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 .
Election/Restrictions
As of the Remarks 06/12/2025, all of claims 1-18 are canceled without prejudice or disclaimer and rewritten for ease of reference and clarity as new claims 19-35, in which the limitations of claim 2 have been incorporated into independent claim 1.
Applicant elects without traverse of Group I (claims 19-30 and 33-34), and species Tau and its breakdown products with GFAP and its breakdown products. Accordingly, the claims 19, 21-30 and 33-34, which encompass these elected species, are examined.
Priority
The present application has been filed on 02/17/2021. Acknowledgment is made of the present application as a proper National Stage (371) entry of PCT/US2019/047030, filed on 03/31/2021, which claims benefit of the 62/719,254, filed on 08/17/2018.
Claim status
Claims 1-18 are canceled. Claims 20, 31-32 and 33 are withdrawn.
Claims 19, 21-30 and 33-34 are examined herein.
Withdraw Objections/Rejections
The objections of claims 2 and 7 are withdrawn because the cancelation of the claim.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 4-13 and 16-17 under 35 USC 101, 102 and 103 are withdrawn because the cancelation of the claims.
In new claim 19, the sequence ID of vimentin C-terminal peptide has been amended to seq id no 707, so the amendment overcomes the sequence requirement.
Upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made.
New ground of rejections
Claim Objections
Note: The square brackets are used in claims 19 and 35. The use of square brackets [ ] is not recommended because this is often used to designated deletions in a claim.
Claims 19, 21-30 and 33-34 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19, page 3 line 8 and page 4 lines 12-13: “isofonn” is a misspelling of isoform; page 3 line 9, the colon after “synapsin I” should be deleted and replaced by a semi-column.
Claims 21-30 and 33-34 recite “the method of claim 1”. Since claims 1-18 are canceled, “claim 1” should be written as “claim 19”.
Claim 28 (a) line 2, the “cmtex” is a misspelling of cortex.
Claim 30 (d) line 1, “nesp lin-1” is a misspelling of nesprin-1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 19, 21-30 and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a law of nature without significantly more.
Step 1 – Whether a claim is to a statutory category - YES
Claims 19, 21-30 and 33-34 discloses a method of diagnosing trauma to the central nervous system in a subject by measuring the level of at least two proteins or their protein breakdown products and lower molecular weight peptide fragments, e.g., Tau and GFAP. Therefore, the instantly claimed invention falls into one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 – Whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?) – YES
As explained in MPEP § 2106.04(II), a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim
Claim 19 recites a method of diagnosing trauma to the central nervous system in a subject comprising: diagnosing the presence of a central nervous system injury if the levels in the test subject are at least two-fold higher than that in the control subject.
The step above involves comparing the levels of the at least two proteins or their protein breakdown products, or lower molecular weight peptide fragments from the test subject to that from a control subject, identifying the differences of the levels between two group and making an evaluation or judgment as to whether the test subject has trauma to the central nervous system. Thus, it falls into abstract ideas, specifically, abstract mental processes. The step could be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper, insofar as it reads on comparing levels and drawing conclusions from this to diagnose a disease.
Moreover, the judgment if a subject having a disease can also be regarded as a law of nature, namely, the naturally occurring correlation between levels of the specific markers and the central nervous system (CNS) injury disease.
Thus, the claim 19 falls into judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2 - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO
The Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis requires identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluating those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Claim 19 further recites
obtaining a sample and testing the level of at least two proteins or their protein breakdown products and lower molecular weight peptide fragments,
treating the subject in need for trauma to the central nervous system.
The additional elements of obtaining a sample and testing an expression level are insufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because the purpose is merely to obtain data. This step would have been routinely used by those of ordinary skill in the art to apply the correlation. The measuring step is not limited to a particular assay technique and thus could be performed by any technique known in the art.
The additional element of treating is not integrated into a practical application, because the treating step encompasses non-specific treatments recited at such a high level of generality that they are essentially an instruction to “apply it.” This claim does not specify what kind of treatment or prophylaxis applied for the trauma to the central nervous system.
It is noted that in order to qualify as a "treatment" or "prophylaxis" limitation for purposes of this consideration, the claim limitation in question must affirmatively recite an action that effects a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. An example of such a limitation is a step of "administering amazonic acid to a patient" or a step of "administering a course of plasmapheresis to a patient." If the limitation does not actually provide a treatment or prophylaxis, e.g., it is merely an intended use of the claimed invention or a field of use limitation, then it cannot integrate a judicial exception under the "treatment or prophylaxis" consideration. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2).
Moreover, the treatment step only applies on one group of subjects if the levels in the test subject are at least two-fold higher than that in the control subject. The other group of subjects whose the levels are NOT at least two-fold higher than that in the control subject are untreated. Thus the method is not integrated into a practical application for the untreated group.
Step 2B: Whether the additional elements contribute an “inventive concept”
In the second step it is determined whether the claimed subject matter includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05.
Briefly, the claims 1-4 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the following reasons.
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, has been found to be insufficient to add “significantly more” (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)).
The additional elements listed above are well-understood, routine, and conventional. This position is supported by Wang et al. (US20130022982) and Buee (US20200031891).
Wang in Abstract teaches a method of assessing severity of central nervous system injury (CNS injury) including traumatic brain injury (TBI)). Wang in Abstract, par.8, 101 and 142, teaches measuring the concentrations of one or more biomarkers in biofluids sample; in par.67 and 132, teaching that the biomarker measurement is done at least at one time point or at different time points. Wang in Abstract and par.7 teaches that biomarkers include Tau and GFAP proteins and their proteolytic breakdown products. Wang in par.103, teaches that the levels of the proteins in the CNS-injured subjects are compared to that in healthy subjects; par.56 and 198, teaches an exemplary definition of TBI is the presence of at least one recognizable biomarker with at least two-fold increased or decreased biomarker levels. Wang teaches treating the subject in need for trauma to the central nervous system (see par.117, 124).
Buee teaches that characterization of Tau in cerebrospinal fluid of AD and some related Tauopathies patients showed that it is mainly found as truncated species (see par.4). Buee suggests a method of diagnosis of Tauopathy disorder, e.g., Alzheimer, by detecting a truncated Tau, which is Met11-Tau peptide (see Abstract, par.15, par.104, par.154). Buee teaches that the levels of the proteins in the CNS-injured subjects are compared to that in healthy subjects (see at least Fig.5).
Looking to the claims as a whole, none of the steps considered individually or in combination include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and ineligible mental steps, because the claimed steps are routine, conventional and must necessarily be performed in order to determine CNS injury and thus apply the natural correlation. Therefore, the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
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.
Claims 19, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US20130022982) as evidenced by Peptide 2.0 (Peptide Molecular Weight Calculator) in view of Heintz et al. (WO2018148501 – Since its file size is too large to upload, only a short version of this pdf is attached)
Note: Tau and its breakdown products, and GFAP and its breakdown products are the species elected for examination.
For claim 19, Wang teaches:
A method of diagnosing trauma to the central nervous system in a subject in need thereof (Wang in Abstract, teaches a method of assessing severity of central nervous system injury (CNS injury) including traumatic brain injury (TBI)), comprising:
(1) obtaining a first fluid biological sample from the subject in need (Wang in Abstract, par.8, 101 and 142, teaches measuring the concentrations of one or more biomarkers in biofluids sample; in par.67 and 132, teaching that the biomarker measurement is done at least at one time point or at different time points),
(2) testing a first fluid biological sample obtained from the subject for the level of at least two proteins or their protein breakdown products and lower molecular weight peptide fragments, wherein the two proteins are selected from the group consisting of Tau and GFAP proteins (Wang in Abstract and par.7, teaches that a biological sample such as whole blood, serum, plasma, or CSF and biomarkers include Tau and GFAP proteins and their proteolytic breakdown products… Wang in par.12, teaches seq id no 21 (which has a molecular weight about 799 Da, evidence from Peptide 2.0)),
wherein the protein breakdown products are about 85% or less than the intact protein in size and are at least 10 kDa (Wang in par.69, teaching GDBPs optionally have a migratory molecular weight between 38 to 52 kDa; in par.154, teaching TBDPs of molecular weight 40-55 kDa, 36 kDa, 26 kDa, 18, kDa, and 13 kDa),
wherein the lower molecular weight peptide is from 500 Da to 10 kDa (see par.12, seq id no 21 has a molecular weight about 799 Da, evidence from Peptide 2.0),
the at least two proteins or their protein breakdown products and lower molecular weight peptide fragments are selected from the group consisting of the claimed sequences of Tau (see par.11-13: an amino acid sequence that is at least a portion of SEQ ID NO: 21 SPQLATLA is an analyte for detect, diagnose, or measure the level of one or more conditions such as brain injury), the instant Tau-441 seq id no 474 (SPQLATLADEVSASLAK) has an amino acid sequence of the above seq id no 21,
(3) if the levels of the at least two proteins or their protein breakdown products, or lower molecular weight peptide fragments are at least two-fold higher in the fluid biological sample from the subject in need than are the levels of the at least two proteins or protein breakdown products in a fluid biological sample from an uninjured subject, diagnosing the presence of a central nervous system injury (Wang in par.103, teaches that the levels of the proteins in the CNS-injured subjects are compared to that in healthy subjects; par.56 and 198, teaches an exemplary definition of TBI is the presence of at least one recognizable biomarker with at least two-fold increased or decreased biomarker levels),
(4) treating the subject in need for trauma to the central nervous system (see par.117, 124).
Wang does not teach the at least two protein breakdown products and lower molecular weight peptide fragments are selected from the group consisting of the claimed sequences of GFAP.
Heintz teaches methods of profiling gene and protein expression of an amino acid sequence of GFAP fragment seq id no 81 for a disease phenotype, e.g., Alzheimer, in fluid sample (see Abstract, par.21, par.26; par.26 teaches detecting in a tissue sample a protein comprising an amino acid sequence selected from 28,816-38,643; the sequences 28959, 28961, and 28967 comprise the claimed seq id 81 of GFAP fragment; see par.326-327 and Fig.12-13 teaches the expression of stress-associated genes, e.g., GFAP is significant change and related to disease; see par.147 teaches the samples is a body fluid). An alignment result of seq id 28959 and the claimed seq id 81 is shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
467
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
173
659
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 method of Wang, measuring the levels of GFAP fragment comprising an amino acid of seq id no 28959, 28961, or 28967 as taught by Heintz, e.g., the instant seq id no 81, because the method of Wang is generic for measuring biomarkers such as GFAP breakdown product (see par.12) and Heintz teaches GFAP fragment comprising an amino acid of seq id no 28959 provides details on the biology related to trauma to the central nervous system (see par.21, par.327). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the method of Wang to measure multiple biomarkers in a sample comprising Tau and GFAP proteins or their breakdown products, one of which is the fragment of GFAP disclosed by Heintz, in an effort to diagnose trauma to the CNS because the changing expression of GFAP fragments is significantly associated with the disease as taught by Heintz (see par.326-327).
One having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Wang and Heintz because they are analogous to detect a marker protein and its fragment thereof for human degenerative disorder diagnosis. Moreover, Wang is generic for detecting GFAP protein and its breakdown fragments to diagnose CNS trauma and Heintz supports the specific fragments of GFAP that can be detected using the method of Wang and the expression of GFAP fragments is also related to CNS trauma. Therefore, the combination of Wang and Heintz would result in a predictable outcome that GFAP fragments taught by Heintz can be substituted for GFAP in Wang’s method for CNS trauma diagnosis.
For claim 21, Wang and Heintz teach the method of claim 19 wherein the first fluid biological sample is obtained from the subject in need within 24 hours of a trauma to the central nervous system (Wang in par.145 and 147 discloses that CSF sample from animal are collected at 2, 6, 24 hours and 2, 3, 5 days after injury to reveal an increase in GFAP with increasing time following CCI injury; par.167 Wang teaches that the levels of Tau fragment 15K increases within 24 hours post injury; par.172 Wang teaches the levels of GFAP and GBDP is elevated within 6 hours following TBI).
For claim 22, Wang and Heintz teach the method of claim 19 wherein the first fluid biological sample is obtained from the subject in need within 3 days of the trauma to the central nervous system (Wang in par.145 and 147 discloses that CSF sample from animal are collected at 2, 6, 24 hours and 2, 3, 5 days after injury to reveal an increase in GFAP with increasing time following CCI injury; Wang in par.182 and 183 teaches serum samples are obtained from human subjects following TBI at various timepoints, e.g., day 1 to day 10 of TBI).
For claim 23, Wang and Heintz the method of claim 19 wherein one or more additional fluid biological samples are obtained from the subject in need at subsequent times to the first fluid biological sample (Wang in par.145 and 147 discloses that CSF sample from animal are collected at 2, 6, 24 hours and 2, 3, 5 days after injury to reveal an increase in GFAP with increasing time following CCI injury).
For claim 25, Wang and Heintz teach the method of claim 19 wherein an increasing level of the at least two proteins, protein breakdown products, or peptide fragments in fluid biological samples taken at subsequent times indicates worsening of the severity of the central nervous system injury (see Wang in par.132; par.166-170 teaching Tau breakdown product (TBDP) also rapidly increases reaching a maximal level at 48 hours in cortical impact (equivalent to severe trauma))
For claim 27, Wang and Heintz teach the method of claim 19 wherein an unchanging level of the at least two proteins, protein breakdown products, or peptide fragments in fluid biological samples taken at subsequent times indicates a leveling of the severity of the central nervous system injury (Wang in par.132 teaching the persistence or kinetic extent of the markers in a biological sample is indicative of the severity of the injury with greater injury indicating increases persistence of illustratively GBDP, UCHL1, or SBDP in the subject that is measured by an inventive process in biological samples taken at several time points following injury).
For claim 28, Wang and Heintz teach the method of claim 19 wherein the testing further comprises examining the anatomical location of trauma to the central nervous system in a subject in need thereof (see Wang in par.145), comprising additional testing a fluid biological sample obtained from the subject in need for the presence of any combination of:
(a) one or more cortexin proteins, protein breakdown products, or peptide fragments, the presence of which above control levels identifies the cortex as the anatomical location (see Wang in par.65, 147);
(b) one or more myelin basic protein proteins, protein breakdown products, or peptide fragments, the presence of which above control levels identifies the white matter as the anatomical location (see Wang in par.59, par.64-65); and
(c) one or more striatin proteins, protein breakdown products, or peptide fragments, the presence of which above control levels identifies the striatum as the anatomical location (see Wang in par.65).
For claim 29, Wang and Heintz teach the method of claim 19 wherein the testing further comprises examining cell types injured in trauma to the central nervous system in a subject in need thereof (see Wang in par.61, par.86), comprising testing a fluid biological sample obtained from the subject in need for the presence of any combination of:
(a) one or more protein, or protein breakdown product of brain acidic soluble protein - 1, glutamate decarboxylase 1, glutamate decarboxylase 2, neurochondrin or any combination thereof, the presence of which above control levels identifies the cell type as neurons (see Wang in par.82 Table 4);
(b) one or more protein, or protein breakdown product of GFAP or Vimentin, the presence of which above control levels identifies the cell type as astroglia (see Wang in par.150); or
(c) one or more protein, or protein breakdown product of myelin basic protein 5 or Golli- myelin basic protein, the presence of which above control levels identifies the cell type as oligodendrocytes (see Wang in par.64).
For claim 30, Wang and Heintz teach the method of claim 19 wherein the testing further comprises examining the subcellular location of injury to the central nervous system after trauma in a subject in need thereof, comprising testing a fluid biological sample obtained from the subject in need for the presence of any combination of:
(a) one or more protein, or protein breakdown product of neurexin-1,neurexin- 2,neurexin-3, synapsin-I, synapsin-II, synapsin-III or any combination thereof, the presence of which above control levels identifies the subcellular location as the presynaptic terminal (see Wang in par.6, par.88);
(b) one or more protein, or protein breakdown product of neurogranin, the presence of which above control levels identifies the subcellular location as the post-synaptic terminal (see Wang in Abstract teaching measuring Tau and GFAP proteins, their proteolytic breakdown products);
(d) one or more protein, or protein breakdown product of nesprin- 1, the presence of which above control levels identifies the subcellular location as the neuronal nucleus (see Wang in par.65);
(f) one or more protein, or protein breakdown product of microtubule associated protein 6, the presence of which above control levels identifies the subcellular location as dendrites (see Wang in par.64).
For claim 33, Wang and Heintz teach the method of claim 19 wherein the trauma is cortical impact, closed head injury, blast overpressure induced brain injury, concussion or spinal cord injury (see Wang in par.54, 90, 126).
For claim 34, Wang and Heintz teach the method of claim 19 wherein the fluid biological sample is cerebrospinal fluid, blood, plasma, serum, saliva, urine, wound fluid, or biopsy, necropsy or autopsy samples of brain tissue, spinal tissue, retinal tissue, and/or nerves (see Wang in par.131).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US20130022982) in view of Heintz et al. (WO2018148501), and Peptide 2.0 (www.peptide2.com/peptide_molecular_weight_calculator.php), as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Saxena et al. (Membrane-based techniques for the separation and purification of proteins: An overview, Advances in Colloid and Interface Science 145 (2009) 1–22, PTO-892 03/12/25).
For claim 24, Wang and Heintz teach the method of claim 19. Wang teaches that Tau and GFAP proteins or peptides are purified before being analysis (see par.162 and par.178). The methods for protein purification include such methods as ammonium sulfate precipitation, column chromatography, electrophoresis, centrifugation, crystallization, and others (see par.136).
Wang does not teach wherein the testing comprises subjecting the fluid biological samples to ultrafiltration using a ultrafiltration membrane filter with a molecular weight cutoff of about 10,000 Da to separate an ultrafiltrate fraction and then subjecting the ultrafiltrate fraction to assay for proteins, protein breakdown products or peptide fragments.
However, Saxena teaches subjecting the fluid biological samples to ultrafiltration using a ultrafiltration membrane filter with a molecular weight cutoff of about 10,000 Da to separate an ultrafiltrate fraction and then subjecting the ultrafiltrate fraction to assay for proteins, protein breakdown products or peptide fragments. (See page 2 col.1 par.1, Saxena teaches that membrane-based processes gained importance in biotechnology due to their ability for size and/or charge based protein separation with high purity and throughput because most protein-based products need to be purified before they can be used. See page 2 col.2 par.1, membrane-based process includes ultrafiltration for protein and peptide separation or fractionation. See page 4 col.1 par.5, the choice of membrane is guided by its molecular weight cut-off (MWCO), which is defined as the equivalent molecular weight of the smallest protein that would exhibit above 90% rejection. See page 4 col.2 par.2, Saxena also provides that the molecular weight cut-off for ultrafiltration membrane is about 30 and 10 kDa.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the method of protein purification taught by Wang by an ultrafiltration step using the membrane-based processes, e.g., ultrafiltration membrane filter, as taught by Saxena to prepare a protein sample for protein analysis. The motivation to do that is because Wang is generic about methods for protein purification (see Wang in par.136, par.162 and par.178) and Saxena provides a high purity and throughput method for protein and peptide separation or fractionation as discussed above. The protein purification step will help to obtain high purity, concentrated protein, remove specific impurities to enhance protein stability and reduce protein denaturation (see Saxena page 2 col.1 par.1). The combined teachings of Wang and Saxena would have yield predictable result because most protein-based products need to be purified before they can be used to meet the requirements of the biotechnology industries (see Saxena page 2 col.1 par.1).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US20130022982) in view of Heintz et al. (WO2018148501), and Peptide 2.0 (www.peptide2.com/peptide_molecular_weight_calculator.php), as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Bogoslovsky et al. (Increases of Plasma Levels of Glial Fibrillary Acidic Protein, Tau, and Amyloid β up to 90 Days after Traumatic Brain Injury, Journal of Neurotrauma 34:66–73, 2017, PTO-892 03/12/25).
Regarding claim 26, Wang and Heintz teach the method of claim 19. Wang does not teach a decreasing level of the at least two proteins, protein breakdown products, or peptide fragments in fluid biological samples taken at subsequent times indicates improvement in the central nervous system injury.
Bogoslovsky provides the trajectory of tau, GFAP, and Aβ42 levels in plasma from the acute through subacute stages after TBI, compared with controls (see Abstract). The first sample is taken at day 0 and at subsequent times on 30, 90 days after. The result shows that the levels of GFAP and Tau are increased at day 0 and decreased afterward. See page 68 column 2 last paragraph, and page 69.
In addition, injury severity was assessed by Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) 6 months after injury (see Abstract). The GOSE provides eight categories of outcome (1–8), wherein higher GOSE score indicates the good improvement of brain injury. For instant, GOSE 8 is upper good recovery indicating return to pre-injury baseline with no residual effects from the trauma (see page 68 col.1 par.3). According to the demographics data in Table 2 on page 68, patients with any trauma condition show improvement in the central nervous system injury after 90 days.
Combining the results of the kinetic of tau and GFAP levels and GOSE score, Bogoslovsky shows that a decreasing level of two protein markers taken at subsequent times indicates improvement in the central nervous system injury. See page 68 column 2 last paragraph, and page 69, see Figure 1 and Table 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 method of Wang, determining a decreasing level of the at least two proteins, protein breakdown products, or peptide fragments in fluid biological samples taken at subsequent times as an improvement in the central nervous system injury as taught by Bogoslovsky. By doing that, one having skills in the art may evaluate if a protein is useful as a biomarker of trauma in both acute and subacute phase (see Bogoslovsky Abstract). One having ordinary skills in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Wang and Bogoslovsky because they are directed to the use of proteins in a biological sample as diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers in traumatic brain injury.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 19, 21-30 and 33-34 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection have been made.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAU N.B. TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3663. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-6:30 CT.
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, Bao-Thuy L Nguyen can be reached on 571-272-0824. 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.
/CHAU N.B. TRAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1677
/BAO-THUY L NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1677 October 20, 2025