DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Amendments to the Specification, Amendments to the Claims and Arguments/Remarks filed 16 December 2025, in response to the Office Correspondence dated 25 August 2025, are acknowledged.
The listing of Claims filed 16 December 2025, have been examined. Claims 1, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, and 47 are pending. Claim 1 is amended and is supported by the originally-filed disclosure. Claims 2-28, 31, 34, and 36-46 have been withdrawn from consideration and new claim 47 has been added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), filed 16 October 2025, is acknowledged and has been considered.
Response to Amendment
The applicant’s arguments filed in response to the prior Office Action have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The amendments do not overcome the prior art rejections, and newly added claim 47 introduces subject matter that is rendered obvious by the same combination of references. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1, 29, 30, 32, 33, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is maintained. Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as a new ground of rejection and claims 1, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as necessitated by the amendment to claim 1 and the addition of new claim 47.
Maintained Rejections
The following rejections are maintained from the previous Office Correspondence dated 25 August 2025, since the art which was previously cited continues to read on the amended/newly cited limitations.
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-AlA) 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, 29, 30, 32, 33 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Danilovich et al. (RU-2649346-C1; publication date 02 April 2018, hereinafter referred to as “Danilovich”) in view of Everaert et al. (Everaert et al., Effect of four percent carbon dioxide during the second half of incubation on embryonic development, hatching parameters, and posthatch growth. Poult Sci.;86(7):1372-9; publication date: 1 July 2007, hereinafter referred to as “Everaert”), and El-Hanoun et al. (El-Hanoun et al., Effect of carbon dioxide during the early stage of duck egg incubation on hatching characteristics and duckling performance. Physiol Behav. 2019 Sep 1;208:112582; electronic publication date: 17 June 2019, hereinafter referred to as “El-Hanoun”).
Regarding instant claim 1, Danilovich teaches a method of incubating a fertilized unhatched poultry egg to hatching, comprising incubating the egg (claim 3 and Figure 1 shows diagram of internal device) for an incubation period of 18 to 21 consecutive days in a gaseous atmosphere which is in contact with the egg (Figure 1, egg labeled 3 and gaseous air pump control valve labeled 14), where during that time, an outside source of carbon dioxide (Figure 1, CO2 air pump control valve labeled 15) is fed into the gaseous atmosphere (Figure 1, labeled 3 and 14) so that for at least one period of time of at least 12 hours (relict geological condition time of 9.4 hours (Description, paragraph 13) plus maintaining the condition for 2-3 hours (Description, paragraph 26)) the carbon dioxide concentration in the gaseous atmosphere in contact with the egg (Figure 1, labeled 3 and 15) is 6,000 ppm, as “Relict geological conditions are created in the pressure chamber incubator (increased carbon dioxide content - 0.6% [6000 ppm])” (Description, paragraph 13). The minimum specified allowable concentration is 0.4% [4000 ppm] (Description, page 3, paragraph 9).
Danilovich does not explicitly teach the use of carbon dioxide at a concentration of 7,500-20,000 ppm as specified in instant claim 1.
Everaert teaches the use of carbon dioxide at a concentration of up to 4% [40,000 ppm] for chicken egg incubation and El-Hanoun teaches the use of carbon dioxide at a concentration of 0.17% to 1% [1700-10,000 ppm] for duck egg incubation (Abstract).
Regarding instant claims 29, 30, 33 and 35, the additional limitations set forth in these claims involve either a change in the incubation CO2 concentration, incubation duration of exposure, and/or interval period incubations.
Danilovich teaches incubation CO2 concentration changes and interval period incubations as, “When the concentration of carbon dioxide reaches 0.6%, valve 14 opens and fresh air is pumped from the compressor receiver into the container. At the same time, by opening the emergency valve 13, the used air leaves the tank. When the concentration of CO2 decreases to 0.4%, the valve 14 closes, respectively, and the emergency valve 13 stops bleeding air. This cycle is repeated every time the maximum concentration of carbon dioxide is reached. When replacing the air in the tank 1, both temperature and humidity change, which are adjusted by the control device according to the readings of the sensors, according to the cycles described above.” (Description, paragraph 28) and “Now, when CO2 concentration is reduced, it is valve 12 that will be used to bleed air from tank 1, and valve (6.5 atm) 13 will remain purely emergency. The concentration values (maximum and minimum) of CO2 will also decrease stepwise. If you do this in 6 steps of 4 hours each, then these values (max-min.) Can look like this (0.6-0.4; 0.5-0.3; 0.4-0.2; 0, 3-0.1; 0.2-0.05; 0.1-0.05 atm).” (Description, paragraph 33).
Danilovich does not teach the specific limitations of incubation CO2 concentrations, incubation duration of exposures, and/or the interval period incubations within claims 29, 30, 33 and 35.
However, Everaert and El-Hanoun (as cited by Wang) teaches (page 5-6, 2.4.3 Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide on Muscle Development) that it was known in the art at the time of the invention to modify incubation CO2 concentration within the ranges encompassing the claims and choice of time of exposure to CO2 during the embryonic cycle to hatching as factors influencing hatchability and post-hatch muscle development and weight. Further, Everaert and El-Hanoun also teach that it was known in the art at the time of the invention as a matter of routine experimentation to incorporate various holding times and with incremental and interval incubation periods to optimize development and post-hatch weight to optimize muscle fiber growth and development under different conditions for different durations, consistent with routine experimentation (respective Abstracts).
Thus, It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instant effective filing date to combine the teachings in Danilovich to improve poultry broodstock development for improving the condition and quality of meat via the teachings of Everaert and El-Hanoun (as cited by Wang) by using higher concentrations of CO2 for incubations known to be tolerable and used in the art for poultry egg incubations and applying the method and modifying the CO2 incubation concentration, duration of incubation, and introduce various incubation intervals by routine experimentation, as of all of these factors were known in the art at the time of the invention to be modified to optimize outcomes. The disclosures also reiterate these parameters as conditions modified as a matter of routine experimentation and, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). Further, KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007) supports that where there are known options to solve a recognized problem, and the combination is a predictable variation, the result is obvious.
Thus, the combined teaches of Danilovich for maintaining elevated CO₂ levels during incubation periods and controlling duration and concentration to improve hatchability and chick vitality and the use of higher CO2 concentrations known to be used in the art and to be a routinely modified experimental parameter for optimization of egg development, hatching and post hatch growth renders instant claims 1, 29, 30, 33 and 35 obvious. One would be motivated to make such changes to manipulating environmental factors during the egg incubation phase to provide a convenient and low-cost manner of improving poultry welfare, meat production and quality.
Regarding instant claim 32, the additional limitations set forth in these claims are that the poultry egg is chicken. Danilovich teaches use for poultry where poultry is specifically chicken, as “…eggs (gauge 23) of chickens, turkeys, guinea fowl, pheasant and quail…” (Description, paragraph 29). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instant effective filing date to specifically apply the invention to use in chicken eggs, as it is explicitly taught by Danilovich.
New Rejections
The following new rejections are made from the previous Office Correspondence dated 25 August 2025, as the Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented below based on the amended/newly cited limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 Applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites "[a] method of reducing the incidence of woody breast in poultry..." The claim then proceeds to recite only incubation steps. It is unclear how a reduction in woody breast is achieved or measured by these steps. The claim is drawn to a result rather than a process that predictably achieves that result. There is no recitation of any step for evaluating, measuring, or confirming the reduction of woody breast, nor is there any limitation tying the incubation steps to the alleged reduction. As such, the claim merely presents a desired outcome without clearly defining the boundaries of the method that achieves it, leaving the scope of the claim uncertain (see MPEP § 2173.02).
In addition, claim 1 recites, "within 10% of 7,500 ppm to within 10% of 20,000 ppm". This language is grammatically unclear and creates ambiguity regarding the intended scope. It is uncertain whether this phrase means: a range from 6,750 ppm (7,500 - 10%) to 22,000 ppm (20,000 + 10%); a range from 6,750 ppm to 18,000 ppm (20,000 - 10%); (iii) a range where the lower bound is "within 10% of 7,500" and the upper bound is "within 10% of 20,000" but the relationship between these bounds is not defined. While the specification may describe ranges, the claim itself must set forth the metes and bounds with reasonable clarity. The use of "to" in this context creates a hybrid expression that renders the scope of the CO₂ concentration uncertain. The phrasing is grammatically ambiguous and does not clearly define upper and lower bounds.
Claim 47 recites, "air exchange is carried out... and while feeding carbon dioxide... air exchange continues". The term "continues" is relative and indefinite. It is unclear what baseline is being used or rate and fails to specify the scope of air exchange (e.g., does "continues" mean that the air exchange rate remains unchanged from a prior rate or that air exchange does not stop entirely or does it require that air exchange be performed at the same volumetric flow rate during CO₂ feeding?). The specification (¶[0043]) describes controlling CO₂ "without restricting or changing the amount of fresh air exchanges," which suggests maintaining a constant rate. However, the claim language "continues" is broader and fails to distinctly define the scope. A person of ordinary skill would not know with reasonable certainty whether a method that pauses ventilation for one minute while injecting CO₂ falls within the scope of "air exchange continues" (see MPEP § 2173.02).
Dependent claims 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, and 47 are included in this rejection because they do not cure the defect noted above. Appropriate correction is required.
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-AlA 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AlA) 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 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Danilovich et al. (RU-2649346-C1; publication date 02 April 2018, hereinafter referred to as “Danilovich”) in view of Everaert et al. (Everaert et al., Effect of four percent carbon dioxide during the second half of incubation on embryonic development, hatching parameters, and posthatch growth. Poult Sci.;86(7):1372-9; publication date: 1 July 2007, hereinafter referred to as “Everaert”), and El-Hanoun et al. (El-Hanoun et al., Effect of carbon dioxide during the early stage of duck egg incubation on hatching characteristics and duckling performance. Physiol Behav. 2019 Sep 1;208:112582; electronic publication date: 17 June 2019, hereinafter referred to as “El-Hanoun”).
Danilovich, Everaert and El-Hanoun teach the limitations of instant claim 1, as described above, from which instant claim 47 depends.
New instant claim 47 recites, "wherein during incubation, air exchange is carried out... and while feeding carbon dioxide... air exchange continues". As applied to instant claim 1 above, Danilovich teaches an incubator apparatus and method for feeding CO₂ to eggs. Danilovich teaches both ventilated and non-ventilated states, and the proposed combination would render the specific selection of a ventilated state obvious. In Danilovich’s cycle, valves are opened and closed in sequence. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the function of maintaining a precise setpoint (e.g., within 10% of 7,500 ppm) inherently requires the ability to add CO₂ while exchanging air. If the incubator is ventilated, wherein air exchange occurs, CO₂ concentration will drop. To maintain a constant concentration during that ventilation, one must feed CO₂ concurrently. This is a fundamental principle of process control. While Danilovich’s primary cycle may involve discrete on/off periods for ventilation and CO₂ feed, the concept of maintaining a constant atmospheric condition within a controlled chamber, such as an incubator, is well known.
Everaert and El-Hanoun teach the use of high CO₂ concentrations and maintaining specific CO₂ concentration setpoints during incubation. The combination of these references would inherently suggest to a skilled artisan that to maintain a constant high CO₂ level in the face of continuous ventilation, a known method for controlling humidity and temperature, as noted by the applicant, one would simply open the CO₂ valve while the air exchange valve is open. This is not an inventive step, rather it is a predictable application of feedback control to a known system (i.e., Danilovich’s incubator) to achieve a known goal (maintaining a setpoint taught by Everaert and El-Hanoun). Choosing to run the air exchange continuously while using the CO₂ feed to maintain the setpoint is an obvious matter of routine experimental optimization of the Danilovich apparatus to solve the problem of simultaneous control of CO₂, temperature, and humidity, as acknowledged in the applicant’s own specification (page 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, seeking to maintain a precise CO₂ concentration, as taught by Everaert and El-Hanoun, within the Danilovich incubator, to operate the ventilation system continuously to stabilize temperature and humidity, while simultaneously operating the CO₂ feed in a controlled manner (e.g., via a feedback loop) to maintain the desired CO₂ setpoint. The claimed "air exchange continues while feeding CO₂" is a predictable result of combining the adjustable system of Danilovich with the precise setpoint maintenance goals of the secondary references. The motivation for doing so, to independently control environmental parameters, is acknowledged in the applicant’s own specification and would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant Arguments/Remarks of the reply, filed 16 December 2025, have been fully considered.
Regarding claim 1, the "reducing woody breast" limitation, the applicant argues that the combination of Danilovich, Everaert, and El-Hanoun does not teach or suggest a method of "reducing the incidence of woody breast," and that one of skill in the art would expect the opposite, an increase in woody breast, based on the attached declarations from Petracci, Bowker, and Kang. This argument is not persuasive because it improperly reads a result-effective variable into the claim in a manner that is not commensurate with the scope of the prior art. The claim is directed to a method comprising specific steps, incubating an egg in a gaseous atmosphere with a specific CO₂ concentration for a specific duration. The recitation of "reducing the incidence of woody breast" is a statement of intended result, not a structural or procedural limitation that distinguishes the method from the prior art (see In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019 (CCPA 1979)).
The applicant argues that the prior art does not teach or suggest reducing woody breast and that one of ordinary skill would expect increased woody breast based on general literature correlations between growth rate, stress, and myopathies. These arguments are not persuasive because the claim does not require performing any step that measures, diagnoses, or verifies woody breast, a newly discovered property or benefit of an otherwise obvious process does not render the process patentable, and the cited declarations and literature do not evaluate the claimed incubation process itself and are therefore not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Danilovich teaches an incubator system and method in which CO₂ is actively supplied to fertilized eggs during incubation and controlled through feedback-based cycling with ventilation to influence embryonic development and growth parameters. Everaert teaches exposing poultry eggs to elevated CO₂ concentrations (up to 4% CO₂, approximately 40,000 ppm) during incubation and demonstrates that CO₂ concentration is a controllable variable affecting embryonic development and post-hatch physiological characteristics. El-Hanoun teaches that exposure of eggs to elevated CO₂ levels (approximately 10,000 ppm) during incubation affects hatching characteristics and post-hatch performance, including physiological stress markers and muscle development parameters.
Together, these references establish that supplying CO₂ during egg incubation is known, CO₂ concentration is a result-effective variable, and adjusting CO₂ levels within known operable ranges during incubation was within the ordinary skill in the art prior to the applicant’s filing date. One of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to modify the incubation process of Danilovich to influence embryonic development and downstream physiological outcomes, would have been motivated to adjust the CO₂ concentration in view of the teachings of Everaert and El-Hanoun, which identify elevated CO₂ exposure as affecting embryonic physiology and post-hatch traits. This modification would have involved routine optimization of a known result-effective variable, not a change in principle of operation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955) and, In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). A reasonable expectation of success is present because the references collectively teach that elevated CO₂ exposure during incubation produces predictable physiological effects, and the claimed CO₂ concentrations fall within, or between, concentrations explicitly disclosed in the art.
The applicant argues that the evidence (e.g., Petracci, Bowker, Kang) suggests a correlation between fast growth, stress, and woody breast and because Danilovich accelerates growth and Everaert and El-Hanoun increase stress hormones, the combination would lead a skilled artisan to expect woody breast, not a reduction thereof. The evidence has been considered but are not commensurate with the scope of the claims, as they do not evaluate the claimed incubation process itself. The submitted evidence is general literature regarding the etiology of woody breast, it does not specifically teach that CO₂ incubation within the claimed range causes woody breast. More importantly, even if the prior art suggested the process would increase woody breast, the applicant cannot rely on this prediction to establish non-obviousness. The test for obviousness is whether the process itself would have been obvious. If the process is obvious, the fact that the applicant discovered an unexpected property (i.e., reduction of woody breast) of that obvious process does not render the method patentable.
Regarding claim 29, the applicant argues that the combination does not teach "alternatingly" exposing the egg to periods of high CO₂ and periods where "no carbon dioxide is fed". This argument is not persuasive because Danilovich itself teaches an intermittent cycle. Danilovich (paragraph 28) explicitly teaches a repeated cycle where CO₂ is fed into the container until it reaches 0.6% (6000 ppm), at which point the CO₂ feed stops and fresh air is introduced (venting CO₂) until the concentration drops to 0.4% (4000 ppm). During the venting phase, no CO₂ is fed from an outside source. This operational cycle corresponds to the alternating exposure and intervening periods recited in claim 29. While the "set values" differ, the mode of operation uses an alternating cycle, a period where CO₂ is fed to maintain a level, and an intervening period where the atmosphere is altered and CO₂ feed ceases. Modifying the duration of these cycles (e.g., 18-24 hours as in claim 30) to achieve different physiological effects would have been an obvious optimization of Danilovich’s existing cyclical process, informed by the routine experimentation taught in Everaert and El-Hanoun. The combination teaches all of the claimed process steps, with the claimed CO₂ concentration range representing an obvious optimization of known incubation variables
New claim 47 recites that air exchange continues while carbon dioxide is fed into the gaseous atmosphere. The applicant argues that Danilovich, Everaert, and El-Hanoun all teach stopping air exchange while inputting CO₂ (i.e., operating in a "non-ventilated" state), and thus do not teach this feature. This argument is not persuasive because Danilovich teaches both ventilated and non-ventilated states, and the proposed combination would render the specific selection of a ventilated state obvious. Danilovich discloses an incubator equipped with valves and control systems for both ventilation and CO₂ delivery. In Danilovich’s cycle, valves are opened and closed in sequence, teaching concurrent air exchange, not that air exchange must stop while CO₂ is being fed. Everaert and El-Hanoun teach maintaining target CO₂ concentrations during incubation.
To maintain a CO₂ setpoint (e.g., within 10% of 7,500 ppm) in a ventilated chamber, a person of ordinary skill would recognize that CO₂ must be supplied concurrently with air exchange to compensate for dilution. This is a predictable application of known feedback control principles to known incubators. Operating ventilation continuously while supplying CO₂ as needed to maintain a concentration is therefore an obvious control strategy, not an inventive concept, thus claim 47 is thus obvious over the applied combination.
Thus, in summary, the claims as amended and the new claim do not avoid the prior art. The applicant’s arguments have been considered but fail to point out patentable distinctions over the applied references. The process steps, including the ranges and cycles, are rendered obvious by the combination of Danilovich, Everaert, and El-Hanoun.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
The 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 (87 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 REBECCA L. SCOTLAND whose telephone number is (571) 272-2979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at: http:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’ s supervisor, Robert A. Wax can be reached at (571) 272-0623. 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:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent- center for more information about Patent Center and https:/Awww.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.
/RL Scotland/
Examiner, Art Unit 1615
/Robert A Wax/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1615