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 action is responsive to papers filed 10/29/2025.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-15 and 17 have been amended.
No claims have been newly added or newly canceled.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined on their merits.
Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn due to amendments. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant has replaced the term “washing” and “rinsing” with the term “flushing”. Applicant has defined the term “washing media” to refer to “a liquid for washing cells after cells have grown into a grown cell mass, in particular, a washing media may be utilized to flush cell culture media from a grown cell mass. For example, a washing media can include Phosphate Buffered Saline (PBS), citric acid/potassium dibasic buffers, or other solutions to rinse or wash a grown cell mass” (pages 9-10 para 31).
However, Applicant has not specifically defined the terms “washing”, “flushing” or “rinsing” to distinguish these terms from each other and therefore these terms are interpreted broadly to be equivalent to each other. This is consistent with Applicant’s specification which indicates that a washing media can be used to wash, flush or rinse a grown cell mass without any specified differences (pages 9-10 para 31).
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 10 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.
Regarding claim 5, this claim has been amended and is now written as dependent upon claim 41. Since there is no claim 41 this renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear and thus indefinite.
For examination purposes claim 5 is interpreted as dependent upon claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the term “undesirable” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “undesirable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For examination purposes the phrase “undesirable for human consumption” is interpreted broadly as anything that could possibly make the food product taste bad, smell bad, have an unpleasant texture or have an unpleasant effect, such as those listed in claim 17.
Since claim 17 is dependent upon claim 10 and lists membrane-permeable solutes that can be deemed undesirable for human consumption, dependent claim 17 is not deemed to be indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 5, 6-7, 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavon et al (WO 2020/222239-from IDS filed 05/18/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Lavon discloses a method for enriching cultured meat products (comestible food product) (pg 4,Iines 7-8, pg 34, In 3-6), comprising: growing a cell mass in cell culture media (pg 4,In 9-13),removing at least a portion of the grown cell mass from the cell culture media (pg 35, In 28-29); washing the grown cell mass with a washing media to flush out remaining cell culture media (pg 15, In 23-24); and then rinsing (flushing) the grown cell mass with an enrichment media comprising nutrients (pg 23, In 19-23). Lavon teaches and suggests that the cultured food is intended for human consumption (page 1 lines 9-24, page 26 lines 18-24) and therefore the nutrients included would be suitable for human consumption as well.
Lavon teaches and suggest wherein their water-based washing medium is saline and used to remove the growth medium (page 23 lines 19-24). Saline used for the processing of cultured meat is known to be isotonic and thus and obvious choice for the person of ordinary skill in the art of cultured meat. Flushing the grown cell culture with isotonic saline would dilute and remove the cell culture medium.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated with a reasonable expectation of success to include two washing steps, one with isotonic saline to remove the culture medium and a second washing step to add nutrients, such as vitamins, to the cultured food product in their method because Lavon teach and suggest that both options are suitable and desirable for their method of preparing a cultured food product.
Regarding claim 3, Lavon discloses the method of claim 1, wherein washing (flushing) the grown cell mass with the washing media comprises flowing the washing media over the grown cell mass (pg 23, In 19-23; pg 21,In 7-8).
Lavon does not expressly disclose flowing intermediate media comprising increasing concentrations of the enrichment media over time.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that increasing concentrations of the enrichment media over time could be incorporated if the sensors indicate that a parameter in the medium has not reached a desired level or had been depleted (pg 6, In 8-14). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Lavon suggests that one skilled in the art could readily devise many variations and modifications of the principals disclosed therein (page 35, page 37).
Regarding claim 4, Lavon discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising wherein the additives combined with the cultured food product with or after the washing with washing medium (such as saline) increase its vitamin content (page 23 lines 20-23) rendering obvious the addition of vitamins.
Regarding claim 5, Lavon discloses further comprising removing at least a portion of the grown cell mass from the cell culture media based on the grown cell mass completing a threshold proliferation phase (pg 35, In 28-29; pg 23, In 15-17).
Lavon does not expressly disclose wherein the threshold proliferation phase is complete when the grown cell mass reaches at least one of a viable cell density of 3 million cells per milliliter or a packed cell volume of between 1% and 25%.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would have further optimized using routine experiments, to identify the exact value for a proliferation threshold for determining the optimal time to harvest the biomass. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Lavon suggests that one skilled in the art could readily devise many variations and modifications of the principals disclosed therein (page 35, page 37).
Regarding claim 6, Lavon discloses the method of claim 1 and includes the use of a washing media (pg 15, ln 23-24).
Lavon does not expressly disclose wherein the washing media is at a temperature between and including -5 degrees C and 45 degrees C.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the temperature of the washing media using routine experimentation to identify the optimal washing temperature which could be adjusted using the temperature control elements which maintain the bioreactor at approximately 38 degrees C (pg 35, ln 25-26, pg 5, In 15-17). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Lavon suggests that one skilled in the art could readily devise many variations and modifications of the principals disclosed therein (page 35, page 37).
Regarding claim 7, Lavon discloses a method for enriching cultured meat products (comestible food product) (pg 4, ln 7-8, pg 34, ln 3-6), the method comprising: growing a cell mass in cell culture media (pg 4 ln 9-13), removing the grown cell mass from the cell culture media (pg 35, ln 28-29), and washing the grown cell mass (pg 23, ln 19-23, pg 21, ln 7-8).
Lavon does not expressly disclose washing the grown cell mass with a gradient washing media by decreasing concentrations of washing media and increasing concentrations of enrichment media over time.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that gradient washing media/enrichment media could be incorporated which would allow for a gradual change in the cell environment and thus provide less stress on the biomass. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success as the sensors would indicate when a parameter in the medium has not reached a desired level (pg 6 ln 8-11).
Regarding claim 8, Lavon discloses a method for enriching cell based comestible food products and washing (flushing) a cell mass (pg 4 ln 7-8, pg 34, ln 3-6) comprising: growing a cell mass in a cell culture media (pg 4 ln 9-13); flushing the cell mass with a first exchange water-based washing media to remove growth medium (pg 15 ln 23-24).
Lavon do not expressly disclose wherein the first exchange media comprises a lower concentration of membrane-permeable solute relative to the cell culture media.
However, Lavon do disclose wherein their water-based washing medium is saline and used to remove the growth medium (page 23 lines 19-24). Saline used for the processing of cultured meat is known to be isotonic and to have a lower concentration of membrane-permeable solute relative to a cell culture medium.
Lavon do not expressly disclose flushing the cell mass with a second exchange media comprising a higher concentration of membrane-permeable solutes relative to the first exchange media.
However, Lavon do disclose wherein their water-based washing medium is saline, used to remove the growth medium, and optionally to add additives to the cultured food product that increase its vitamin content and/or affect its appearance and/or taste (page 23 lines 19-24). A saline exchange medium fortified with vitamins will have a higher concentration of membrane-permeable solutes relative to the first exchange medium that only contains isotonic saline.
Also, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the second exchange media could be incorporated if the sensors indicate that a parameter in the medium has not dropped to a desired level (pg 6 ln 8-11). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success as the sensors would indicate when a parameter in the medium has not reached a desired level (pg 6 ln 8-11).
Regarding claim 9, Lavon renders obvious the method of claim 12 as described above, and wherein flushing the cell mass with the first exchange media causes a first set of membrane-permeable solutes to diffuse out of the intracellular spaces of the cells in the cell mass (pg 23, ln 19-23); as a saline solution would cause membrane-permeable solutes to diffuse out of the intracellular spaces as defined by Applicant’s in the instant application (para 100).
Lavon does not expressly disclose flushing the cell mass with a second exchange media that causes a second set of membrane-permeable solutes to diffuse into the intracellular spaces of the cells.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the second exchange media with a slightly altered buffer composition would be incorporated when the sensors indicate that a parameter in the medium has not reached a desired level to ensure that all of the unwanted solutes are removed (pg 23, ln 19-23). Adding additives to the saline solution would cause membrane-permeable solutes to diffuse into or out of the intracellular spaces as defined by the instant application (para 100), para 40). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success as the sensors would indicate when a parameter in the medium has not reached a desired level (pg 6 ln 8-11).
Regarding claim 10, Lavon renders obvious the method of claims 8 and 9 as described above.
Lavon disclose wherein the cell culture medium is removed from the bioreactor in order to remove undesired compounds such as ammonia from the medium (page 23 lines 10-14). The cultured cells are then washed with a water-based solution, such as saline, to remove the growth medium (page 23 lines 19-23). This removal of growth medium during this wash is deemed to include undesirable components such as ammonia, which renders obvious the removal of undesirable solutes such as ammonium ions.
Regarding claim 11, Lavon discloses a first exchange media (pg 23, ln 19-23).
Lavon does not expressly disclose wherein the first exchange media comprises a decreasing solute gradient and wherein the first exchange media transitions from a solution having a higher concentration of membrane-permeable solutes to a solution having a lower concentration of membrane-permeable solutes.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a solute gradient and the second exchange media could be incorporated together in the method of Lavon when the sensors indicate that a parameter in the medium has not reached a desired level (pg 6, ln 8-11). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success as the sensors in the Lavon method would indicate when a parameter in the medium has not reached a desired level (pg 6 ln 8-11).
Regarding claim 12, Lavon discloses a first exchange media (pg 23, ln 19-23).
Lavon does not expressly disclose wherein flowing the first exchange media comprising the decreasing solute gradient across the cell mass provides a gradual change in solute concentrations, whereby osmotic stress on cells of the cell mass is reduced.
However, adding additives to the saline solution would cause membrane-permeable solutes to diffuse into the intracellular spaces as defined by the instant application (para 40), whereby osmotic stress on cells is reduced (Lavon pg 23, ln 19-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a solute gradient for reducing osmotic stress could be incorporated if the sensors of the Lavon method indicate that a parameter in the medium has not reached a desired level (pg 6, ln 8-11). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success as the sensors in the Lavon method would indicate when a parameter in the medium has not reached a desired level (pg 6 ln 8-11).
Regarding claim 13, Lavon discloses a first exchange media (pg 23, ln 19-23).
Lavon does not expressly disclose wherein a second exchange media further comprises nutrients that adhere to external surfaces of cells within the cultured cell mass.
However, Applicant’s disclosure states that at least a portion of nutrients, such as vitamins, amino acids, antioxidants, proteins, carbohydrates or fats may adhere to an external surface of the cell when included in a second exchange medium (page 38 para 119). There is no disclosure of how this is accomplished, such as a specific required nutrient or a specific required dose, therefore this effect is deemed to be inherently present when the food product is washed with a nutrient enriched wash/rinse solution, baring evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 14, Lavon renders obvious the method of claims 8 as described above, and wherein the second exchange media is hypertonic relative to the first exchange media (pg 23, ln 19-23). Adding additives to the saline wash solution (such as vitamins as suggested by Lavon page 23 lines 19-23) would cause membrane-permeable solutes to diffuse into the intracellular spaces as defined by the instant application (para 100, para 40). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success as the sensors would indicate when a parameter in the medium has not reached a desired level (pg 6 ln 8-11).
Regarding claim 15, Lavon renders obvious the methods of claims 8 and 12 as described above, and wherein the second exchange media comprises an increasing solute gradient and wherein the second exchange media transitions from a solution having a lower concentration of solutes to a solution having a higher concentration of solutes (pg 23, ln 19-23). A saline solution would cause membrane-permeable solutes to diffuse out of the intracellular spaces as defined by Applicant’s in the instant application (para 39, para 100).
Regarding claim 16, Lavon renders obvious the methods of claims 8, 12 and 15 as described above, and wherein flowing the second exchange media comprising the increasing solute gradient across the cell mass provides a gradual change in solute concentrations, whereby osmotic stress on cells of the cell mass is reduced (pg 23, ln 19-23). Adding additives to a saline solution would cause membrane-permeable solutes to diffuse into the intracellular spaces as defined by Applicant’s in the instant application (para 40, para 100).
Regarding claim 17, Lavon renders obvious the methods of claims 8 and 10 as described above.
Lavon disclose wherein the cell culture medium is removed from the bioreactor in order to remove undesired compounds such as ammonia from the medium (page 23 lines 10-14). The cultured cells are then washed with a water-based solution, such as saline, to remove the growth medium (page 23 lines 19-23). This removal of growth medium during this wash is deemed to include undesirable components such as ammonia, which renders obvious the removal of undesirable solutes such as ammonium ions.
Regarding claim 18, Lavon renders obvious the method of claim 8 as described above, further comprising flushing the cell mass with the first exchange media.
Lavon does not expressly disclose flushing the cell mass with the first exchange media until a first effluent has a composition substantially similar to the first exchange media.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the flushing process would be repeated until all of the cell growth media had been removed from the biomass (pg 23, ln 19-23). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Lavon suggests that one skilled in the art could readily devise many variations and modifications of the principals disclosed therein (page 35, page 37).
Regarding claim 19, Lavon renders obvious the method of claim 8 as described above.
Lavon does not expressly disclose further comprising flushing the cell mass with a second exchange media until a second effluent has a composition substantially similar to the second exchange media.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the flushing process would be repeated until all of the first exchange media had been replaced with the second exchange media (pg 23, ln 19-23, pg 21, ln 7-8). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Lavon suggests that one skilled in the art could readily devise many variations and modifications of the principals disclosed therein (page 35, page 37).
Regarding claim 20, Lavon renders obvious the method of claim 8 as described above.
Lavon does not expressly disclose further comprising flushing the cell mass for a flushing time period.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the flushing process would be repeated for a period of time until all of the first exchange media had been replaced with the second exchange media (pg 23, ln 19-23, pg 21, ln 7-8). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Lavon suggests that one skilled in the art could readily devise many variations and modifications of the principals disclosed therein (page 35, page 37).
Therefore, the teaching of Lavon et al renders obvious Applicant’s invention as claimed.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavon et al (WO 2020/222239-from IDS filed 05/18/2023) as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6-7, 8-20 above, and further in view of Foustoukos (US 2017/0015972-from IDS filed 11/06/2023).
Regarding claim 2, Lavon discloses the method of claim 1 as described above, further comprising washing (flushing) the grown cell mass with the washing media (pg 15, ln 23-24, pg 24, ln 3-6) and suggest the utilization of pumps for circulation (pg 19, ln 15-32).
Lavon does not expressly disclose agitating both the grown cell mass and the washing media and homogenizing the grown cell mass and the washing media utilizing gas.
Foustoukos discloses an integrated system, apparatus and method that allows for the continuous culturing cells under such conditions with minimal physical/chemical disturbance inside the reactor and minimal impact of shear forces on the collected biomass (abstract), comprising agitating both the grown cell mass and the washing media (para 13) and homogenizing the grown cell mass and the washing media utilizing gas (para 28).
Since Lavon teaches methods for producing cultured food products in a bioreactor (pg 4, ln 7-8, 9-11) and Foustoukos discloses an apparatus for agitating and homogenizing cells in culture (abstract, para 13, para 28), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the apparatus of Foustoukos could be used in the method of Lavon to provide for the benefits of continuous cell culture with minimal physical/chemical disturbance inside the reactor and minimizing the impact of shear forces on the collected biomass. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Foustoukos teach and suggest that their invention is not to be limited to their specific embodiments and may be practiced other than as particularly described (page 7 para 55).
Therefore, the combined teachings of Lavon et al and Foustoukos render obvious Applicant’s invention as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments have been addressed in so far as they relate to the new rejections above.
Applicant argues that Lavon fails to disclose all the limitations of the newly amended claim 1. Applicant asserts that Lavon fails to describe additional washing or flushing steps applied to the food product.
This is not found persuasive. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated with a reasonable expectation of success to include two washing steps, one with isotonic saline to remove the culture medium and a second washing step to add nutrients, such as vitamins, to the cultured food product in their method because Lavon teach and suggest that both options are suitable and desirable for their method of preparing a cultured food product (page 23 lines 19-24). Saline used for the processing of cultured meat is known to be isotonic and thus and obvious choice for the person of ordinary skill in the art of cultured meat. Flushing the grown cell culture with isotonic saline would dilute and remove the cell culture medium.
Applicant argues that Lavon does not render obvious currently amended claim 7. Applicant asserts that Lavon does not describe modifying a gradient wash media used to wash the grown cells mass. Applicant asserts that Lavon fails to describe adjusting the medium composition based on its additives (e.g. vitamins) -let alone using a gradient washing media by decreasing concentrations of washing media and increasing concentrations of enrichment media over time as recited by amended claim 7.
This is not found persuasive. Lavon describes their method as described above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that gradient washing media/enrichment media could be incorporated which would allow for a gradual change in the cell environment and thus provide less stress on the biomass. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success as the sensors would indicate when a parameter in the medium has not reached a desired level (pg 6 ln 8-11).
Applicant argues that Lavon does not render obvious currently amended claim 8. Applicant asserts that Lavon does not describe or suggest flushing the cell mass with a first exchange media comprising a lower concentration of membrane-permeable solutes relative to the cell culture media, and flushing the cell mass with a second exchange media comprising a higher concentration of membrane-permeable solutes relative to the first exchange media as recited in amended claim 8.
This is not found persuasive. Lavon do disclose wherein their water-based washing medium is saline and used to remove the growth medium (page 23 lines 19-24). Saline used for the processing of cultured meat is known to be isotonic and to have a lower concentration of membrane-permeable solute relative to a cell culture medium.
In addition, Lavon also disclose wherein their water-based washing medium is saline, used to remove the growth medium, and optionally to add additives to the cultured food product that increase its vitamin content and/or affect its appearance and/or taste (page 23 lines 19-24). A saline exchange medium fortified with vitamins will have a higher concentration of membrane-permeable solutes relative to the first exchange medium that only contains isotonic saline.
Also, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the second exchange media could be incorporated if the sensors indicate that a parameter in the medium has not dropped to a desired level (pg 6 ln 8-11). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success as the sensors would indicate when a parameter in the medium has not reached a desired level (pg 6 ln 8-11).
In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wikandari et al., “Application of cell culture technology and genetic engineering for production of future foods and crop improvement to strengthen food security”, BIOENGINEERED, 2021, VOL. 12, NO. 2, pp. 11305–11330.
Matson et al., “Cell cycle proliferation decisions: the impact of single cell analyses”, FEBS J. 2017 February; 284(3): 362–375.
O’Neill et al., “Considerations for the development of cost-effective cell culture media for cultivated meat production”, Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 2021; Vol. 20, pp. 686–709.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA J SCHUBERG whose telephone number is (571)272-3347. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 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://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James (Doug) Schultz can be reached at 571-272-0763. 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.
LAURA J. SCHUBERG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1631
/LAURA SCHUBERG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1631