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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 11/12/2024 has been received and made of record. Note the acknowledged form PTO-1449 enclosed herewith.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Currently no claims are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-5, 10-11 and 13-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, there is an apparent typographical error in line 2 at “an inferior/bottom side the shank clamp” (wherein a minor amendment such as “an inferior/bottom side of the shank clamp” will moot this objection);
In claim 4, there is an apparent typographical error in line 2 at “an inferior/bottom side the shank clamp” (wherein a minor amendment such as “an inferior/bottom side of the shank clamp” will moot this objection);
In claim 5, there is an apparent typographical error in line 5 at “the head support from on opening” (wherein a minor amendment such as “the head support from an opening” will moot this objection);
In claim 10, there is an apparent typographical error in line 2 at “an inferior/bottom side the shank clamp” (wherein a minor amendment such as “an inferior/bottom side of the shank clamp” will moot this objection);
In claim 11, there is an apparent typographical error in line 2 at “an inferior/bottom side the shank clamp” (wherein a minor amendment such as “an inferior/bottom side of the shank clamp” will moot this objection);
In claim 13 (and thereby dependent claim 14), there is an apparent typographical error in line 3 at “an inferior/bottom side the shank clamp” (wherein a minor amendment such as “an inferior/bottom side of the shank clamp” will moot this objection);
In claim 14, there is an apparent typographical error in lines 1-2 at “an inferior/bottom side the shank clamp” (wherein a minor amendment such as “an inferior/bottom side of the shank clamp” will moot this objection);
In claim 14, there is an apparent typographical error in line 3 wherein a period (“.”) is missing at the end of the claim (a minor amendment adding a period (“.”) at the end of the claim will moot this objection);
In claim 15 (and thereby dependent claims 16-17), there is an apparent typographical error in line 19 at “an inferior/bottom side the shank clamp” (wherein a minor amendment such as “an inferior/bottom side of the shank clamp” will moot this objection);
In claim 16, there is an apparent typographical error in lines 1-2 at “an inferior/bottom side the shank clamp” (wherein a minor amendment such as “an inferior/bottom side of the shank clamp” will moot this objection); and
In claim 17, there is an apparent typographical error in line 4 at “the head support from on opening” (wherein a minor amendment such as “the head support from an opening” will moot this objection).
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 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 (and thereby dependent claims 2-6) recites the limitation "the apparatus" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "A poultry cradle" in line 1 renders the claim(s) indefinite because a poultry cradle was already introduced in line 1 of claim 1, thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. It is unclear whether applicant intended to refer back to the poultry cradle of claim 1 or introduce a new, additional poultry cradle. To move prosecution forward, the examiner assumed applicant intended to refer back to the poultry cradle of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 (and thereby dependent claims 8-14) recites the limitation "the open configuration" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 (and thereby dependent claims 8-14) recites the limitation "the closed configuration" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 7 (and thereby dependent claims 8-14), the phrase "a closed configuration" in line 15 renders the claim(s) indefinite because a closed configuration (of the shank clamp) was already introduced in line 13 of claim 7, thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. It is unclear whether applicant intended to refer back to the closed configuration of line 13 or introduce a new, additional closed configuration. To move prosecution forward, the examiner assumed applicant intended to refer back to the closed configuration of line 13. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "a closed configuration" in line 9 renders the claim(s) indefinite because a closed configuration (of the right shank clamp) was already introduced in lines 6-7, thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. It is unclear whether applicant intended to refer back to the closed configuration of lines 6-7 or introduce a new, additional closed configuration. To move prosecution forward, the examiner assumed applicant intended to refer back to the closed configuration of lines 6-7. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 (and thereby dependent claims 16-17) recites the limitation "the apparatus" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 16, the phrases "a distance" in line 1, “an inferior/bottom side” of the shank clamp (in lines 1-2), “an inferior/bottom side” of the shank guide (in line 2), and “a longitudinal (superior/inferior) axis” (in lines 2-3) renders the claim(s) indefinite because each of these limitations were already introduced in claim 15, thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. It is unclear whether applicant intended to refer back to these limitations of claim 15 or introduce a new, additional limitation for each respective issue noted above. To move prosecution forward, the examiner assumed applicant intended to refer back to the limitations introduced in claim 15. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase "A poultry cradle according to claim 13" renders the claim(s) indefinite because claim 17 is for an apparatus claim, and claim 13 is for a method claim, thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. It appears a typographical error may have been made in the claim dependency (wherein a minor amendment such as “A poultry cradle according to claim 15
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gorans et al. (US 9,808,328).
Gorans discloses (see Figs. 1-6) poultry carriers and methods of restraining poultry comprising the following claim limitations:
(claim 1) A poultry cradle (30) for atraumatic restraint of a live bird (as shown in Figs. 3-6), the apparatus comprising: a torso support (40) shaped to support and atraumatically retain the torso of a live bird restrained in the poultry cradle (30) (as shown in Figs. 3-6); a head support (60) operably attached to the torso support (40) and positioned to receive a head of a bird restrained in the poultry cradle (30) with its chest supported against the torso support (40) (as shown in Figs. 3-6); a head clamp (64) operably attached to the head support (60) (as shown in Figs. 1-6), wherein the head clamp (64) and the head support (60) cooperate to receive and atraumatically retain a head of a bird between the head clamp (64) and the head support (60) (as shown in Figs. 3-6); a shank clamp (50/52) operably attached to the torso support (40) (as shown in Figs. 1-6), the shank clamp (50/52) positioned to receive and atraumatically retain a shank of a live bird restrained in the poultry cradle (30) (as shown in Figs. 3-6), wherein the shank clamp (50/52) comprises an open configuration in which the shank can be positioned in the shank clamp (50/52) and a closed configuration in which the shank is retained in the shank clamp (50/52) (col. 6, lines 46-54; open and closed configuration expressly disclosed); and a shank guide positioned between the shank clamp (50/52) and the torso support (40) (as shown in Fig. 3 and annotated Fig. 1 below, depicting a funnel-shaped shank guide), the shank guide restraining the shank of a live bird restrained in the poultry cradle from movement in the lateral and medial directions when the shank clamp (50/52) is in the open configuration and the closed configuration (as best shown in Figs. 1 and 3; col. 6, lines 46-54);
PNG
media_image1.png
703
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(claim 2) wherein a position of the shank guide relative to the torso support (40) and the shank clamp (50) is fixed (as shown in Figs. 1-6; shank guide depicted as a funnel guide fixed in relation to the carrier apparatus);
(claim 5) a first side (i.e., the lower side of 60 as shown in the position of the carrier in Fig. 3) facing the head of a bird restrained in the poultry cradle (30); a second side (i.e., the upper side of 60 as shown in the position of the carrier in Fig. 3) facing away from the head of a bird restrained in the poultry cradle (30); a beak receiving passage (62, Fig. 2A) extending through the head support (60) from an opening (i.e., one end of opening 63) on the first side to an opening (i.e., other end of opening 63) on the second side (as best shown in Figs. 2A-3); and wherein the head support (60) and the head clamp (64) comprise: an open configuration in which the beak of a bird restrained in the poultry cradle (30) can be moved into the beak receiving passage (62) (col. 7, lines 39-47); and a closed configuration in which the head of a bird is retained by the head clamp (64) and the head support (60) such that at least a portion of the beak of the bird is located within the beak receiving passage (62) and at least a portion of the beak of the bird is exposed proximate the opening (63) of the beak receiving passage (62) on the second side of the head support (60) (as shown in Fig. 3; col. 7, lines 47-51);
(claim 6) wherein the shank clamp comprises a left shank clamp (i.e., “left” shank clamp 50/52, as shown in Figs. 1-2A) configured to (i.e., capable of) receive a left shank of a live bird restrained in the poultry cradle (30) (as shown in Fig. 3) and the shank guide comprises a left shank guide (i.e., “left” funnel-shaped shank guide, as shown in Figs. 1-2A) configured to (i.e., capable of) receive a left shank of a live bird restrained in the poultry cradle (30) (as shown in Fig. 3), and wherein the poultry cradle (30) comprises: a right shank clamp (i.e., “right” shank clamp 50/52, as shown in Figs. 1-2A) operably attached to the torso support (40) (as shown in Figs. 1-6), the right shank clamp (50/52) positioned to receive and atraumatically retain a right shank of a live bird restrained in the poultry cradle (30) (as shown in Fig. 3), wherein the right shank clamp (50/52) comprises an open configuration in which the right shank can be positioned in the right shank clamp (50/52) (col. 6, lines 46-49) and a closed configuration in which the right shank is retained in the right shank clamp (50/52) (col. 6, lines 49-50); and a right shank guide (i.e., “right” funnel-shaped shank guide, as shown in Figs. 1-2A) positioned between the right shank clamp (50/52) and the torso support (40) (as shown in Figs. 1-6), the right shank guide restraining the right shank of a live bird restrained in the poultry cradle from movement in the lateral and medial directions when the right shank clamp (50/52) is in the open configuration and the closed configuration (as best shown in Figs. 1 and 3; col. 6, lines 46-54);
(claim 7) A method of restraining a live bird in a poultry cradle, the method comprising: positioning the torso of a live bird proximate a torso support (40) of a poultry cradle (30) (as expressly shown in Fig. 3), wherein the torso support (40) is shaped to support and atraumatically retain the torso of the bird restrained in the poultry cradle (30) (as shown in Fig. 3); restraining the head of the bird against a head support (60) operably attached to the torso support (40) (as shown in Fig. 3), wherein a head clamp (64) is operably connected to the head support (60) and cooperates with the head support (60) to receive and atraumatically retain the head of a bird between the head clamp (64) and the head support (60) (as shown in Fig. 3; col. 7, line 39-col. 8, line 5); and restraining the shank of a leg of the bird in a shank clamp (50/52) and a shank guide (i.e., the funnel-shaped shank guide, as shown in annotated Fig. 1 above), wherein the shank guide is located between the shank clamp (50/52) and torso support (40) (as shown in Figs. 1-6), wherein the shank guide restrains movement of the shank in the lateral and medial directions when the shank clamp (50/52) is in the open configuration and the closed configuration (as best shown in Figs. 1 and 3; col. 6, lines 46-54), wherein removal of the shank from the shank clamp (50/52) is prevented when the shank is in the shank guide and the shank clamp (50/52), and the shank clamp (50/52) is in a closed configuration (as shown in Figs. 1-6; col. 6, lines 46-54);
(claim 8) wherein the shank restrained in the shank clamp and the shank guide is the left shank (as shown in Fig. 3, col. 6, lines 46-54; both shanks shown restrained within the respective left and right shank clamps and guides of Fig. 1), and wherein the method comprises restraining a right shank of a right leg of the bird in a right shank clamp and a right shank guide (as shown in Fig. 3, col. 6, lines 46-54; both shanks shown restrained within the respective left and right shank clamps and guides of Fig. 1), wherein the right shank guide is located between the right shank clamp (50/52) and torso support (30) (as shown in Figs. 1-6), wherein the right shank guide restrains movement of the right shank in the lateral and medial directions when the right shank clamp (50/52) is in the open configuration and the closed configuration (as best shown in Figs. 1 and 3; col. 6, lines 46-54), wherein removal of the right shank from the right shank clamp (50/52) is prevented when the right shank is in the right shank guide and the right shank clamp (50/52), and the right shank clamp (50/52) is in a closed configuration (as shown in Figs. 1-6; col. 6, lines 46-54);
(claim 9) wherein a position of the shank guide relative to the torso support (40) and the shank clamp (50) is fixed (as shown in Figs. 1-6; shank guide depicted as a funnel guide fixed in relation to the carrier apparatus); and
(claim 12) wherein the method comprises exposing at least a portion of the beak of the bird proximate a second side (i.e., the “lower” side of head support 60, as shown in Fig. 3) of the head support (60); wherein the head support (60) comprises a first side (i.e., the “upper” side of head support 60, as shown in Fig. 3) facing the head of the bird restrained in the poultry cradle (30) and wherein the second side faces away from the head of the bird restrained in the poultry cradle (30) (as shown in Fig. 3), wherein the head support (60) further comprises a beak receiving passage (62) extending through the head support (60) from an opening (63) on the first side to an opening (63) on the second side (as shown in Fig. 3; col. 7, lines 47-51).
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) 3-4, 10-11, 13-14 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorans as applied to claims 1 and 7 above.
Gorans discloses (see Figs. 1-6) poultry carriers and methods of restraining poultry comprising the following claim limitations:
(claim 13) wherein a position of the shank guide relative to the torso support (40) and the shank clamp (50) is fixed (as shown in Figs. 1-6; shank guide depicted as a funnel guide fixed in relation to the carrier apparatus);
(claim 15) A poultry cradle (30) for atraumatic restraint of a live bird (as shown in Figs. 3-6), the apparatus comprising: a torso support (40) shaped to support and atraumatically retain the torso of a live bird restrained in the poultry cradle (30) (as shown in Figs. 3-6); a head support (60) operably attached to the torso support (40) and positioned to receive a head of a bird restrained in the poultry cradle (30) with its chest supported against the torso support (40) (as shown in Figs. 3-6); a head clamp (64) operably attached to the head support (60) (as shown in Figs. 1-6), wherein the head clamp (64) and the head support (60) cooperate to receive and atraumatically retain a head of a bird between the head clamp (64) and the head support (60) (as shown in Figs. 3-6); a shank clamp (50/52) operably attached to the torso support (40) (as shown in Figs. 1-6), the shank clamp (50/52) positioned to receive and atraumatically retain a shank of a live bird restrained in the poultry cradle (30) (as shown in Figs. 3-6), wherein the shank clamp (50/52) comprises an open configuration in which the shank can be positioned in the shank clamp (50/52) and a closed configuration in which the shank is retained in the shank clamp (50/52) (col. 6, lines 46-54; open and closed configuration expressly disclosed); and a shank guide positioned between the shank clamp (50/52) and the torso support (40) (as shown in Fig. 3 and annotated Fig. 1 above under claim 1), the shank guide restraining the shank of a live bird restrained in the poultry cradle from movement in the lateral and medial directions when the shank clamp (50/52) is in the open configuration and the closed configuration (as best shown in Figs. 1 and 3; col. 6, lines 46-54); wherein a position of the shank guide relative to the torso support (40) and the shank clamp (50) is fixed (as shown in Figs. 1-6; shank guide depicted as a funnel guide fixed in relation to the carrier apparatus); and
(claim 17) a first side (i.e., the lower side of 60 as shown in the position of the carrier in Fig. 3) facing the head of a bird restrained in the poultry cradle (30); a second side (i.e., the upper side of 60 as shown in the position of the carrier in Fig. 3) facing away from the head of a bird restrained in the poultry cradle (30); a beak receiving passage (62, Fig. 2A) extending through the head support (60) from an opening (i.e., one end of opening 63) on the first side to an opening (i.e., other end of opening 63) on the second side (as best shown in Figs. 2A-3); and wherein the head support (60) and the head clamp (64) comprise: an open configuration in which the beak of a bird restrained in the poultry cradle (30) can be moved into the beak receiving passage (62) (col. 7, lines 39-47); and a closed configuration in which the head of a bird is retained by the head clamp (64) and the head support (60) such that at least a portion of the beak of the bird is located within the beak receiving passage (62) and at least a portion of the beak of the bird is exposed proximate the opening (63) of the beak receiving passage (62) on the second side of the head support (60) (as shown in Fig. 3; col. 7, lines 47-51).
Gorans, as applied above, discloses poultry carriers and methods of restraining poultry essentially as claimed as discussed above. Gorans further discloses a distance between an inferior/bottom side the shank clamp (50/52) and an inferior/bottom side of the shank guide (i.e., funnel-shaped guide depicted in annotated Fig.1 above) along a longitudinal (superior/inferior) axis extending through the head support (60) and the torso support (40) (as shown in Figs. 1-6). However, Gorans does not expressly disclose the claimed distance being specifically in the range of 5 millimeters to 3 centimeters.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Gorans to comprise the distance in the range of 5 millimeters to 3 centimeters since it has been held that "where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device" Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Gorans would not operate differently with the claimed distance range between the bottom side of the shank clamp and the bottom side of the shank guide birds and poultry of widely varying sizes may be needed to be restrained and the device of Gorans would function appropriately having the claimed distance range (i.e., shank clamps and shank guides would functionally need to comprise varying distances therebetween when using a device to restrain a small chickadee as compared to using a device to restrain a much larger chicken, turkey, or goose). Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the distance range claimed, as a plurality of different and distinct ranges are disclosed to be fully usable with the inventive device and method (see specification at, [0014]-[0015]; [0021]-[0022]; [0041]-[0042]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert Lynch whose telephone number is (571)270-3952. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:00AM-6:00PM, with alternate Fridays off).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Elizabeth Houston, at (571) 272-7134. 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.
/ROBERT A LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771