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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 20 April 2026 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 23 and 26-27 are amended. Claim 31 is new.
Claims 1-10, 21-23, and 26-31 are pending.
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 22-23 and 26-31 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.
(Maintained) Regarding claim 22, the claim recites “wherein the fluorescent material comprises one extracted into acetone after cultivating Bacillus endophyticus strain DS43 on tryptone soya agar (TSA), recovering the Bacillus endophyticus DS43, suspending the Bacillus endophyticus DS43 in acetone, and recovering from the acetone an acetone-extracted fraction containing the fluorescent material”. It is unclear if the “fluorescent material” used in the method of claim 1 is now limited to being the entirety of the “acetone-extracted fraction that contains the fluorescent material” such that the acetone itself is also contacting the sample, or if the “fluorescent material” used in the method of claim 1 is the fluorescent material extract from an acetone fraction but only the fluorescent material itself is contacted with the sample.
(Maintained) Regarding claim 23, the claim phrase “disrupted Bacillus endophyticus strain DS43” on lines 3-4 is indefinite because it is unclear what about the Bacillus endophyticus strain DS43 is being disrupted (the cells, the strain’s genome, the strain’s environment, etc.).
(Maintained) Regarding claims 23 and 29-30, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim term “disrupted” are. It is unclear what actions must be performed or characteristics must be present in order for Bacillus endophyticus strain DS43 to be considered “disrupted”.
(Maintained) Regarding claims 26-27, the claims recite “wherein the fluorescent material is yellow when exposed to UV light having a wavelength of 360 nm”. It is unclear if the fluorescent material is intended to just be a material that has a yellow color visibly, under 360nm wavelength light, or if the fluorescent material is intended to fluoresce with a yellow color (emits yellow photons) when irradiated with UV light at a wavelength of 360nm. To obviate this rejection, it is suggested to amend the claims to:
Claim 26. The method of claim 23, wherein the fluorescent material fluoresces yellow when irradiated by UV light having a wavelength of 360 nm.
Claim 27. The method of claim 23, wherein the fluorescent material fluoresces yellow when irradiated by UV light having a wavelength of 360 nm and is extractable from Bacillus endophyticus strain DS43 into acetone; and wherein the fluorescence of said material is quenched by contact with As, Cd, Cr, Pb or Hg.
(New) Regarding claim 31, it is unclear if the term “the same” is referring to (1) the method of claim 1 in general such that the method is now limited to only detecting heavy metals from mining and industrial wastes, vehicle emissions, lead-acid batteries, fertilizers, paints, treated timber, aging water supply infrastructure, or microplastics, but the sample itself is not limited to be from those heavy metal sources; or (2) the sample analyzed by the method of claim 1, such that the sample itself is now limited to comprise heavy metals from mining and industrial wastes, vehicle emissions, lead-acid batteries, fertilizers, paints, treated timber, aging water supply infrastructure, or microplastics.
Claims 26-30 are dependent on claim 23 and so are indefinite for the same reasons.
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.
(Maintained and extended to new claim) Claims 1-5, 9-10, 21-23 and 26-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeed et al. (HriGFP Novel Fluorescent Protein: Expression and Applications, Molecular Biotechnology (2020) 62:280–288, published 27 February 2020) in view of Ram et al. (Optimization And Characterization Of Intracellular Orange Fluorescent Pigment From Bacillus Endophyticus AVP-9(Kf527823), (2017) Int J Curr Pharm Res, Vol 9, Issue 5, 67-74) and Valli et al. (IN201941052050, published December 20, 2019).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the method of claim 1 includes a method for detecting a heavy metal in a sample comprising contacting the sample with a fluorescent material which is isolated from Bacillus endophyticus DS43.
Regarding claims 1-5, 9-10, 21-23, and 30, Saeed teaches a heavy metal detection method by observing changes in fluorescence intensity of fluorescent protein HriGFP engineered to be expressed in a bacterial culture, specifically E. coli (Saeed Pg. 281 Expression of HriGFP in E. coli and Bacillus megaterium). HriGFP fluoresces when irradiated with UV light (Saeed Figure 1). The E. coli culture was mixed with different concentrations of different heavy metals and the fluorescence was detected using a fluorometer. The fluorescence levels of the heavy metal samples mixed with the E. coli culture expressing HriGFP were compared to that of a control E. coli HriGFP culture not exposed to heavy metals (Saeed Pg. 281 Heavy Metals Biosensing Ability Test). The heavy metals used in the method as taught by Saeed were arsenic and mercury (commensurate in scope with claims 5 and 9, respectively, as well as claims 1 and 24) (Saeed Page 281 Heavy Metals Biosensing Ability Test).
Saeed does not teach the use of Bacillus endophyticus in the method, nor an irradiating wavelength of 360-370nm UV light.
Ram teaches a strain of Bacillus endophyticus (strain AVP9) that naturally produces a compound that fluoresces under UV light without the need for genetic engineering of the organism to produce foreign fluorescent proteins (Ram Abstract and Page 68 Results and Discussion paragraph 1). Ram also teaches the culturing of the strain AVP9 in nutrient broth, which is functionally equivalent to tryptone soya agar in the instant claims in that the broth cultivates the Bacillus endophyticus strain (Ram Pg. 67 last paragraph). Ram also teaches the recovery of the Bacillus endophyticus cells from the nutrient broth by way of centrifugation (Ram Pg. 68 first paragraph). Ram teaches the acetone extraction of the fluorescent pigment of Bacillus endophyticus AVP9, and the evaporation of the solvents to concentrate the pigment, and furthermore that the fluorescence is maintained after extraction (commensurate in scope with instant claims 4, 22, and 30) (Ram Pg. 68 first paragraph and Pg. 72 Extraction of Pigment and Figure 12).
However, neither Saeed nor Ram teach 360-370nm wavelengths of UV light for irradiating the fluorescent compound or organism, nor the specific bacterial strain Bacillus endophyticus DS43.
Valli teaches that one extracted pigment (chloroxanthomycin) isolated from Bacillus endophyticus AVP9 has an excitation wavelength which has a peak at 365 nm (commensurate in scope with claims 1, 10, and 25) (Valli Figure 5). It is noted that the excitation peak shown in Fig. 5 of Valli overlaps with the claimed range of irradiating UV light. Valli also teaches that chloroxanthomycin fluoresces yellow-green on different media, with or without iron, i.e. independent of iron concentration (commensurate in scope with claim 21) (Valli [004]).
However, Saeed, Ram, and Valli do not teach the specific bacterial strain Bacillus endophyticus DS43.
The Bacillus endophyticus AVP9 taught by Ram and Valli is 99.26% identical to DS43, see BLAST alignment of the 16s rDNA sequences available in GenBank® (BLAST alignment of KF527823 and KU199806.1, page 3). The percent identity of strains AVP9 and DS43 are so close that one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the two strains to be significantly different, and would find the two strains obvious over one another. Such a miniscule difference in the 16s rDNA sequences between the two strains would not be expected by one of ordinary skill in the art to sufficiently distinguish the two strains from one another such that the claimed method would only be practicable with the instant strain DS43, and not the prior art strain AVP9. Since the prior art teaches that the fluorescent material of AVP9 possesses many of the same characteristics (both fluoresce when irradiated with 365nm UV light, both are isolated from same bacterial species Bacillus endophyticus, an acetone extraction of the fluorescent pigments still fluoresces when exposed to the same light, etc.) as the fluorescent material of DS43, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the fluorescent materials produced by the two strains to be the same or so markedly similar such that they would have the same behavioral characteristics to the point where the two strains and the fluorescent materials they produce would be obvious variants of one another.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before of the effective filing date of the instant invention to use Bacillus endophyticus AVP9 and/or an acetone extraction of the fluorescent materials produced therefrom as taught by Ram and Valli in the method of detecting heavy metals in a sample as taught by Saeed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the prior art already taught a method of detecting heavy metals by observing changes in fluorescence of bacterial biosensors, and also that Bacillus endophyticus strain AVP9 was naturally capable of fluorescence without genetic engineering to force the expression of a foreign fluorescent protein; the fact that Bacillus endophyticus AVP9 was naturally capable of fluorescence means that no genetic engineering and expression of foreign fluorescent proteins by bacteria would be necessary to achieve the desired outcome, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would be less expensive, less time consuming, and more efficient than producing a bacteria that expresses foreign fluorescent proteins. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasonable expectations of success because the engineered fluorescence of the E. coli culture of Saeed and the natural fluorescence of Bacillus endophyticus AVP9 taught by Ram and Valli are functionally identical (i.e. both fluoresce when exposed to UV light and are quenched when exposed to heavy metals), and thus would be expected to behave in the same or similar manner when exposed to heavy metals. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Valli because Valli teaches the fluorescent characteristics of the same strain of Bacillus endophyticus as that of Ram (strain AVP9). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasonable expectations of success because Valli taught that 365 nm wavelength UV light was sufficient to observe fluorescence in Bacillus endophyticus AVP9 and in the acetone extract of the fluorescent pigment therefrom, and thus the method of detecting heavy metals explained above would be functional if irradiating the sample with 365 nm wavelength UV light.
Regarding claims 26-27, Valli teaches that the extracted pigment chloroxanthomycin (also referred to as “AVSR1” within Valli) isolated from Bacillus endophyticus AVP9 has an UV/Vis absorption and excitation spectrum showing absorption/excitation peaking at 515-525nm light, and broad absorption/excitation around 320-390nm, peaking at 365nm (Valli Figure 5). Valli also teaches that chloroxanthomycin (AVSR1) fluoresces yellow-green (Valli [004]), and confirms that it fluoresces yellow when irradiated with 350nm light (Valli Fig. 4). Examiner submits that since the excitation spectrum shown in Valli Fig. 5 shows the same excitation peak encompassing the wavelengths of 350nm, 360nm, and 365nm showing absorption/excitation at similar levels (~0.1-0.2), and since each of those excitation wavelengths are numerically very close to one another meaning they have very similar energy levels as one another, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the chloroxanthomycin (AVSR1) to be excited when irradiated with UV light at each of those wavelengths, and then fluoresce slightly different wavelengths of yellow light at each of those irradiating excitation wavelengths.
Regarding claim 28, Saeed teaches exposing their E. coli culture expressing HriGFP to different concentrations of different heavy metals, and detecting the changes in fluorescence using a fluorometer as compared to a control (Saeed Pg. 281 Heavy Metals Biosensing Ability Test); thus Saeed teaches contacting a heavy metal containing sample with cells expressing a fluorescent material. However, Saeed does not teach a Bacillus endophyticus bacteria producing the fluorescent material. Ram teaches a strain of Bacillus endophyticus (strain AVP9) that naturally produces a compound that fluoresces under UV light (Ram Abstract and Page 68 Results and Discussion paragraph 1). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that contacting a heavy metal containing sample with cells of Bacillus endophyticus AVP9 would be functionally identical to contacting the heavy metal containing sample with the fluorescent material produced by the cells of Bacillus endophyticus AVP9. As described above, Bacillus endophyticus AVP9 taught by Ram and Valli is 99.26% identical to DS43, see BLAST alignment of the 16s rDNA sequences available in GenBank® (BLAST alignment of KF527823 and KU199806.1, page 3). The percent identity of strains AVP9 and DS43 are so close that one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the two strains to be significantly different, and would find the two strains obvious over one another. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to contact the heavy metal containing sample of claim 23 with the cells of Bacillus endophyticus AVP9 or DS43.
Regarding claim 29, as discussed in the 112b rejection of claim 29 above, the metes and bounds of the claim term “disrupted” are not clear. For compact prosecution, the term “disrupted” is interpreted to encompass any disruption of any characteristic of Bacillus endophyticus strain DS43, including centrifugation and solvent extraction which would disrupt the Bacillus endophyticus. Ram teaches the recovery of the Bacillus endophyticus cells from the nutrient broth by way of centrifugation (Ram Pg. 68 first paragraph), and the acetone extraction of the fluorescent pigment of Bacillus endophyticus AVP9 (Ram Pg. 68 first paragraph and Pg. 72 Extraction of Pigment and Figure 12).
Regarding claim 31, the limitation “wherein the same comprises of heavy metals in mining and industrial wastes, vehicle emissions, lead-acid batteries, fertilizers, paints, treated timber, aging water supply infrastructure, or microplastics” is interpreted as being intended properties or sources of the claimed heavy metals, but the limitation does not add any new method steps to the method of claim 1 or any structural limitations to the composition therein; thus, if the prior art teaches all of the method steps and the structural limitations of the claims, claim 31 will be considered to be rendered obvious. As discussed above, all of the method steps and structural limitations are taught by Saeed, Ram, and Valli.
(Maintained) Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeed in view of Ram and Valli as applied to claims 1-5, 9-10, 22-23, and 26-31 above, and further in view of Bereza-Malcom et al. (Environmental Sensing of Heavy Metals Through Whole Cell Microbial Biosensors: A Synthetic Biology Approach, ACS Synth. Biol. 2015, 4, 535−546.).
Saeed, Ram, and Valli do not teach the detection of heavy metals cadmium, chromium, or lead.
However, Bereza teaches that the heavy metals cadmium, chromium, and lead are toxic heavy metals that are quantified in environmental samples in the same manner as arsenic and mercury (Bereza-Malcom Page 536 first paragraph). It is noted that heavy metals arsenic and mercury were taught in a method to detect heavy metals by Saeed.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art ahead of the effective filing date of the instant invention to try the method of detecting heavy metals explained in the 103 rejection of claim 1 with the heavy metals cadmium, chromium, and lead. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because heavy metal detection methods were already known in the prior art to be used on the heavy metals arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, and mercury, and so one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in trying to extend the obvious method of claim 1 to detect other heavy metals known in the art to be detectable by the same or similar method.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that when claim 22 is read in light of the specification, it is clear that the fluorescent material is referring to the extracted material that does not require the presence of the extractant acetone, though in some instances extractant acetone may be present as a contaminant or even as a preservative (Remarks pgs. 8-9 bridging para.), Applicant has not pointed to where in the specification one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to readily understand that the “fluorescent material” of claim 22 is strictly and clearly referring to the extracted material itself, and not the combination of acetone and fluorescent material. Additionally, Applicant themselves has argued that acetone may or may not be in the fluorescent material used in claim 1’s method. This ambiguity is the essence of the issue at hand. It is still unclear if claim 22 limits the “fluorescent material” used in claim 1’s method to being the entirety of the “acetone-extracted fraction that contains the fluorescent material” such that the acetone within the “acetone-extracted fraction” is also contacting the sample, or if claim 22 limits the “fluorescent material” used in claim 1’s method to being only the fluorescent material itself which is extractable by acetone but only the fluorescent material itself is contacted with the sample, no acetone.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that claims 26-27 have been amended to replace “exposed to UV light” with “irradiated by” UV light, and thus yellow light is emitted when the pigment is irradiated with UV (Remarks pg. 9 para. 1),
it is still unclear whether the material itself is of yellow color even when under 360nm wavelength UV light, or if the material may not be yellow material but fluoresces yellow colored light when under 360nm wavelength UV light. In other words, the claim makes no indication if the yellow color is just the color of the material and thereby limiting the fluorescent material to be a yellow colored compound, or if the yellow color is the fluorescence color when the material is exposed to 360nm UV light thereby limiting the fluorescent material to fluoresce yellow under 360nm UV light. To obviate this rejection, it is suggested to amend the claims to clearly indicate that the yellow color is the result of fluorescence:
Claim 26. The method of claim 23, wherein the fluorescent material fluoresces yellow when irradiated by UV light having a wavelength of 360 nm.
Claim 27. The method of claim 23, wherein the fluorescent material fluoresces yellow when irradiated by UV light having a wavelength of 360 nm and is extractable from Bacillus endophyticus strain DS43 into acetone; and wherein the fluorescence of said material is quenched by contact with As, Cd, Cr, Pb or Hg
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that when claim 23 is read in light of the specification one of ordinary skill in the art would recognized that the term “disrupted cell” refers to a cell whose membrane or cell wall has been broken releasing intracellular components (Remarks pg. 9 para. 2), 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). Applicant’s excerpt from the specification makes no mention of the argued definition of the term “disrupted cell” referring to a cell whose membrane or cell wall has been broken releasing intracellular components. The specification also does not provide a special definition which limits the term “disrupted cell” to this argued definition.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the office has not shown that the fluorescent pigments of DS43 and AVP9 are structurally or compositionally identical, and that the strains and fluorescent materials produced by each of the strains are not identical as a matter of microbiology or patent law (Remarks pgs. 9-10 bridging para.), Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. The action has made a prima facie case of obviousness that the fluorescent pigments of DS43 and AVP9 are structurally or compositionally identical. The fluorescent pigments of AVP9 share the same absorbance peak of around 518nm as that of the fluorescent pigments of DS43, because Valli teaches that the pigment AVSR1 extracted from AVP9 has an absorption peak at about 515-525nm (Valli Fig. 5) and that chloroxanthomycin (AVSR1) fluoresces yellow-green (Valli [004]), and confirms that it fluoresces yellow when irradiated with 350nm light (Valli Fig. 4). As such, pigment chloroxanthomycin (AVSR1) isolated from AVP9 has a absorption peak of around 518nm. One fluorescent pigment isolated from AVP9 called AVSR1 (chloroxanthomycin) absorbs light at about 280, 420, and 519nm, which matches Applicant’s assertions of DS43 (Valli fig. 5). The characteristics of the fluorescent materials produced by both strains DS43 and AVP9 are nearly identical, namely the identical excitation wavelengths (365nm) and identical capability of fluorescence quenching when exposed to heavy metals.
Applicant has not produced convincing evidence that contradicts this prima facie case.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the lack of public availability of strain AVP9 means that the prior art relied upon is not enabled as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to carry out the invention (Remarks pg. 10 para. 1), as evidenced by Ram and Valli, it is clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that strain AVP9 was known and available in the prior art. Additionally, Saeed, Ram, and Valli combined identify fluorescent compounds that may be used in the obvious method (chloroxanthomycin). These fluorescent compounds are not unique to AVP9, and may be synthesized or otherwise obtained by one of ordinary skill in the art in order to practice the invention.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the partial rDNA identity of 99.26% would not indicate that strains AVP9 and DS43 were identical or that they would necessarily share genes involved in production of the same or similar fluorescent compounds (Remarks pgs. 10-11 bridging para.), the rejection does not state that strains AVP9 and DS43 are the same strain, but rather that the two strains would be obvious over one another in view of not just the miniscule rDNA identity of 99.26%, but also the nearly identical characteristics of the fluorescent materials produced by both strains, namely the identical excitation wavelengths (365nm) and identical capability of fluorescence quenching when exposed to heavy metals. Thus, the genetic and functional similarities of the two strains would suggest to one skilled in the art that the two strains AVP9 and DS43 are obvious over one another. There is no evidence presented that shows the small differences in genetic similarity between AVP9 and DS43 have caused any differences in the identity, structures, or characteristics of the fluorescent compounds produced by AVP9 and DS43.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that unlike the AVP9 pigment, the DS43 pigment absorbs and emits at peaks about 280, 420, and 519nm, whereas AVP9 exhibits a single peak at 493nm, not multiple peaks, and that the pigments of AVP9 and DS43 have significant functional differences as determined by absorption/excitation spectra, specifically that the pigment isolated from AVP9 has an absorption peak of 493nm whereas the pigment isolated from DS43 has an absorption peak of 519nm (Remarks pg. 11 para. 2 through pg. 13 para. 1), Valli fig. 5 clearly shows that the AVSR1 (chloroxanthomycin) produced and isolated from AVP9 absorbs light at about 280, 420, and 519nm, which matches Applicant’s assertions of DS43. The fluorescent pigments of AVP9 have an absorbance peak of around 518nm because Valli teaches that the pigment AVSR1 extracted from AVP9 has an absorption peak at about 515-525nm (Valli Fig. 5) and that chloroxanthomycin (AVSR1) fluoresces yellow-green (Valli [004]), and confirms that it fluoresces yellow when irradiated with 350nm light (Valli Fig. 4). As such, pigment chloroxanthomycin (AVSR1) isolated from AVP9 has a absorption peak of around 518nm. Thus, the functional characteristics of AVP9’s fluorescent pigments prima facie match the characteristics of DS43’s fluorescent pigments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander M Duryee whose telephone number is (571)272-9377. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 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, Louise Humphrey can be reached on (571)-272-5543. 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.
/Alexander M Duryee/Examiner, Art Unit 1657
/LOUISE W HUMPHREY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1657
Prosecution Insights