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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/25/25 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions and Claim Status
Applicants’ amendments and arguments filed 8/14/25 are acknowledged. Any objection or rejection from the 3/14/25 office action that is not addressed below is withdrawn based on the amendments. Although the nomenclature is unclear (see 112 rejection below), the replacement drawing of 8/14/25 has been interpreted as including no new matter.
Previously, Group 1 and SEQ ID NO:2 were elected.
Claims 12-14 and 18-19 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/3/24.
Since no further active peptide was identified, claims 6-7 are drawn to non-elected species. Since the features of claim 11 are not present in the elected species, claim 11 is drawn to non-elected species.
Claims 6-7 and 11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/3/24.
Claims 2, 8 and 16 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9-10, 15, 17 and 20-22 are being examined.
Although no formal interview request has been made, based on the remark on page 6 of the 8/14/25 reply an attempt to contact applicants’ representative was made but the attempt was unsuccessful. Since an amendment and response was filed, the examiner proceeded with examination.
Priority
The priority information is provided in the filing receipt dated 4/26/24.
Claim Objections
The objection below is a new objection.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 recites ‘wherein the composition further comprising’. The appropriate claim language (compare claim 15) would seem to be ‘the composition further comprising’ (remove the word ‘wherein’).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims were previously rejected under 35 USC 112. Since the claims have been amended, the rejection is updated to correspond to the instant claims.
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, 3-5, 9-10, 15, 17 and 20-22 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 recites ‘the polyamide has the sequence PyPyβImImPy-5AVA-ImPyPyβPyPyβ-DMAPA’. The structure of the polyamide is unclear. The claim and specification do not define or clearly describe what falls within the scope of β, Py or Im. Section 22 on page 5 of the instant specification refers to pyrrole. Matsumoto et al. (‘Fish-bite structure by three-dimensional hydrogen-bond acceptor: IR spectroscopy of pyrrole and N-methylpyrrole binary clusters’ The Journal of Chemical Physics v137 2012 pages 1-7) teach the structures of pyrrole (Py1) and N-methylpyrrole (NMPy1) (figure 5 on page 4). Instant figure 1Bb shows the inclusion of N-methylpyrrole not pyrrole. It is not clear if the abbreviation ‘Py’ as used in claim 1 is limited to pyrrole or if such abbreviation encompasses N-methylpyrrole or other modified pyrroles. In similar fashion, section 22 on page 5 of the instant specification refers to imidazole but what is shown in figure 1Bb is N-methylimidazole. It is not clear if the abbreviation ‘Im’ as used in claim 1 is limited to imidazole or if such abbreviation encompasses N- imidazole or other modified imidazoles.
Further, it is unclear what falls within the scope of ‘β’. Further, the nomenclature used in claim 1 does not appear to describe how any of the components are connected nor does it describe the first terminal end.
It is unclear if ‘PyPyβImImPy-5AVA-ImPyPyβPyPyβ-DMAPA’ as recited in claim 1 is intended to represent a species or a genus. Applicants remarks (first paragraph of page 8 of the 8/14/25 reply) refer to PyPyβImImPy-5AVA-ImPyPyβPyPyβ-DMAPA as being depicted in figure 1B(b). However, the basis for such assertion is unclear. Further, the nomenclature used in claim 1 does not appear to describe how any of the components are connected nor does it describe the first terminal end. Further, the use of the abbreviation ‘Py’ along with the word ‘pyrrole’ (section 22 on page 7) would not necessarily be interpreted as N-methylpyrrole. As such, what is intended to be encompassed by the claims is unclear. None of dependent claims 3-5, 9-10, 15, 17 and 20-22 clarify the claim scope. In order to attempt to address the issue, it may be beneficial to present a specific structural representation of the polyamide in the claim.
Claim 10 recites ‘nano-particle selected from the group consisting gold nano-particle’. The language used is unclear because it appears to be incomplete or missing words. It is unclear if ‘nano-particle selected from the group consisting gold nano-particle’ is the same as ‘nano-particle is selected from the group consisting of gold nano-particle’.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the active peptide". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no mention of any active peptide (claim 2 has been canceled and claim 3 no longer depends on claim 2).
Claims 10 and 20 recite ‘magnetic nuclear gold nano-particle’. The meaning of such phrase is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear how or if the word ‘nuclear’ alters the claim scope. It is unclear in this context if nuclear is in reference to the nucleus of a cell or if the word nuclear is in reference to being able to be detected by nuclear magnetic resonance. The phrase ‘magnetic nuclear gold’ is not an art recognized term and the instant specification does not disclose or describe how the phrase is to be interpreted.
Although unclear, the claims have been given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Response to Arguments – 112
Applicant's arguments filed 8/14/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to the rejection set forth above.
Although applicants make arguments in relation to an enablement rejection, there was no enablement rejection in the office action of 3/14/25.
Although applicants argue that the claims have been amended, the amended claims are addressed above.
Although applicants argue about the claimed polyamide, the scope of the claimed polyamide is unclear. Claim 1 recites ‘the polyamide has the sequence PyPyβImImPy-5AVA-ImPyPyβPyPyβ-DMAPA’. The structure of the polyamide is unclear. The claim and specification do not define or clearly describe what falls within the scope of β, Py or Im. Section 22 on page 5 of the instant specification refers to pyrrole. Matsumoto et al. (‘Fish-bite structure by three-dimensional hydrogen-bond acceptor: IR spectroscopy of pyrrole and N-methylpyrrole binary clusters’ The Journal of Chemical Physics v137 2012 pages 1-7) teach the structures of pyrrole (Py1) and N-methylpyrrole (NMPy1) (figure 5 on page 4). Instant figure 1Bb shows the inclusion of N-methylpyrrole not pyrrole. It is not clear if the abbreviation ‘Py’ as used in claim 1 is limited to pyrrole or if such abbreviation encompasses N-methylpyrrole or other modified pyrroles. In similar fashion, section 22 on page 5 of the instant specification refers to imidazole but what is shown in figure 1Bb is N-methylimidazole. It is not clear if the abbreviation ‘Im’ as used in claim 1 is limited to imidazole or if such abbreviation encompasses N- imidazole or other modified imidazoles. Thus, when in light of the specification the scope of the claims is unclear.
Further, it is unclear what falls within the scope of ‘β’. Further, the nomenclature used in claim 1 does not appear to describe how any of the components are connected nor does it describe the first terminal end.
It is unclear if ‘PyPyβImImPy-5AVA-ImPyPyβPyPyβ-DMAPA’ as recited in claim 1 is intended to represent a species or a genus. Applicants remarks (first paragraph of page 8 of the 8/14/25 reply) refer to PyPyβImImPy-5AVA-ImPyPyβPyPyβ-DMAPA as being depicted in figure 1B(b). However, the basis for such assertion is unclear. Further, the nomenclature used in claim 1 does not appear to describe how any of the components are connected nor does it describe the first terminal end. Further, the use of the abbreviation ‘Py’ along with the word ‘pyrrole’ (section 22 on page 7) would not necessarily be interpreted as N-methylpyrrole. As such, what is intended to be encompassed by the claims is unclear. None of dependent claims 3-5, 9-10, 15, 17 and 20-22 clarify the claim scope.
This 112a/1st rejection is a new rejection necessitated by the addition of claim 20.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
This rejection is a ‘new matter’ rejection. Section 2163 of the MPEP states: ‘While there is no in haec verba requirement, newly added claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure’.
New claim 20 recites ‘having a diameter of less than 42 nm’.
The phrase ‘less than’ could not be located in the instant specification. The phrase ’42 nm’ could not be located in the instant specification. Although applicants point to section 24 for support, such section makes no mention of any specific size. The phrase ‘less than 42 nm’ includes 22 nm and 1.75 nm.
As such, there is no reason to conclude that newly added claim 20 is supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure for at least the reasons discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims were previously rejected based on the reference cited below. Since the claims have been amended the rejection is updated to correspond to the instant claims.
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, 3-5, 9-10, 15 and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patel et al. (NPL citation 2 of IDS 6/10/20; ‘Patel’).
Patel teach a nanoparticle based artificial transcription factor for effective gene regulation (title and abstract). Patel teach that peptides were tethered to gold nanoparticles and that the construct (NanoScript) effectively localizes within the nucleus and transcribes targeted genes (abstract). Patel shows gold nanoparticles with a DNA binding domain and nuclear localization signal (figure 1). Patel teach that the DNA binding domain is a hairpin polyamide (page 8960 last paragraph of column 1) and shows the structure of the polyamide (figure 2). Patel teach the sequence of the nuclear localization signal (NLS) and teach the distribution % of the components (figure 3). Specifically, figure 3aiii shows 68% nuclear localization peptide and 9% polyamide. Figure 3 and figure 3 caption also report attachment via mercaptoundecanoic acid. Figure 3 reports the diameter as 34.1 nm.
In relation to the polyamide of claim 1, Patel teach that the DNA binding domain is a hairpin polyamide (page 8960 last paragraph of column 1) and shows the structure of the polyamide (figure 2). As set forth in the 112 rejection above the polyamide structure as claimed is unclear for many reasons. The polyamide of Patel has been interpreted as falling within the scope of the claims. Since the polyamide structure appears to fall within the scope of the claims the polyamide would function as claimed (MPEP 2112.01).
In relation to the NLS of claim 1, Patel teach the sequence of the nuclear localization signal (NLS) (figure 3) which is the same as instant SEQ ID NO:2.
In relation to the nanoparticle, Patel teach that peptides were tethered to gold nanoparticles (abstract and figure 3).
In relation to claim 3, Figure 3 and figure 3 caption also report attachment via mercaptoundecanoic acid.
In relation to claim 4, Patel teach the polyamide as 9% (figure 3).
In relation to claim 5, Patel teach the NLS as 68% (figure 3).
In relation to claim 9, Patel teach that the DNA binding domain is a hairpin polyamide (page 8960 last paragraph of column 1) and shows the structure of the polyamide (figure 2).
In relation to claim 10, Patel teach gold nanoparticles (abstract and figure 1).
In relation to claim 15, Patel teach that the properties of the NanoScript were tested (page 8961 last paragraph and pages 8692-8964) so it was present in a composition specifically a composition suitable for intravenous injection which is interpreted as meeting the claim limitations.
In relation to claim 20, Figure 3 reports the diameter as 34.1 nm and gold nanoparticles (abstract) which are interpreted as meeting the claim limitations.
In relation to claims 21-22, figure 3aiii shows 68% nuclear localization peptide and 9% polyamide.
Response to Arguments – 102
Applicant's arguments filed 8/14/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to the rejection set forth above.
Although applicants argue that the claims have been amended, the amended claims are addressed above.
Although applicants argue about the claimed polyamide, the scope of the claimed polyamide is unclear. Claim 1 recites ‘the polyamide has the sequence PyPyβImImPy-5AVA-ImPyPyβPyPyβ-DMAPA’. The structure of the polyamide is unclear. The claim and specification)do not define or clearly describe what falls within the scope of β, Py or Im. Section 22 on page 5 of the instant specification refers to pyrrole. Matsumoto et al. (‘Fish-bite structure by three-dimensional hydrogen-bond acceptor: IR spectroscopy of pyrrole and N-methylpyrrole binary clusters’ The Journal of Chemical Physics v137 2012 pages 1-7) teach the structures of pyrrole (Py1) and N-methylpyrrole (NMPy1) (figure 5 on page 4). Instant Figure 1Bb shows the inclusion of N-methylpyrrole not pyrrole. It is not clear if the abbreviation ‘Py’ as used in claim 1 is limited to pyrrole or if such abbreviation encompasses N-methylpyrrole or other modified pyrroles. In similar fashion, section 22 on page 5 of the instant specification refers to imidazole but what is shown in figure 1Bb is N-methylimidazole. It is not clear if the abbreviation ‘Im’ as used in claim 1 is limited to imidazole or if such abbreviation encompasses N- imidazole or other modified imidazoles.
Further, it is unclear what falls within the scope of ‘β’. Further, the nomenclature used in claim 1 does not appear to describe how any of the components are connected nor does it describe the first terminal end.
It is unclear if ‘PyPyβImImPy-5AVA-ImPyPyβPyPyβ-DMAPA’ as recited in claim 1 is intended to represent a species or a genus. Applicants remarks (first paragraph of page 8 of the 8/14/25 reply) refer to PyPyβImImPy-5AVA-ImPyPyβPyPyβ-DMAPA as being depicted in figure 1B(b). However, the basis for such assertion is unclear. Further, the nomenclature used in claim 1 does not appear to describe how any of the components are connected nor does it describe the first terminal end. Further, the use of the abbreviation ‘Py’ along with the word ‘pyrrole’ (section 22 on page 7) would not necessarily be interpreted as N-methylpyrrole. As such, what is intended to be encompassed by the claims is unclear. None of dependent claims 3-5, 9-10, 15, 17 and 20-22 clarify the claim scope.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims were previously rejected under 103 based on the references cited below. Since the claims have been amended, the rejection is updated to correspond to the instant claims.
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.
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, 3-5, 9-10, 15, 17 and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (NPL citation 2 of IDS 6/10/20; ‘Patel’) in view of KR 1020150104049 (foreign patent cite 2 of IDS 6/10/20; previously cited).
KR 1020150104049 (foreign patent cite 2 of IDS 6/10/20) is not in the English language, so the English language equivalent (US 2017/0130204; first cited 5/9/24; ‘Kim’) will be referenced to herein.
Patel teach a nanoparticle based artificial transcription factor for effective gene regulation (title and abstract). Patel teach that peptides were tethered to gold nanoparticles and that the construct (NanoScript) effectively localizes within the nucleus and transcribes targeted genes (abstract). Patel shows gold nanoparticles with a DNA binding domain and nuclear localization signal (figure 1). Patel teach that the DNA binding domain is a hairpin polyamide (page 8960 last paragraph of column 1) and shows the structure of the polyamide (figure 2). Patel teach the sequence of the nuclear localization signal (NLS) and teach the distribution % of the components (figure 3). Specifically, figure 3aiii shows 68% nuclear localization peptide and 9% polyamide. Figure 3 and figure 3 caption also report attachment via mercaptoundecanoic acid. Figure 3 reports the diameter as 34.1 nm. Patel teach for gene regulation (title and abstract) and teach tunable components and suggest genes involved in differentiation (page 8965 first paragraph) and applications for stem cell biology (page 8965 first paragraph).
Patel does not recite the construct with endothelial cells as in claim 17
Kim teach ETV2 as a differentiation factor (sections 0001 and 0005) and teach applications for stem cells (claim 15). Kim teach differentiation of vascular endothelial cells (section 0002). Kim teach that ETV2 is known to perform a regulatory function in vascular endothelial differentiation (section 0025).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Patel because Patel teach for gene regulation (title and abstract) and teach tunable components and suggest genes involved in differentiation (page 8965 first paragraph) and applications for stem cell biology (page 8965 first paragraph). Since Kim teach ETV2 as a differentiation factor (sections 0001 and 0005) and teach applications for stem cells (claim 15) and teach that ETV2 is known to perform a regulatory function in vascular endothelial differentiation (section 0025) one would have been motivated to use the construct of Patel with cells taught by Kim. One would have had a reasonable expectation since methods of combining and administering were known (see claims 17-18 of Kim).
In relation to the polyamide of claim 1, Patel teach that the DNA binding domain is a hairpin polyamide (page 8960 last paragraph of column 1) and shows the structure of the polyamide (figure 2). As set forth in the 112 rejection above the polyamide structure as claimed is unclear for many reasons. The polyamide of Patel has been interpreted as falling within the scope of the claims. Since the polyamide structure appears to fall within the scope of the claims the polyamide would function as claimed (MPEP 2112.01).
In relation to the NLS of claim 1, Patel teach the sequence of the nuclear localization signal (NLS) (figure 3) which is the same as instant SEQ ID NO:2.
In relation to the nanoparticle, Patel teach that peptides were tethered to gold nanoparticles (abstract and figure 3).
In relation to claim 3, Figure 3 and figure 3 caption also report attachment via mercaptoundecanoic acid.
In relation to claim 4, Patel teach the polyamide as 9% (figure 3).
In relation to claim 5, Patel teach the NLS as 68% (figure 3).
In relation to claim 9, Patel teach that the DNA binding domain is a hairpin polyamide (page 8960 last paragraph of column 1) and shows the structure of the polyamide (figure 2).
In relation to claim 10, Patel teach gold nanoparticles (abstract and figure 1).
In relation to claim 15, Patel teach that the properties of the NanoScript were tested (page 8961 last paragraph and pages 8692-8964) so it was present in a composition specifically a composition suitable for intravenous injection which is interpreted as meeting the claim limitations.
In relation to claim 17, Kim teach that ETV2 is known to perform a regulatory function in vascular endothelial differentiation (section 0025).
In relation to claim 20, Figure 3 reports the diameter as 34.1 nm and gold nanoparticles (abstract) which are interpreted as meeting the claim limitations.
In relation to claims 21-22, figure 3aiii shows 68% nuclear localization peptide and 9% polyamide.
Response to Arguments – 103
Applicant's arguments filed 8/14/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to the rejection set forth above.
Although applicants argue that the claims have been amended, the amended claims are addressed above.
Although applicants argue about the claimed polyamide, the scope of the claimed polyamide is unclear. Claim 1 recites ‘the polyamide has the sequence PyPyβImImPy-5AVA-ImPyPyβPyPyβ-DMAPA’. The structure of the polyamide is unclear. The claim and specification do not define or clearly describe what falls within the scope of β, Py or Im. Section 22 on page 5 refers to pyrrole. Matsumoto et al. (‘Fish-bite structure by three-dimensional hydrogen-bond acceptor: IR spectroscopy of pyrrole and N-methylpyrrole binary clusters’ The Journal of Chemical Physics v137 2012 pages 1-7) teach the structures of pyrrole (Py1) and N-methylpyrrole (NMPy1) (figure 5 on page 4). Instant Figure 1Bb shows the inclusion of N-methylpyrrole not pyrrole. It is not clear if the abbreviation ‘Py’ as used in claim 1 is limited to pyrrole or if such abbreviation encompasses N-methylpyrrole or other modified pyrroles. In similar fashion, Section 22 on page 5 of the instant specification refers to imidazole but what is shown in figure 1Bb is N-methylimidazole. It is not clear if the abbreviation ‘Im’ as used in claim 1 is limited to imidazole or if such abbreviation encompasses N- imidazole or other modified imidazoles.
Further, it is unclear what falls within the scope of ‘β’. Further, the nomenclature used in claim 1 does not appear to describe how any of the components are connected nor does it describe the first terminal end.
It is unclear if ‘PyPyβImImPy-5AVA-ImPyPyβPyPyβ-DMAPA’ as recited in claim 1 is intended to represent a species or a genus. Applicants remarks (first paragraph of page 8 of the 8/14/25 reply) refer to PyPyβImImPy-5AVA-ImPyPyβPyPyβ-DMAPA as being depicted in figure 1B(b). However, the basis for such assertion is unclear. Further, the nomenclature used in claim 1 does not appear to describe how any of the components are connected nor does it describe the first terminal end. Further, the use of the abbreviation ‘Py’ along with the word ‘pyrrole’ (section 22 on page 7) would not necessarily be interpreted as N-methylpyrrole. As such, what is intended to be encompassed by the claims is unclear. None of dependent claims 3-5, 9-10, 15, 17 and 20-22 clarify the claim scope.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD T NIEBAUER whose telephone number is (571)270-3059. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 6:30 - 2:30 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, Melissa Fisher can be reached at 571-270-7430. 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.
RONALD T. NIEBAUER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1658
/RONALD T NIEBAUER/Examiner, Art Unit 1658