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. Applicant's amendments to the claims filed on 11-11-2022 have been received and entered. Claims 1-8 have been amended. Claims 1-8 are pending in the instant application. Priority This application is a 371 of PCT/CN2022/095132 filed on 05/26/2022 which claims priority from foreign application CN 202110698218.9 filed on 06/23/2021. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CPR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner. Claim Objections Claim 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 -step 1 recites the phrase “ measuring a first length, a first width and a first height of first knobs of first young geese , determining a first collagen content in a first leg muscle of the first young geese ” which is grammatically confusing. Since the claim recite the term “ knobs ” and “ geese ” which are plural, the cited phrase should read “ measuring length s , width s and height s of knobs of the first population of young geese , determining collagen content s in leg muscle of the first the first population of young geese ” Similarly, Claim 1-step 3 recites the phrase “a length, a width , and a height of second knobs ” which should read “ measuring length s , width s and height s of knobs of the second population of young geese ” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-8 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 – step 1 recites the phrase “ performing a linear fitting on a size of the first length x the first width x the first height of the first knobs and the first collagen content in the first leg muscle to obtain a linear curve equation between the size and the first collagen content in the first leg muscle: y = 0.017x + 0.026 ” which is vague and renders the claim indefinite because of these reasons: Since “ knobs ” are plural, it is unclear “ the first length x the first width x the first height of the first knobs ” are average of the plurality of length s, width s and height s. Claim 1 recites “ a size …... to obtain a linear curve equation ” which is unclear because “a size” appear to be a volume of the knob s ( length x width x height ) and is singular so it appears to be calculated based on multiple knobs but it is used to “ obtain a linear curve equation ”. It is unclear how to obtain a linear curve equation with a single data point of “ a size ”. It is unclear how “ linear ” can be “ curve ” in an equation. Further, it appears the equation “ y = 0.017x + 0.026 ” existed before and independent of the measurement of “a size” and “ collagen content ”. Does a person of ordinary skill in the art need to perform of the first part of step 1 if they expected to use the linear relationship of y=0.017x +0.026 ? It is unclear which one is supposed to be “x” and “y” in the equation of y=0.017x +0.026 . Claim 1 – step 2 recites the phrase “ first goslings ”. It is unclear if the “ goslings ” are the same as the “ young geese ” in step 1. Also, t here is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 – step 3 recites the phrase “ measuring a length, a width and a height of second knobs of second young geese and conducting a calculation according to the linear curve equation obtained in step (1) to give a second collagen content in a second leg muscle of the second young geese ”. Since “ knobs ” are plural, it is unclear “ a length, a width and a height of second knob s ” are average of the plurality of length s, width s and height s. It is unclear how to “give” a second collagen content in a second leg muscle of the second young geese using the “ linear curve equation ”. It is unclear how “linear” can be “curve” in an equation, and it is unclear if “the linear curve equation” is necessarily the “y = 0.017x + 0.026” equation Claim 1 – step 4 recites the phrase “ keeping male geese and female geese with the second collagen content ranked a top 50% as breeding geese to form a family line ” is vague and renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how to keep “ male geese and female geese with the second collagen content ” and what can be considered as “ ranked a top 50% as breeding geese ” . Also, it is unclear what is included or excluded for the phrase “ family line ” because the “ family lines ” is not defined in the instant disclosure and it is unclear if this is a form of inbreeding used to concentrate desirable traits within a flock or not. It is unclear what geese are qualified as “ family lines ” Claim 1 – step 5 recites the phrase “ the female geese” . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no actual step to breed male and female geese following step 4 to form a family line so that it is unclear which female is referred to? For example, the first young geese are presumed to also include female. Claim 3 recites the phrase “ or new strains of Yangzhou goose lineage ” which is unclear what new strains of Yangzhou goose lineage can be included or excluded. Would any genetic modifications on a Yangzhou goose can be considered a new strain? What kind of difference can happen to Yangzhou goose to make it a new strain? the specification of the claimed invention teaches that “ A new strain of meat geese with high collagen content can be obtained from selective breeding simply by measuring the length, width and height of the knobs of meat geese after goslings are reared to young geese ” (Page 3, 3 rd para.) . Thus, it appears that the instant specification only contemplates a small scope of new strain of meat geese via selective breeding by measuring the length, width and height of the knobs . Thus, it is unclear what else can be included or excluded for the Yangzhou goose to be “ new strains of Yangzhou goose lineage ” to be commensurate with the scope of the claim . Claim 4 contains the trademark/trade name “ SPSS19.0 ”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to describe “ the linear fitting ” and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. Claim 4 also recites the phrase “ a number of the first young geese ”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the phrase “ a number of the first young geese ” can be interpreted as be ing a smaller subset of the total number of first young geese in claim 1- step 1 and can also be interpreted as the total population of the first young geese in claim 1- step 1 . This ambiguity makes the claim vague and indefinite. Claim 6 similarly recites the phrase “ a number of the breeding geese ” that depends from claim 1 step 4 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the phrase “ a number of the breeding geese ” can be interpreted as being a smaller subset of the total number of the breeding geese in claim 1-step 4 and can also be interpreted as the total population of the breeding geese in claim 1-step 4. This ambiguity makes the claim vague and indefinite. Claim 6 also recites “ 40-80 family line s , and each of the 40-80 family line s comprise s 1 male goose and 5-6 female geese ” , and because claim 1-step 4 only recites “ a family line ”. Thus, t here is insufficient antecedent basis for this “ the 40-80 family lines ” limitation in the claim . It is not clear how “ the 40-80 family lines ” fit in the context of claim 1, making the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. Claim 8 recites the phrase “ a number of the generations ” that depends from claim 1 - step 6 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the phrase “ a number of the generations ” can be interpreted as being a smaller subset of the total number of the “ generations ” in claim 1-step 6 and can also be interpreted as the total number of the “ generations ” in claim 1-step 6. This ambiguity makes the claim vague and indefinite. Claims 2, 5, 7 are included in the rejection because they directly or indirectly depend from the rejected base claim. Appropriate correction is required . Conclusion No claim is allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KHOA NHAT TRAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-0201 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F (9-5) . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT PETER PARAS can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4517 . 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. /KHOA NHAT TRAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1632 /PETER PARAS JR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1632