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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/18/25 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-9 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims should not contain location of support in the specification in the claims as such is not a claim element. Appropriate correction is required by deleting the passages of claims 6-9 in parenthesis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement due to the claimed “the boxes are irradiated with microwaves at a power of 38-40kw”. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Importantly applicants specification is silent to the limited range of 38-40kw. In addition, applicants specification is silent to the specific product specific attributes and claimed outcomes adjusted to a specific range of power of 38-40kw. Namely, a range of power of 38-40kw with respect to the limited time range of 1.7-2.4 minutes and the achieved claimed product outcomes.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 is rejected due to the phrase “the internal temperature spread within a fillet at exit is < or equal 2.0C” since the claimed temperature of 2.0 encompasses temperature which are not encompassed by the range of Independent claim 1 from which they depend. Namely, claim 1 requires a temperature of -3 to -1C where claim 8 further encompasses temperatures outside this range, namely -.9 to 2C and thus it is unclear if the claimed internal temperature spread is with respect to a same “thermal center” or with respect to a different “internal” temperature area.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over https://www.sairem.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/SAIREM-TMW75-MK115-EN.pdf. (upload date 11/2020) in view of Petrie et al. (WO2019068102).
Sairem teaches a continuous process to thaw fish (pg. 2 par. 2 line 2), by means of microwaves (pg. 1 par. 2; title), where the fish, once thawed (pg. 2 par. 1 final temperature) the temperature in 95% of the thawed product is between 26.60 to 30.20 F (-3C to -1C; pg. 2 par. 1 lines 1-2 -2C). Where said process is carried out in a thawing tunnel that has an entrance and an exit (pg. 1 par. 2), between which a conveyor belt is located (pg. 4 second to last line; placed on belt; fig. 1 pg. 1), on which are deposited boxes weighing 10-30 kg (pg. 2 par. 1 20-25kg) containing the fish (pg. 1 par. 3 benefit 7; packed, cardboard; fig. 1, fig. 2), wherein the process comprises the steps of:
(a) place said boxes containing fish into the tunnel at an initial frozen temperature (pg. 2 par. 3)
(b) advance the boxes containing the fish towards the interior of the tunnel and through the tunnel at a speed to achieve the final desired temperature (pg. 2 par. 1)
(c) irradiating the boxes with microwaves (pg. 2 par. 3 line 1) at a power of 35 to 70 Kilowatts (pg. 2 par. 3 line 1; 60kw) until the temperature in 95% of the thawed product reaches -3C to -1C; pg. 2 par. 1 lines 1-2 -2C).
Though silent to thawing to a temperature of a “thermal center” as claimed. Sairem teaches the same claimed microwave thawing to achieve a same claimed temperature with respect to a taught 95% of the thawed product reaches -3C to -1C; pg. 2 par. 1 lines 1-2 -2C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach the same claimed temperature with respect to a thermal center relative the teachings of Sairem for its art recognized and applicants intended purpose of thawing to achieve the constant, i.e. the finally desired temperature of -3C to -1C as taught.
Sairem teaches processing of foods in a conveying tunnel for the purpose of thawing and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of thawing frozen foods comprising a transport mechanism as taught by Petrie.
More specifically Petrie teaches rf processing of foods where the material of interest, including salmon (pg. 9 line 20), may undergo a same pre-treatment as taught by Sairem comprising microwave processing (pg. 17 lines 25-27).
Though silent to salmon fillets, Sairem does teach the processing of foods is not limited and more specifically includes fish (pg. 1 par. 1). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach a specific type of fish such as salmon as taught by Petrie, including fillets, for the same purpose of thawing as taught by both thus providing a same tempering of fish and more specifically salmon as taught by Petrie (pg. 9 line 20).
Sairem teaches an initial temperature, i.e. frozen temperature which is less than between 3.2 to 12.20 (-16C and -11°C), such as an example around -20C to -18C (pg. 2 par. 3). Thus since Sairem teaches a same thawing, since the initial temperature is merely a freezing temperature and since the frozen fish of Sairem would pass through this temperature as the frozen product is thawed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach an initial temperature of the product at -16C and -11°C as taught by Petrie (pg. 6 lines 13-15) since the claimed temperatures encompass a same frozen state as taught by Sairem and since the intent is thawing where the initial temperature as taught by Petrie is variable to achieve the constant, i.e. the finally desired temperature of -3C to -1C as taught by both.
With respect to the speed of the tunnel conveyor, since the speed is variable relative size, capacity, and weight of the food object relative applied power. Since the constant to be attained is a same temperature of -3C to -1C as taught by Sairem and since Sairem teaches a same microwave as that claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach a range of speeds relative such as and including a displacement speed of 1,800 to 2,500 mm/min. thus providing the desired thawing time due to displacement speed as taught by Sairem and since the speed of the conveyor is variable as taught by both.
Though silent to a time of the same claimed microwave power relative fish, Sairem teaches a same power as claimed, i.e. 60kW relative 35-70kW (pg. 2 par. 3) to achieve the required temperature of the product after thawing (par. 2 par. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach a time of 1.7 to 2.4 minutes relative a same power of 60kW as taught since the time is relative an applied power to achieve a final temperature and thus it would have been obvious to optimize the time relative the other variables as taught by both through routine experimentation since the time duration is variable to achieve the final temperature as taught by both.
In addition with respect to the processing variables which achieve a desired final temperature as taught and more specifically with respect to a same claimed power of the microwaves for tempering. "The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of... the explicit content of issued patents." KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex lnc., 550 U.S. 398, 419. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416., The question to be asked is "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
In addition, a conclusion of obviousness can be made from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. See In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). Such as in the instant case since the rate effective variables are chosen and are variable and depend on the final required temperature and on the product as taught by Sairem.
With respect to reduced weight loss compared to room, water bath and controlled environment chamber thawing techniques. In a first instance since Sairem teaches avoiding drip losses as key benefit (pg. 1) and since Sairem teaches microwave thawing as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach a result which is achieved by a same process, as opposed to room, water bath and controlled environment chamber thawing techniques, as taught by Sairem and achieving a same key benefit of reduced weight loss as further taught.
In addition, since Sairem teaches a same thawing by microwave heating, at a same claimed temperature and a same claimed quantity, as opposed to room, water bath and controlled environment chamber thawing techniques. Burden shift to applicant to provide evidence the same processing as taught by Sairem would not achieve the claimed effects compared to room, water bath and controlled environment chamber thawing techniques.
Applicant has described the product with parameters which cannot be measured by the office for prior art comparison, because the office is not equipped to manufacture prior art products and compare them for patentability purposes. As the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure, i.e. microwave thawing and fish, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Though silent to drip loss relative a time of 24-96h, importantly Sairem specifically teaches a key benefit of the same process being “avoiding drip losses” (pg. 1). Thus since Sairem teaches a same thawing by microwave, at a same claimed temperature and a same claimed quantity, as opposed to room, water bath and controlled environment chamber thawing techniques. Burden shift to applicant to provide evidence the same processing as taught by Sairem would not achieve the claimed effects compared to room, water bath and controlled environment chamber thawing techniques relative a time of 24-96h.
Applicant has described the product with parameters which cannot be measured by the office for prior art comparison, because the office is not equipped to manufacture prior art products and compare them for patentability purposes. As the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure, i.e. microwave thawing and fish, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Sairem teaches a same thawing by microwave heating, at a same claimed temperature and a same claimed quantity, as opposed to room, water bath and controlled environment chamber thawing techniques and thus Sairem is taken to achieve “reduced” aerobic mesophilic counts at day 0. In addition and though silent to such relative room, water bath and controlled environment chamber thawing techniques at day 0, Sairem teaches a same thawing by microwave heating, at a same claimed temperature and a same claimed quantity, as opposed to room, water bath and controlled environment chamber thawing techniques. Burden shift to applicant to provide evidence the same processing as taught by Sairem would not achieve the claimed effects of broadly “reduced” compared to room, water bath and controlled environment chamber thawing techniques.
Applicant has described the product with parameters which cannot be measured by the office for prior art comparison, because the office is not equipped to manufacture prior art products and compare them for patentability purposes. As the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure, i.e. microwave thawing and fish, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Sairem teaches a same microwave thawing to achieve a same claimed final temperature. Though silent to applicants claimed attributes relative room, water bath and controlled environment chamber thawing techniques. Sairem teaches microwave thawing as claimed, as opposed to room, water bath and controlled environment chamber thawing techniques.
Therefore, since the prior art teaches the identical thawing process, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present minus any clear and convincing arguments to the contrary.
If there is any difference between the fish of Sairem, the salmon of Petrie relative the microwave thawing of Sairem and that of the instant claims, the difference would have been minor and obvious insofar as because “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01(1), In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp v Banner, 778 F2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985), In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Warren Corp v D F Newfield Co, 1 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY 1934).
Where applicant claims result in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the teachings of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 USC 102 and 103. “There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 USC 103 and for anticipation under 35 USC 102.” See MPEP 2112(111) and In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433.
Similarly with respect to claim 6, though silent to immediate post-process weight loss is < 0.20% and weight loss at 48 hours is < 1.60% for salmon fillets (TD or TD-VP).
Sairem teaches a same thawing by microwave heating, at a same claimed temperature and a same claimed quantity, as opposed to room, water bath and controlled environment chamber thawing techniques
Since Sairem teaches avoiding drip losses as key benefit (pg. 1) and since Sairem teaches microwave thawing as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach a result which is achieved by a same process, as opposed to room, water bath and controlled environment chamber thawing techniques, as taught by Sairem such as immediate post-process weight loss is < 0.20% and weight loss at 48 hours is < 1.60% for salmon fillets and achieving a same key benefit of reduced weight loss as further taught.
In addition, since Sairem teaches a same thawing by microwave heating, at a same claimed temperature and a same claimed quantity, as opposed to room, water bath and controlled environment chamber thawing techniques. Burden shift to applicant to provide evidence the same processing as taught by Sairem would not achieve the claimed effects compared to room, water bath and controlled environment chamber thawing techniques.
Applicant has described the product with parameters which cannot be measured by the office for prior art comparison, because the office is not equipped to manufacture prior art products and compare them for patentability purposes. As the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure, i.e. microwave thawing and fish, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
With respect to claim 7, though silent to dynamic drip-loss for salmon fillets is < 1.50% at 48 h and < 2.50% at 96 h., importantly Sairem specifically teaches a key benefit of the same process being “avoiding drip losses” (pg. 1). Thus since Sairem teaches a same thawing by microwave, at a same claimed temperature and a same claimed quantity, as opposed to room, water bath and controlled environment chamber thawing techniques. Burden shift to applicant to provide evidence the same processing as taught by Sairem would not achieve the claimed effects compared to room, water bath and controlled environment chamber thawing techniques relative a time of 24-96h.
Applicant has described the product with parameters which cannot be measured by the office for prior art comparison, because the office is not equipped to manufacture prior art products and compare them for patentability purposes. As the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure, i.e. microwave thawing and fish, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
With respect to claim 8, Sairem teaches wherein the internal temperature spread (AT) within a fillet at exit is < 2.0 °C (pg. 2 par. 1 -4C to -2C) and no localized temperature exceeds 5 °C. (pg. 2 par. 1 -4C to -2C).
With respect to claim 9, Sairem teaches a same thawing by microwave heating, at a same claimed temperature and a same claimed quantity, as opposed to room, water bath and controlled environment chamber thawing techniques and thus Sairem is taken to achieve “reduced” aerobic mesophilic counts at day 0. In addition and though silent to such relative room, water bath and controlled environment chamber thawing techniques aerobic mesophilic counts for salmon fillets at Day 0 are < 1.3 x 103 CFU/g and remain below the corresponding counts of fresh salmon over Days 5-23, Sairem teaches a same thawing by microwave heating, at a same claimed temperature and a same claimed quantity, as opposed to room, water bath and controlled environment chamber thawing techniques. Burden shift to applicant to provide evidence the same processing as taught by Sairem would not achieve the claimed effects of compared to room, water bath and controlled environment chamber thawing techniques.
Applicant has described the product with parameters which cannot be measured by the office for prior art comparison, because the office is not equipped to manufacture prior art products and compare them for patentability purposes. As the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure, i.e. microwave thawing and fish, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
With respect to claim 10, though silent to a power of the microwave in a range of 38-40kw, Sairem does teach microwave power which can be used in processing is limited by the products and not the tunnel (pg. 2 par. 4). Importantly Sairem teaches the same constant of the required temperature of the product after thawing (par. 2 par. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach a power range of 38-40 kw since the power is applied to achieve a final temperature as taught and since Sairem teaches power vs time must be chosen according to compromise between capacity and homogeneity of the heating (pg. 2 par. 4) and thus optimize the range relative a product and other rate effective variables such as speed and/or weight of the product which are directly affected by the applied through routine experimentation since the power is variable to achieve the final temperature as taught by both.
In addition with respect to the processing variables which achieve a desired final temperature as taught and more specifically with respect to a claimed power of the microwaves for tempering. "The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of... the explicit content of issued patents." KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex lnc., 550 U.S. 398, 419. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416., The question to be asked is "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
In addition, a conclusion of obviousness can be made from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. See In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). Such as in the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach a power range of 38-40 kw since the power is applied to achieve a final temperature as taught and since Sairem teaches power vs time must be chosen according to compromise between capacity and homogeneity of the heating (pg. 2 par. 4) and thus optimize the range relative a product and other rate effective variables such as speed and/or weight of the product which are directly affected by the applied through routine experimentation since the power is variable to achieve the final temperature as taught by both.
Response to Arguments
With respect to applicants urgings a skilled person in the art with sufficient knowledge of the fish types, would not be able to reach the exact amount of power and time for thawing salmon fillets by using as reference the Sairem charts of cod and herring because of the fish different profiles and the different thermal dynamics of the salmon against cod and herring, that can be derivable from the different characteristics.
Importantly it is noted Sairem is not limited to the urged charts or specific fish. Sairem teaches fish, however and most importantly Sairem teaches with respect to Independent claim 1 a same claimed microwave power. Sairem further teaches the constant with respect to the applied power, i.e. a same claimed final temperature relative 95% of the product.
With respect to applicants urging directed to Petrie teaching additional application of air movement. It is initially noted, Petrie is relied upon with respect to the broadly taught fish of Sairem, i.e. salmon. It is further noted the claims are not limited to only microwaves or thawing “consisting of” and thus the additional air movement does not teach away from the claims.
With respect to the urged “technical report”. It is noted that “the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record”, In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). It is the examiner’s position that the arguments provided by the applicant regarding the urged technical report must be supported by a declaration or affidavit. As set forth in MPEP 716.02(g), “the reason for requiring evidence in a declaration or affidavit form is to obtain the assurances that any statements or representations made are correct, as provided by 35 U.S.C. 24 and 18 U.S.C. 1001”.
It is further noted as no IDS was filed it is unclear if the urged report is part of the application file or not.
However it is further noted the urged report does not provide the same conditions for comparison, such as and including temperature, weight, power which directly impact the results obtained and thus applicants urging of unexpected results, are not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Sairem teaches a same microwave thawing to achieve a same claimed final temperature. Though silent to applicants claimed attributes relative room, water bath and controlled environment chamber thawing techniques. Sairem teaches microwave thawing as claimed, as opposed to room, water bath and controlled environment chamber thawing techniques.
Therefore, since the prior art teaches the identical thawing process, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present minus any clear and convincing arguments to the contrary.
If there is any difference between the fish of Sairem, the salmon of Petrie relative the microwave thawing of Sairem and that of the instant claims, the difference would have been minor and obvious insofar as because “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01(1), In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp v Banner, 778 F2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985), In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Warren Corp v D F Newfield Co, 1 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY 1934).
Where applicant claims result in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the teachings of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 USC 102 and 103. “There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 USC 103 and for anticipation under 35 USC 102.” See MPEP 2112(111) and In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Leff whose telephone number is (571) 272-6527. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30 - 5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571) 270-3475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN N LEFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792