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 .
This office action is in response to the application filed on August 24, 2022. The earliest effective filing date of the application is August 24, 2021.
Status of Application
The amendment filed May 21, 2025 with the Response to Restriction/Election Requirement has been entered. The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1 – 22
Withdrawn claims: 18 – 22
Amended claims: 1, 9, 11, 15, and 16
Claims currently under examination: 1 – 17
The status of the objections and rejections regarding the disclosure upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Objections: The previous rejections of claims 9 and 15 are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments. A new objection to claim 1 is presented below.
35 U.S.C. § 112 Rejections: The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of claims 2 and 11 have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s arguments. The previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of claims 15 and 16 have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections: The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1 – 17 over SousVide have been modified, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments, and presented below.
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 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SousVide (Deconstructed Buffalo Wings. SousVide Supreme. (2011) Retrieved from: https://blog.sousvidesupreme.com/2011/02/deconstructed-buffalo-wings/) in view of Life School (How to Season Water. Life School. (June 6, 2020) Retrieved from: https://www.trylifeschool.com/p/04-how-to-season-water).
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the term “coupled to” which the instant specification clarifies includes “connected, bound, and adhered” (p. 26, lines 12 – 15). The term “coupled to” is interpreted broadly to mean “in contact with”. The claim recites the term “surrounding” which the instant specification clarifies includes partially covered, or completely covered (p. 4, lines 26 – 28). Therefore, the term “surrounding” includes partially covered.
SousVide teaches deconstructed buffalo wings comprising deboned chicken wingettes stuffed with a blue cheese mousse (p. 1, Ingredients; p. 1, Instructions, Steps 1 and 5). The blue cheese mousse comprises chopped chicken breast (i.e., processed poultry meat – p. 1, Ingredients; p. 2, For Blue Cheese Mousse, Step 2). The stuffed wingettes are lined up end-to-end on plastic wrap and rolled to form a log, vacuum sealed, then immersed in a 145 °F water bath (p. 1 – 2, Instructions, Steps 6 – 8). The log is removed from the bath and vacuum bag, cut into five pieces, deep fried, and finished by inserting a boiled radius bone from the deboned wingettes into the center of the log pieces through the blue cheese mousse (i.e., thereby coupling the processed poultry meat to the one or more separated bare poultry bones and surrounding the bones with the processed poultry meat – p. 2, Instructions, Steps 10 and 13; p. 2, For plating the wings, Step 3). SousVide teaches the deboned wingette and radius bone are obtained by cutting off both ends of the wingettes removing the joints, then by using toweling, pushing down on the wingette muscle to remove the meat from the bones, allowing for the radius and ulna bones to be removed, and reserving the radius bones (i.e., one or more bare poultry bones are separated from a remainder of poultry wings – p. 1, Instructions, Steps 3 and 4). SousVide teaches the boiled radius bones are scraped with a small paring knife to clean thoroughly prior to insertion into the deconstructed buffalo wing (i.e., one or more bare poultry bones are stripped of poultry muscle or skin – p. 2, Instructions, Step 10).
SousVide does not teach the bare bones coupled to the processed poultry meat are brined in a salt solution.
Life School teaches seasoning water with salt improves the flavor of the water and anything cooked in the seasoned water (p. 2, Introduction, bullets 1 – 4).
SousVide and Life School are combinable because they are both concerned with boiling water for food. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have seasoned the boiling water for the radius bones, as taught by Life School, thereby producing brined, boiled radius bones in the product of SousVide, because salt improves the flavor of the water and anything cooked in the seasoned water, such as the radius bones.
With respect to the limitation “wherein the one or more brined and separated bare poultry bones is configured to facilitate coupling of the quantity of processed poultry meat”, the instant specification states “Brining the processed poultry meat can facilitate coupling (e.g., connect, bind or adhere) between the bare poultry bone and the processed poultry meat (p. 13, lines 30 – 31; p. 14, line 1). Therefore, by using brined, boiled radius bones in the product of SousVide, the brined, boiled radius bones are configured to facilitate coupling of the quantity of processed poultry meat.
Regarding claim 2, SousVide teaches the bone inserted into the center of the deconstructed buffalo wing is a boiled chicken radius bone (p. 1 – 2, Instructions, Steps 3, 4, and 10; p. 2, For plating the wings, Step 3). SousVide teaches prior to inserting the boiled radius bone, the bones are scraped with a small paring knife to clean thoroughly (i.e., one or more bare poultry bones are stripped of poultry muscle or skin – p. 2, Instructions, Step 10).
Regarding claim 3, SousVide teaches the bone inserted into the center of the deconstructed buffalo wing is a boiled chicken radius bone (i.e., thereby coupling the processed poultry meat to the one or more separated bare poultry bones and surrounding the bones with the processed poultry meat – p. 1 – 2, Instructions, Steps 3, 4, and 10; p. 2, For plating the wings, Step 3). SousVide teaches prior to inserting the boiled radius bone, the bones are scraped with a small paring knife to clean thoroughly (i.e., one or more bare poultry bones are stripped of poultry muscle or skin – p. 2, Instructions, Step 10).
While SousVide does not teach two or more bones are inserted into the center of the deconstructed buffalo wing, SousVide teaches the chicken radius bone is inserted into the deconstructed buffalo wing for plating purposes (p. 2, For plating the wings, Step 3). MPEP § 2144.04.VI.B states mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have inserted two or more radius bones into the center of the deconstructed buffalo wing for plating purposes.
Regarding claim 4, SousVide teaches the deconstructed buffalo wings are finished by inserting a boiled radius bone from the deboned wingette into the center of the log pieces through the blue cheese mousse (i.e., thereby coupling the processed poultry meat to the one or more separated bare poultry bones – p. 2, Instructions, Steps 10 and 13; p. 2, For plating the wings, Step 3). SousVide teaches the blue cheese mousse comprises chopped chicken breast (i.e., processed poultry meat – p. 1, Ingredients; p. 2, For Blue Cheese Mousse, Step 2).
Regarding claim 5, SousVide teaches the deboned chicken wingettes and blue cheese mousse are immersed in a 145 °F water bath for an hour and deep fried (p. 1 – 2, Instructions, Steps 6 – 8, and 13). SousVide teaches the radius bones are boiled (p. 2, Instructions, Step 10). Each component of the deconstructed buffalo wing is cooked.
Regarding claim 6, SousVide teaches the wingettes are separated from the drumette and wing tips prior to deboning, thereby isolating a radius and ulna subassembly, separate from a humerus and alula bone (p. 1, Ingredients).
Regarding claim 7, SousVide teaches the wingette bones are obtained by cutting off both ends of the wingettes, removing the joints, then by using toweling, pushing down on the wingette muscle to remove the meat from the bones, allowing for the radius and ulna bones to be removed, and reserving the radius bones while discarding the ulna bones (p. 1, Instructions, Steps 3 and 4). SousVide teaches the bone inserted into the center of the deconstructed buffalo wing is a boiled chicken radius bone (p. 1 – 2, Instructions, Steps 3, 4, and 10; p. 2, For plating the wings, Step 3).
While SousVide does not teach the bone inserted into the center of the deconstructed buffalo wing is a chicken ulna bone, MPEP § 2144.06.II states an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). One of ordinary skill in the art would have substituted the radius bone with an ulna bone before the effective filing date of the application because the ulna bone, like the radius bone, is a long, thin, wing bone present in the wingette portion of a chicken wing. Additionally, because there are only two bones present in the wingette portion of the chicken wing, and they have similar dimensions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try using the ulna bone instead of a radius bone with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, SousVide teaches the stuffed wingettes are lined up end-to-end on plastic wrap and rolled to form a log, vacuum sealed (i.e., is within a container and subjected to a pressure less than ambient pressure thereby compressing the processed poultry meat), then immersed in a 145 °F water bath (p. 1 – 2, Instructions, Steps 6 – 8). SousVide teaches the log is removed from the bath and vacuum bag, cut into five pieces, deep fried, and finished by inserting a boiled radius bone from the deboned wingette into the center of the log pieces through the blue cheese mousse (i.e., thereby coupling the processed poultry meat to the one or more separated bare poultry bones – p. 2, Instructions, Steps 10 and 13; p. 2, For plating the wings, Step 3).
While SousVide does not teach the brined radius bones are inserted into the center of the log pieces, then vacuum sealed (i.e., the poultry food product is within a container and subjected to a pressure less than ambient pressure for a sufficient amount of time to couple the processed poultry meat to the brined and separated bare poultry bone), this recitation is directed toward a method of production of the product of claim 8. MPEP § 2113.I teaches even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. Therefore, the structure implied by the process steps of claims 8 have been considered when assessing the patentability of the product.
The structure implied by claim 8 is interpreted to be compressed processed poultry meat coupled to a brined and separated bare poultry bone.
The deconstructed buffalo wing of SousVide in view of Life School is encompassed by claim 8. Therefore, the product of claim 8 is rendered obvious by SousVide in view of Life School.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites the term “coupled to” which the instant specification clarifies includes “connected, bound, and adhered” (p. 26, lines 12 – 15). The term “coupled to” is interpreted broadly to mean “in contact with”. The claim recites the term “surrounds” which the instant specification clarifies includes partially covered, or completely covered (p. 4, lines 26 – 28). Therefore, the term “surrounds” includes partially covered.
SousVide teaches deconstructed buffalo wings comprising deboned chicken wingettes stuffed with a blue cheese mousse (p. 1, Ingredients; p. 1, Instructions, Steps 1 and 5). SousVide teaches the blue cheese mousse comprises chopped chicken breast (i.e., processed poultry meat – p. 1, Ingredients; p. 2, For Blue Cheese Mousse, Step 2). SousVide teaches the stuffed wingettes are lined up end-to-end on plastic wrap and rolled to form a log, vacuum sealed, then immersed in a 145 °F water bath (p. 1 – 2, Instructions, Steps 6 – 8). SousVide teaches the log is removed from the bath and vacuum bag, cut into five pieces, deep fried, and finished by inserting a boiled radius bone from the deboned wingette into the center of the log pieces through the blue cheese mousse (i.e., a quantity of processed poultry meat surrounds and is coupled to a meat-bare and separated poultry wing bone – p. 2, Instructions, Steps 10 and 13; p. 2, For plating the wings, Step 3). SousVide teaches the deboned wingette and radius bone are obtained by cutting off both ends of the wingettes, removing the joints, then by using toweling, pushing down on the wingette to remove the meat from the bones, allowing for the radius and ulna bones to be removed, and reserving the radius bones (i.e., a bare poultry wing bone separated from a remaining poultry skeletal structure – p. 1, Instructions, Steps 3 and 4). SousVide teaches prior to inserting the boiled radius bone, the bones are scraped with a small paring knife to clean thoroughly (i.e., the bare poultry wing bone includes a meat-bare poultry wing bone – p. 2, Instructions, Step 10).
SousVide does not teach the meat-bare poultry wing bones coupled to the processed poultry meat are brined.
Life School teaches seasoning water with salt improves the flavor of the water and anything cooked in the seasoned water (p. 2, Introduction, bullets 1 – 4).
SousVide and Life School are combinable because they are both concerned with boiling water for food. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have seasoned the boiling water for the radius bones, as taught by Life School, thereby producing brined, boiled radius bones in the product of SousVide, because salt improves the flavor of the water and anything cooked in the seasoned water, such as the radius bones.
With respect to the limitation “wherein the brined, meat-bare and separated poultry bones is configured to facilitate coupling of the quantity of processed poultry meat”, the instant specification states “Brining the processed poultry meat can facilitate coupling (e.g., connect, bind or adhere) between the bare poultry bone and the processed poultry meat (p. 13, lines 30 – 31; p. 14, line 1). Therefore, by using brined, boiled radius bones (i.e., brined, meat-bare and separated poultry bones) in the product of SousVide, the brined, boiled radius bones (i.e., brined, meat-bare and separated poultry bones) are configured to facilitate coupling of the quantity of processed poultry meat.
Regarding claim 10, SousVide teaches the bone inserted into the center of the deconstructed buffalo wing is a boiled chicken radius bone (i.e., a quantity of processed poultry meat surrounds and is coupled to a meat-bare and separated poultry wing bone – p. 1 – 2, Instructions, Steps 3, 4, and 10; p. 2, For plating the wings, Step 3).
While SousVide does not teach two or more bones are inserted into the center of the deconstructed buffalo wing, MPEP § 2144.04.VI.B states mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have inserted two or more radius bones into the center of the deconstructed buffalo wing.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites the term “discarded” which is interpreted broadly to mean “set aside”.
SousVide teaches the bone inserted into the center of the deconstructed buffalo wing is a boiled chicken radius bone (p. 1 – 2, Instructions, Steps 3, 4, and 10; p. 2, For plating the wings, Step 3). SousVide teaches the deboned wingette and radius bone are obtained by cutting off both ends of the wingettes removing the joints, then by using toweling, pushing down on the wingette to remove the meat from the bones, allowing for the radius and ulna bones to be removed, and reserving the radius bones (i.e., a discarded bare poultry wing bone separated from the a remaining poultry skeletal structure – p. 1, Instructions, Steps 3 and 4).
Furthermore, the recitation “discarded” is directed toward a method of production of the product of claim 11. MPEP § 2113.I teaches even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. Therefore, the structure implied by the process steps of claims 11 have been considered when assessing the patentability of the product.
The structure implied by claim 11 is interpreted to be processed poultry meat surrounding and coupled to a brined and separated meat-bare poultry ulna or radius bone.
The deconstructed buffalo wing of SousVide in view of Life School is encompassed by claim 11. Therefore, the product of claim 11 is rendered obvious by SousVide in view of Life School.
Regarding claim 12, SousVide teaches the deconstructed buffalo wings are finished by inserting a boiled radius bone from the deboned wingette into the center of the log pieces through the blue cheese mousse (i.e., a quantity of processed poultry meat surrounds and is coupled to a meat-bare and separated poultry wing bone – p. 2, Instructions, Steps 10 and 13; p. 2, For plating the wings, Step 3). SousVide teaches blue cheese mousse comprises chopped chicken breast (i.e., processed poultry meat – p. 1, Ingredients; p. 2, For Blue Cheese Mousse, Step 2).
Regarding claim 13, SousVide teaches the deboned chicken wingettes and blue cheese mousse are immersed in a 145 °F water bath for an hour and deep fried (p. 1 – 2, Instructions, Steps 6 – 8, and 13). SousVide teaches the radius bones are boiled (p. 2, Instructions, Step 10). Each component of the deconstructed buffalo wing is cooked.
Regarding claim 14, Life School teaches seasoning water with salt improves the flavor of the water and anything cooked in the seasoned water (p. 2, Introduction, bullets 1 – 4).
Regarding claim 15, SousVide teaches the wingettes are separated from the drumette and wing tips prior to deboning, thereby isolating a radius and ulna subassembly, separate from a humerus and alula bone (p. 1, Ingredients). SousVide teaches the deboned wingette and radius bone are obtained by cutting off both ends of the wingettes, removing the joints, then by using toweling, pushing down on the wingette to remove the meat from the bones, allowing for the radius and ulna bones to be removed (i.e., a radius and ulna subassembly is separated from the poultry wing bone), and reserving the radius bones (p. 1, Instructions, Steps 3 and 4).
While SousVide teaches the method of separating the ulna and radius subassembly from the humerus and alula, then from the wing meat, this recitation is directed toward a method of production of the product of claim 15. MPEP § 2113.I teaches even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. Therefore, the structure implied by the process steps of claims 15 have been considered when assessing the patentability of the product.
The structure implied by claim 15 is interpreted to be processed poultry meat surrounding and coupled to a brined and separated meat-bare poultry bone.
The deconstructed buffalo wing of SousVide in view of Life School is encompassed by claim 15. Therefore, the product of claim 15 is rendered obvious by SousVide in view of Life School.
Regarding claim 16, SousVide teaches the wingettes are separated from the drumette and wing tips prior to deboning, thereby isolating a radius and ulna subassembly, separate from a humerus and alula bone (p. 1, Ingredients). SousVide teaches the deboned wingette and radius bone are obtained by cutting off both ends of the wingettes, removing the joints, then by using toweling, pushing down on the wingette to remove the meat from the bones, allowing for the radius and ulna bones to be removed, and reserving the radius bones (i.e., a bare ulna bone is separated from an associated radius bone of the radius-ulna subassembly – p. 1, Instructions, Steps 3 and 4).
While SousVide teaches the method of separating the ulna and radius subassembly from the humerus and alula, then separating the ulna and radius bones, this recitation is directed toward a method of production of the product of claim 16. MPEP § 2113.I teaches even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. Therefore, the structure implied by the process steps of claims 16 have been considered when assessing the patentability of the product.
The structure implied by claim 16 is interpreted to be processed poultry meat surrounding and coupled to a brined and separated meat-bare poultry bone.
The deconstructed buffalo wing of SousVide in view of Life School is encompassed by claim 16. Therefore, the product of claim 16 is rendered obvious by SousVide in view of Life School.
Regarding claim 17, SousVide teaches the stuffed wingettes are lined up end-to-end on plastic wrap and rolled to form a log, vacuum sealed, then immersed in a 145 °F water bath (p. 1 – 2, Instructions, Steps 6 – 8). SousVide teaches the log is removed from the bath and vacuum bag, cut into five pieces, deep fried, and finished by inserting a boiled radius bone from the deboned wingettes into the center of the log pieces through the blue cheese mousse (i.e., a quantity of processed poultry meat surrounds and is coupled to a meat-bare and separated poultry wing bone – p. 2, Instructions, Steps 10 and 13; p. 2, For plating the wings, Step 3).
While SousVide does not teach the radius bones are added before vacuum sealing the logs, this recitation is directed toward a method of production of the product of claim 17. MPEP § 2113.I teaches even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. Therefore, the structure implied by the process steps of claims 8 have been considered when assessing the patentability of the product.
The structure implied by claim 17 is interpreted to be compressed processed poultry meat surrounding and coupled to a brined and separated meat-bare poultry bone.
The deconstructed buffalo wing of SousVide in view of Life School is encompassed by claim 17. Therefore, the product of claim 17 is rendered obvious by SousVide in view of Life School.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues claim 11 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), however the grounds of the rejection were unclear (p. 7, paragraph 8).
Applicant’s argument has been carefully considered and it is persuasive. The Office apologizes for including claim 11 in the rejection header in error. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of claim 11 has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues the recitation “completely stripped of at least one of poultry muscle or skin” is not unclear (p. 7, paragraph 9).
Applicant’s argument has been carefully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of claim 2 has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues SousVide and Life School fail to teach or suggest, alone or in combination at least the one or more brined and separated poultry bones is configured to facilitate coupling of the quantity of processed poultry meat (p. 8, paragraph 5).
Applicant’s argument has been carefully considered however the argument is not persuasive. The instant specification states brining the processed poultry meat can facilitate coupling (e.g., connect, bind or adhere) between the bare poultry bone and the processed poultry meat (p. 13, lines 30 – 31; p. 14, line 1). Therefore, by using brined, boiled radius bones (i.e., brined, meat-bare and separated poultry bones) in the product of SousVide, the brined, boiled radius bones (i.e., brined, meat-bare and separated poultry bones) are configured to facilitate coupling of the quantity of processed poultry meat.
Applicant argues Life School fails to teach anything about brining, especially bringing bones (p. 9, paragraph 1).
Applicant’s argument has been carefully considered however the argument is not persuasive. Life School teaches seasoning water with salt improves the flavor of the water and anything cooked in the seasoned water (p. 2, Introduction, bullets 1 – 4). One of ordinary skill in the art would read the teachings of Life School and understand that cooking something in the salt-seasoned water of Life School would be considered brining whatever is cooked in the salt-seasoned water under the broadest reasonable interpretation of brine.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 LARK JULIA MORENO whose telephone number is (571)272-2337. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30 - 4:30 M - F.
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, Emily Le can be reached at (571) 272-0903. 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.
/L.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793