DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a second office action final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, and 12 have been amended, and Claims 4, 6-7, 11, and 13 remain as previously presented.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 09/09/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, and 12 have been amended, and Claims 4, 6-7, 11, and 13 remain as previously presented. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims have overcome each and every objection set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 06/16/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1 and 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (CN 214508822 U) in view of Wang et al. (WO 2023000042 A1) and Stavostrand et al. (NO 20110331 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Jiang teaches a facility for farming fish (shown in Figs. and stated in Abstract), the facility comprising a plurality of containers (1; Figs. 1 and 6 show that cage 1 is subdivided into four sections which form a plurality of containers.) arranged to be submerged throughout a grow cycle of the fish (shown in Fig. 5; Containers 1 are capable of being submerged throughout the grow cycle of the fish.), the facility comprising:
A frame structure arranged to hold the containers (shown in Fig. 2; There’s a frame structure that includes pile legs 5 and lifting device 3 and that holds containers 1.) and adapted to be submerged with the containers (See Fig. 5; The frame structure is adapted to be submerged with containers 1.);
A foundation (7) for the frame structure (shown in Fig. 2), wherein the foundation (7) is arranged to rest on a seabed (stated in Pg. 4 and shown in Fig. 5);
A buoyant body (2) arranged to lift at least one portion of the frame structure in a water column (shown in Figs. 3-5 and Pgs. 5-6; Buoyant body 2 is capable of lifting portions 3 of the frame structure in a water column.); and
A feed-supply system (11) for supplying feed to the containers (shown in Fig. 6; Feed supply system 11 is capable of supplying feed to containers 1.).
However, the system of Jiang fails to explicitly state that the plurality of containers are a plurality of tight containers and that the facility comprises a plurality of buoyancy bodies.
Wang teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to an aquaculture fish pen.), the system of Wang teaches a facility for farming fish (110; shown in Fig. 9) comprising a plurality of tight containers (shown in Fig. 7; Pg. 12 ¶115 and Claim 39 state that the containers are provided with layers of material that enclose the walls, base, and top.) and a plurality of buoyancy bodies (132; stated in Claim 10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jiang to have the plurality of containers be a plurality of tight containers and to have the facility comprise a plurality of buoyancy bodies as taught by Wang with reasonable expectation of success to protect the fish from disease-causing vectors and to prevent unpredictable movement in the facility (Wang, Pg. 2 ¶9-13).
The system of Jiang as modified by Wang fails to explicitly state that the facility further comprises a water-supply system for the containers.
Stavostrand teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to a marine fish farm.), the system of Stavostrand teaches a facility for farming fish (shown in Fig. 1; See Abstract) comprising a water-supply system (5, 5b-5c) for the containers (2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jiang as modified by Wang to include a water-supply system for the containers as taught by Stavostrand with reasonable expectation of success to obtain optimal conditions for the production of fish in the containers (Stavostrand, Pg. 5).
Regarding Claim 3, the system of Jiang as modified by Wang and Stavostrand, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Jiang further teaches that a lower portion of the frame structure forms the foundation (shown in Figs. 3-5; The lower portion of the pile legs 5 forms the foundation 7.).
Regarding Claim 4, the system of Jiang as modified by Wang and Stavostrand, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Jiang further teaches that the foundation (7) is connected to a lower portion of a leg (shown in Figs. 3-5; Foundation 7 is connected to a lower portion of pile leg 5.), the facility comprises a plurality of legs (shown in Figs. 3-5; The facility comprises a plurality of pile legs 5.), and the frame structure is displaceably connected to the legs (shown in Figs. 3-5; The frame structure is displaceably connected to the legs 5.).
Regarding Claim 5, the system of Jiang as modified by Wang and Stavostrand, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 4.
Jiang further teaches that an upper portion of the legs (5) projects above a water surface (shown in Figs. 3-5; An upper portion of the legs 5 projects above the surface of the water.).
Regarding Claim 6, the system of Jiang as modified by Wang and Stavostrand, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 4.
Jiang further teaches that the frame structure comprises a lower frame structure (6) and an upper frame structure (3; Figs. 3-5 show that structures 3 and 6 are located in the upper and lower portions of the frame structure, respectively.).
Regarding Claim 7, the system of Jiang as modified by Wang and Stavostrand, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 6.
Jiang further teaches that the lower frame structure and the upper frame structure are independently displaceable along the legs (shown in Figs. 3-5; Lower frame structure 6 and upper frame structure 3 are independently displaceable along the legs 5.).
Regarding Claim 8, the system of Jiang as modified by Wang and Stavostrand, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 7.
Jiang further teaches that at least one of the containers is adapted for attachment to the upper frame structure and for attachment to the lower frame structure (shown in Figs. 3-5 and stated in Pg. 4; The containers 1 are attached to the upper frame structure 3 via the buoyant body 2 and is also attached to the lower frame structure 6.).
The system of Jiang as modified by Wang and Stavostrand teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the at least one container is adapted for releasable attachment to both the upper frame structure and the lower frame structure. It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to substitute the attachment of the system of Jiang as modified by Wang and Stavostrand with a releasable attachment to allow for ease of assembly and disassembly of the facility, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Regarding Claim 9, the system of Jiang as modified by Wang and Stavostrand, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
The system of Jiang as modified by Wang and Stavostrand further teaches (references to Jiang) that the buoyancy bodies are arranged to lift the frame structure in the water column, so that an upper portion of at least one of the containers projects above a water surface (Figs. 3-5 show that the buoyancy body 2 [which would be modified to be a plurality if buoyancy bodies as taught by Wang] is arranged to lift the frame structure in the water column so that the upper portion of the containers 1 projects above the water surface.).
Regarding Claim 10, the system of Jiang as modified by Wang and Stavostrand, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 6.
The system of Jiang as modified by Wang and Stavostrand further teaches (references to Jiang) that the buoyancy bodies are arranged to lift the upper frame structure in the water column, so that the upper portion of the containers projects above a water surface (Figs. 3-5 show that the buoyancy body 2 [which would be modified to be a plurality if buoyancy bodies as taught by Wang] is arranged to lift the upper frame structure 3 in the water column so that the upper portion of the containers 1 projects above the water surface.).
Regarding Claim 11, the system of Jiang as modified by Wang and Stavostrand, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
However, the system of Jiang as modified by Wang and Stavostrand fails to explicitly state that the facility comprises a waste-treatment system.
Stavostrand further teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention a facility for farming fish (shown in Fig. 1; See Abstract) comprising a waste-treatment system (9, 9b-9c; Pg. 5 states that the drainage system 9 and 9b-9c serve to dispose waste from containers 2.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jiang as modified by Wang and Stavostrand to include a waste-treatment system as taught by Stavostrand with reasonable expectation of success to prevent pollution in the external environment (Stavostrand, Pg. 5).
Regarding Claim 12, the system of Jiang as modified by Wang and Stavostrand, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 11.
The system of Jiang as modified by Wang and Stavostrand further teaches (references to Stavostrand) that the waste-treatment system (9, 9b-9c) comprises a main drain (9; shown in Fig. 1) from an outlet at a bottom of the at least one of the containers (2; Fig. 1 shows that the waste-treatment system comprises a main drain 9 connected to an outlet at the bottom of the containers 2.).
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (CN 214508822 U) as modified by Wang et al. (WO 2023000042 A1) and Stavostrand et al. (NO 20110331 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Whiffin (US 4744331 A).
Regarding Claim 2, the system of Jiang as modified by Wang and Stavostrand, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 2.
However, the system of Jiang as modified by Wang and Stavostrand fails to explicitly state that at least one of the containers in an upper portion is provided with a dome arranged to enclose an air pocket, and the facility includes a gas-supply system connected to the dome.
Whiffin teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to an apparatus for rearing fish.), the system of Whiffin teaches a facility for farming fish (shown in Fig. 1) comprising a container (2) wherein the container (2) in an upper portion is provided with a dome (12) arranged to enclose an air pocket (Fig. 1 shows that the upper portion of the container 2 is provided with a dome 12 capable of enclosing an air pocket [stated in Column 5 Lines 60-65), and the facility includes a gas-supply system (26) connected to the dome (Fig. 1 shows that compressed air supply system 26 is connected to the dome 12.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jiang as modified by Wang and Stavostrand to have at least one of the containers in an upper portion be provided with a dome arranged to enclose an air pocket, and to have the facility include a gas-supply system connected to the dome as taught by Whiffin with reasonable expectation of success to provide fish with the necessary air they need (Whiffin, Column 3 Lines 15-20).
Regarding Claim 13, the system of Jiang as modified by Wang, Stavostrand, and Whiffin, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 2.
Jiang further teaches that the foundation (7) is connected to a lower portion of a leg (shown in Figs. 3-5; Foundation 7 is connected to a lower portion of pile leg 5.), the facility comprises a plurality of legs (shown in Figs. 3-5; The facility comprises a plurality of pile legs 5.), and the frame structure is displaceably connected to the legs (shown in Figs. 3-5; The frame structure is displaceably connected to the legs 5.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, on Pg. 6, Applicant argues the following: “When Jiang refers to prior art, Jiang refers to cages in plural (e.g., [n0002]). When Jiang refers to his invention, the term cage appears in singular (see Abstract above) and e.g. [n0033] “cage 1”. Figures 1 and 6 show cross beams within the cage 1, which the applicant believes to be structural features within a single cage. The applicant respectfully asserts that Jiang does not disclose a plurality of containers.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As Applicant pointed out, Figs. 1 and 6 of Jiang show that cage 1 is subdivided into four sections, each of which form a section that is capable of being a container for fish.
In addition, on Pg. 7, Applicant argues the following: “As seen in annotated figure 5 above, the water line is clearly indicated below the top of the cage. If the “containers (1) arranged to be submerged throughout a grow cycle of the fish” as alleged, the container needs to have a cover to prevent fish from escaping the cage. Jiang is silent above such a cover. In addition, there is no need for such a cover as depicted in figure 5, the cage wall extends well above the water line and forms a fence for the fish. In view of this, Jiang does not disclose that the “containers are capable of being submerged throughout the grow cycle of the fish” as alleged. Accordingly, the prior art fails to support a prima facie case of obviousness under §103 and claim 1 is believed to be in condition for allowance, as well as claims 2-13 by dependency. Notwithstanding the former, claim 1 is hereby amended to clarify distinctions over the prior art. In particular, claim 1 is hereby amended to provide that the frame structure arranged to hold the container [is] adapted to be submerged with the containers.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
To submerge means “to go below the surface of the sea or a river or lake”. (Source: “Submerged.” Cambridge Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/submerge. Accessed 24 Nov. 2025.). Fig. 5 of Jiang shows that the frame structure alongside the containers 1 goes below the surface of a body of water. Therefore, the frame structure and the containers 1 are submerged.
In addition, on Pgs. 7-8, Applicant argues the following: “It is not clear what structure the Examiner refers to as “frame structure” in Jiang. It appears from the bullet point on page 6 that the frame structure includes the pile legs 5 and the lifting device 3. As seen in the application’s figs. 8, 10, and 11, there is no structure similar or equivalent to the pile legs. As seen in Jiang, the lifting structure 3 is on top of the structural hull 2 (buoyancy body) and is thereby never submerged. Therefore, it appears that Jiang does not disclose a structure equivalent to the present claimed “frame structure”. Rather, Jiang discloses in [n0040] that the main structure of the aquaculture cage 1 is a frame structure composed of steel pipes.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Lines 3-4 of Claim 1 recite “a frame structure arranged to hold the containers and adapted to be submerged with the containers”. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Per Applicant’s own words, containers 1 are provided with a frame structure composed of steel pipes. Furthermore, looking at Fig. 5, this frame structure holds the containers 1 and is submerged with the containers 1. In the alternative, because the pile legs 5 form a structure that supports the containers 1, the pile legs 5 of Jiang serve as a frame structure (Source: “Frame.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/frame. Accessed 25 Nov. 2025.). Also shown in Fig. 5, the frame structure 5 holds the containers 1 and are submerged with the containers 1.
In addition, on Pg. 8, Applicant argues the following: “Additionally, the Examiner has identified Jiang’s structural hull 2 as equivalent to the claimed buoyancy body. Jiang discloses in [n0033] that the structural hull comprises a locking system 14 and that the upper part of the farming cage is provided with a locking structure 4 that matches the locking system 14. In the same paragraph Jiang discloses that when the pile legs 5 are about to contact the seabed, the aquaculture cage 1 and the structural hull 2 are locked together, and the aquaculture cage 1 is fixed on the structural hull 2. Therefore, the aquaculture cage and its frame structure (as disclosed in [n0040]) are fixed to the buoyant body (structural hull). It is therefore impossible that the buoyant body can lift a portion of the frame structure as claimed, as it will involve that the buoyant body will lift itself.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Pgs. 5-6 of Jiang’s machine translation state that containers 1 floats “through the buoyancy of structure hull 2” and further that the floating state is adjusted through ballast water. Looking at Figs. 2-5 with this in mind, the buoyant body 2 is capable of lifting the frame structure that includes pile legs 5 and lifting device 3 in a water column and this floating state is adjusted through ballast water to place the assembly where desired. Fig. 5 further shows that once the assembly is placed, buoyant body 2 lifts the lifting device 3 portion of the frame structure.
In addition, on Pg. 8, Applicant argues the following “In view of these comments, it is clear that Jiang fails not only to explicitly state that the plurality of containers are tight and that the facility comprises a plurality of buoyancy bodies, but also fails to show a plurality of containers, fails to show that the containers are submerged during the grow cycle of fish, fails to show that frame structure is dived during the growth cycle and fails to show that the buoyant body can lift a portion of the frame structure (throughout a growth cycle).”
Examiner first notes that in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, Wang is relied upon for its teaching of tight containers and a plurality of buoyancy bodies.
Secondly, as Applicant pointed out and shown above, Figs. 1 and 6 of Jiang show that cage 1 is subdivided into four sections, each of which form a section that is capable of being a container for fish. Fig. 5 further shows that containers 1 are submerged throughout a growth cycle of the fish.
Thirdly, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the frame structure is dived during the growth cycle and that the buoyant body can lift a portion of the frame structure throughout a growth cycle) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Finally, as shown above, Pgs. 5-6 of Jiang’s machine translation state that containers 1 floats “through the buoyancy of structure hull 2” and further that the floating state is adjusted through ballast water. Looking at Figs. 2-5 with this in mind, the buoyant body 2 is capable of lifting the frame structure that includes pile legs 5 and lifting device 3 in a water column and this floating state is adjusted through ballast water to place the assembly where desired. Fig. 5 further shows that once the assembly is placed, buoyant body 2 lifts the lifting device 3 portion of the frame structure.
In addition, on Pg. 8, Applicant argues the following: “It is further clear from Jiang that the facility is resting on the seabed and that the structure hull (buoyant body) is above sea level during the growth cycle of the fish. In other words, there is no active buoyant body during the growth cycle. For these additional reasons, Jiang fails to support a prima facie case of obviousness to rejection amended claim 1 under §103.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., there not being an active buoyant body during the growth cycle) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In addition, on Pg. 8, Applicant argues the following: “Regarding Wang WO 2023000042, the Examiner has not explained why Jiang is in need of a plurality of buoyant bodies as Jiang is not dependent on any buoyant body during the growth cycle of the fish. Therefore, there is not obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Jiang with the teaching of Wang.”
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, as noted in the rejection to claim 1 above, providing tight containers can help protect the fish from disease-causing vectors and providing a plurality of buoyancy bodies helps prevent unpredictable movement in the facility (Wang, Pg. 2 ¶9-13).
Regarding Claim 3, on Pgs. 8-9, Applicant argues the following: “With respect to claim 3, Jiang teaches in [n0040] the main structure is the frame structure which is equivalent to the claimed frame structure. However, Jiang does not teach that the lower portion of the main structure forms the foundation.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As shown in the rejection of claim 3 above, Fig. 5 of Jiang shows that the lower portion of the pile legs 5 forms the foundation 7.
Regarding Claims 6 & 7, on Pg. 9, Applicant argues the following: “For claim 6, the lifting device 3 is allegedly equivalent to the claimed upper frame structure. The guide structure 6 is allegedly equivalent to the claimed lower frame structure. The applicant disagrees with this interpretation that Jiang’s main structure is the frame structure that is equivalent to the claimed frame structure. Jiang’s main structure does not comprise the lifting device and the guide structure. Substantially similar arguments also apply against the interpretation of claim 7.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Fig. 5 shows that the frame structure of Jiang comprises the pile legs 5 to which structures 3 and 6. Furthermore, structures 3 and 6 are located in the upper and lower portions of the frame structure, respectively. Therefore, structure 3 is an upper frame structure, and structure 6 is a lower frame structure.
Regarding Claim 8, on Pg. 9, Applicant argues the following: “With respect to claim 8, the Examiner has not explained why it is an obvious substitution of functional elements, nor a motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to make the substitution.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, providing a releasable attachment to the system of Jiang allow for ease of assembly and disassembly of the facility, and, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results according to KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007), it would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to substitute the attachment of the system of Jiang as modified by Wang and Stavostrand with a releasable attachment.
Regarding Claim 10, on Pg. 9, Applicant argues the following: “Substantially similar arguments from claim 6 also apply to claim 10. The Examiner alleges that the lifting device 3 is equivalent to the upper frame structure (claim 10 is amended to reinstall “upper’). As the lifting device is above the structure hull, the lifting device is never submerged and it cannot be lifted in the water column as claimed.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Figs. 3-5 of Jiang show that the buoyancy body 2 [which would be modified to be a plurality if buoyancy bodies as taught by Wang] serves to lift upper frame structure 3. Therefore, the buoyancy bodies would be capable of lifting the upper frame structure 3 in the water column so that the upper portion of the containers 1 projects above the water surface.
Conclusion
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 ANGELICA A ALMEIDA BONNIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. 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.
/A.A.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/DAVID J PARSLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643