fetal cfDNA is generally smaller than the maternal cfDNA, the present claims do not provide for a new observation and do not appear to have similarity to the fact pattern in Ariosa. With respect to the analysis of under 101 for patent eligibility, examiner acknowledges and has followed the guidance of the MPEP. In the evaluation choosing animals or more specifically aquatic organisms for feed efficiency were standard practice in aquaculture. What the claims are directed to is the analysis and use of the correlation of the redox state that can be measured as a factor by which one can provide the selection. Based on the art of record, both these appear to be in the art, but importantly breeding high value organisms was generally known, and thus it appears that the claims are directed to the correlation of a measurable redox state. Together, these limitations do not appear to support that as a whole the claims are patent eligible.
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
The 101 analysis is provided below for completeness of the record.
For step 1 of the 101 analysis, the claims are found to be directed to a statutory category of a product and a method.
For step 2A of the 101 analysis, the judicial exception of the claims are the steps of accessing the redox values as an indicator (steps i-iv of claim 1 and steps of methods) and the instructions of sorting containers associated with values. The steps of obtaining values does not require a physical step since the method encompassed a computer implemented method which encompasses processing data. The judicial exception is a set of instructions for analysis of values associated with colorimetric or fluorometric values indicative of a redox state and comparison of the values obtained from container to another and appear to fall into the category of Mathematical Concepts, that is mathematical relationships or mathematical calculations to the extent number values are assessed and ordered, and also in the category of Mental Processes, that is concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) where the values of different containers can be assessed and sorted based on some general rules, such as higher values to lower values. The breadth of “receive”, “organize”, and “calculate” encompasses non-transformative visual assessment of an individual values taken from different containers. This breadth does not impose a meaningful limit on the claim scope, such that all others are not precluded from using the natural principle such as observation or simple math calculations of the values. Computing, constructing datasets and using statistical models was well understood, conventional, and routinely performed in the art at the time the application was filed. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) for a discussion on adding insignificant extra-solution (both pre-solution and post-solution) activity to the judicial exception. See also MPEP § 2106.05(h) for a discussion on generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claims appear to fall into the category of Mathematical Concepts, as it applies the use of statistics and mathematical relationships in analyzing probabilities, and also into the category of mental processes, as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) because there is no apparent complexity to or amount of data that is collected and analyzed as presently claimed.
Recent guidance from the office requires that the judicial exception be evaluated under a second prong to determine whether the judicial exception is practically applied. In the instant case, the system claims do have an additional element where a detector is used to obtain a redox value which is subsequently assessed. This is found to be a step of obtaining data for further analysis, and once a value is obtained appears separate from the judicial exception. This judicial exception requires steps recited at high level of generality and are only stored on a non-transitory, and is not found to be a practical application of the judicial exception as broadly set forth.
For step 2B of the 101 analysis, each of the independent claims implies or recites additional elements and are found to be the steps of obtaining redox value data. As such, the claims do not provide for any additional element to consider under step 2B to which the judicial exception is applied and are simply a step to obtain data which is analyzed. Further, the art of record appear to suggest that methods encompassed by the claims were known and used, for example Renquist (2014) provides a rapid assay for predictive growth of aquaculture based on metabolic rate, and uses AlmaBlue assay in zebrafish and tilapia and suggest use in oysters, and more specifically that preliminary data supports that the measurement of redox state using this assay can predict growth. To the extent the claims preamble set forth the method is automated or computer implemented, it is noted that in explaining the Alice framework, the Court wrote that "[i]n cases involving software innovations, [the step one] inquiry often turns on whether the claims focus on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an abstract idea for which computers are invoked merely as a tool." The Court further noted that "[s]ince Alice, we have found software inventions to be patent-eligible where they have made non-abstract improvements to existing technological processes and computer technology." Moreover, these improvements must be specific -- "[a]n improved result, without more stated in the claim, is not enough to confer eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea . . . [t]o be patent-eligible, the claims must recite a specific means or method that solves a problem in an existing technological process." As indicated in the summary of the judicial exception above and in view of the teachings of the specification, the steps are drawn to analysis of detected values and generally data. While the instruction are stored on a medium and could be implemented on a computer, together the steps do not appear to result in significantly more than a means to compare sequences. The judicial exception of the method as claimed can be performed by hand and in light of the previous claims to a computer medium and in light of the teaching of the specification on a computer. In review of the instant specification the methods do not appear to require a special type of processor and can be performed on a general purpose computer.
In evaluating dependent claims they appear to set forth additional steps which are more specifically define the considerations and steps of calculating, and comparing, and do not add additional elements which result in significantly more to the claimed method for the analysis.
As noted above, the instant case the Step 1 requirement is satisfied as the claims are directed towards a conventional process of obtaining sequence information. The Step 2 analysis is a two-part analysis, Step 2A and Step 2B, with the first part Step 2A requiring a determination of whether the claims are directed towards a judicial exception, i.e. a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea. In the instant case, the claims comprise steps of comparing values and is considered the judicial exception. It is noted that while the claims set forth or imply information is associated with metabolism, this is only description of the data being analyzed and context and user defined. Further, these values could represent a natural correlation of what is present in a container, and to the extent that different values are used to sort containers is also associated with a natural correlation as related to the redox state of the organism. As such, the instant claims set forth an inventive concept that are drawn only to an abstract process that only manipulates data and, therefore, are not directed to statutory subject matter. No additional steps are recited in the instantly claimed invention that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Without additional limitations, a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing to generate additional information is not patent eligible. Furthermore, if a claim is directed essentially to a method of calculating, using a mathematical formula, even if the solution is for a specific purpose, the claimed method is non-statutory. In other words, patenting abstract idea (designing probes to a target sequence) cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use to a particular technological environment or purpose and desired result.
One way to overcome a rejection for non-patent-eligible subject matter is to persuasively argue that the claimed subject matter is not directed to a judicial exception. Another way for the applicants to overcome the rejection is to persuasively argue that the claims contain elements in addition to the judicial exception that either individually or as an ordered combination are not well understood, routine, or conventional. Another way for the applicants to overcome the rejection is to persuasively argue that the claims as a whole result in an improvement to a technology. Persuasive evidence for an improvement to a technology could be a comparison of results of the claimed subject matter with results of the prior art, or arguments based on scientific reasoning that the claimed subject matter inherently results an improvement over the prior art. The applicants should show why the claims require the improvement in all embodiments.
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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renquist (Jan 2014, of record), Valente et al (May 2013), Renquist (Jan 2013, of record) and Reid et al. (2012, of record).
Response to Applicants arguments
Applicants provide an overview for the 103 and provide an overview the computer implemented method of claim 1 and argue that none of the citations provide for the limitations of the claims such as sorting based on the observed assay value. Applicants provide a summary of each of the references and argue that automated sorting is not provided or obvious over the teachings.
In response, it is initially noted that the sorting is not automatic or automated. A search of the specification for guidance does not provide any specific device and broadly provides for an individual sorting the aquatic organisms. Applicants acknowledge that Renquist provides for the same assay and correlation, but does not provide for sorting, while the other references do not teach to use a fluorescent indicator. Applicants appear to attempt to argue the citations separately, however the basis of obviousness is what the artisan would appreciate or find obvious as a whole. Clearly Renquist provides that the redox state correlates with better growth as a possible selection metric. Reid and Valente are provided for further evidence and level of skill in the art for aquaculture. Providing a ‘microprocessor’ for analysis of data is not inventive, and while there is no specific teaching that the analysis in any of the citations used a computer processor, this limitation would be well known and obvious. The present specification does not provide any unique guidance for analyzing data nor any unique ‘microprocessor’, and the step of analyzing data with a computer is found to be obvious. Again, as a system, the claims do not recite automatic, nor does the specification set forth any specific system which provides for automated sorting as argued by Applicants. Given the evidence of record, there does not appear to be evidence of secondary considerations. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained for the reasons above and of record.
Rejection of record
Independent claim 8 is a computer implemented method similar to claim 1 but more broadly as three steps where a redox indicator is provided to the container with the intent of measuring whole body metabolic rate but appears to be an intended interpretation and does not limit the indicator, having and using a system to determine values associated with fluorescence of the indicator and sequentially moving and organizing containers based on the redox values. Claim 1 is drawn a product which provides a method of assessing embryonic fish and juvenile aquatic organisms based on a redox indicator value and wherein the redox values are evaluated by examining and organizing the distribution of the observed values from different containers and providing an indication when there is a difference in the redox values between the containers. Dependent claims more specifically set forth the number of containers analyzed and the types of fish or organisms that are present in the containers. Independent claim 17, is an automated computer method which more generally applies the method steps similar to claims 1 and 8 but more broadly only requires measuring redox indicator as an indicator of metabolic rate and then sorting containers based on threshold measurements until the containers are sorted.
Renquist 2014 provides a rapid assay for predictive growth of aquaculture based on metabolic rate. Renquist uses AlmaBlue assay in zebrafish and tilapia and suggest use in oysters, and more specifically that preliminary data supports that the measurement of redox state using this assay can predict growth. More specifically the higher the rate of metabolism detected the higher the correlation of relative growth when assessed for organisms present in a container. Valente et al. is provided as evidence that multiple aspects of assessment can be used, and reviews what was known relative to growth potential and juvenile quality of fish species. Related to redox states, in the discussion of skeletal muscle development, Valente et al highlight many factors involved and review the importance of comparative studies for muscle ontogeny and importance of mitochondrial gene regulation such as NADH, cytochromes, ATPases,.. as they are related to oxidative pathway. Renquist 2013 is provided as evidence that in vitro assays to measure redox state and use AlamarBlue of fish in containers were known. Reid et al. is provided as further evidence that metabolic rate in juvenile fish can be affected by habitat, however could be correlated to fitness in general and is positively related to dominance status and ability to thrive.
Given that Renquist 2014 suggest that measuring redox states and values can be correlated to growth potential of juvenile fish and possibly other organisms, and Renquist et al. 2013 provide for an easy and successful means of measurements of containers of organisms, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply and use the assessment of redox state as an indicator of overall health of fry. Valente et al provide evidence that a variety of measures can be assessed and used, while Reid et al. further demonstrates that identifying any marker related to health and fitness as positive correlative to dominance and ability to thrive provides a means to optimize selection in aquaculture. Given the known correlations and ease of the assay on containers of fish, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to assay different broods of fry or possibly different growth conditions for the same fry to assess optimal conditions and fry when practicing aquaculture. Given the detailed guidance and success already, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success to use AlamarBlue to assay the redox status of fry in containers as an indicator of good health and ability to thrive.
Thus, the claimed invention as a whole was clearly prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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 Joseph T Woitach whose telephone number is (571)272-0739. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8:00-4:00.
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, Karlheinz R Skowronek can be reached at 571 272-9047. 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.
/Joseph Woitach/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1687