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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the specification and claims filed on 17 April 2026 are acknowledged. Claims 1, 3-5, 11-13, and 15 are amended. Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 10, 12, and 14 are withdrawn as being drawn to a nonelected species for the reasons set forth in the non-final office action. Claims 1-9, 11, 13, and 15 are examined herein on the merits.
In response to the reply filed on 17 April 2026, the objections to the drawings are partially withdrawn and modified; the objections to the claims are withdrawn; the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are partially withdrawn; the rejection over the prior art are partially changed; and the double patenting rejections are maintained with modification.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: A separate description must be provided for each drawing. For example, a separate description must be provided for each of Figs. 3a, 3b, 3c, and 3d.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The term "residue" is interpreted as "a chemical species produced by the removal of one or more atoms from a molecule; a radical."
Regarding the terms "a substituted or unsubstituted polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon" and "substituted and/or unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon rings," the specification provides the following special definitions (page 7, line 25 to page 8, line 11; bolding added)
The term polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon denotes in accordance with the present invention an organic molecule, which comprises at least two aromatic rings, i.e. at least two cyclic and aromatic rings, in which electrons are delocalized. Hydrocarbon means in this connection an organic molecule, which consists entirely of carbon and hydrogen atoms. Thus, an unsubstituted polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon means in accordance with the present invention a molecule which consists entirely of carbon and hydrogen atoms, whereas a substituted polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon is a molecule, in which one or more up to all hydrogen atoms of an unsubstituted polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon molecule are replaced by any other atom and/or organic group and/or in which one or more of the carbon atoms are replaced by a heteroatom, such as nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorous, sulphur, boron or the like. Likewise to this, an unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon ring means an aromatic hydrocarbon ring which consists entirely of carbon and hydrogen atoms, whereas a substituted aromatic hydrocarbon ring is an aromatic hydrocarbon ring, in which one or more up to all hydrogen atoms of an unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon ring are replaced by any other atom and/or organic group and/or in which one or more of the carbon atoms are replaced by a heteroatom.
The specification further provides heterocyclic examples of "aromatic hydrocarbon rings" that are not hydrocarbons according to the customary meaning of hydrocarbon (page 10, line 24 to page 11, line 12; bolding added):
The present invention is not particularly limited concerning the type of aromatic hydrocarbon rings. Good results are particularly obtained with five-membered, six-membered and/or seven-membered aromatic rings, which may be each substituted and/or unsubstituted. Suitable examples for aromatic hydrocarbon rings of the compound to be used in the present invention are those selected from the group consisting of unsubstituted pyrrole rings, unsubstituted furan rings, unsubstituted thiophene rings, unsubstituted imidazole rings, unsubstituted pyrazole rings, unsubstituted oxazole rings, unsubstituted isoxazole rings, unsubstituted thiazole rings, unsubstituted isothiazole rings, unsubstituted benzene rings, unsubstituted pyridine rings, unsubstituted triazine rings, unsubstituted thiophene rings, unsubstituted azepine rings, unsubstituted oxepine rings, unsubstituted thiepine rings, substituted pyrrole rings, substituted furan rings, substituted thiophene rings, substituted imidazole rings, substituted pyrazole rings, substituted oxazole rings, substituted isoxazole rings, substituted thiazole rings, substituted isothiazole rings, substituted benzene rings, substituted pyridine rings, substituted triazine rings, substituted thiophene rings, substituted azepine rings, substituted oxepine rings and substituted thiepine rings.
Accordingly, the terms "substituted polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon" and "substituted aromatic hydrocarbon ring" are broadly interpreted according to their respective special definitions provided by the specification.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "-Ar1-(Ar2)n-Ar3-, wherein … n is an integer of 4 to 14, wherein the residues Ar1 and Ar3 are optionally bonded with each other to form a ring" in iv). Within the chemical formula "-Ar1-(Ar2)n-Ar3-," the customary interpretation of a hyphen is a single bond when between two residues and an open valence position or radical when connected to one valence. Accordingly, the limitation "the residues Ar1 and Ar3 are … bonded with each other to form a ring" is interpreted to mean that the open valence position on Ar1 and the open valence position on Ar3 are connected with each other to form a single bond. Furthermore, the limitation "the residues Ar1 and Ar3 are … bonded with each other to form a ring" is interpreted to mean that the chemical formula "-Ar1-(Ar2)n-Ar3-" does not have any open valence positions (given that that the illustrated open valence position on Ar1 and the illustrated open valence position on Ar3 together form a single bond). Accordingly, when the limitation "the residues Ar1 and Ar3 are optionally bonded with each other to form a ring" applies, the compound comprising "-Ar1-(Ar2)n-Ar3-" cannot comprise any substituted and/or unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon rings in addition to Ar1, Ar2, and Ar3. Independent claim 1 requires the limitation "wherein each of at least six of the six or more substituted and/or unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon rings is fused with at least another one of the at least six substituted and/or unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon rings." It is unclear how dependent claim 4 requires this limitation for values of n being 4 or 5 for the limitation "the residues Ar1 and Ar3 are optionally bonded with each other to form a ring."
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Paterno ("Synthesis of Dibenzo[hi,st]ovalene and Its Amplified Spontaneous Emission in a Polystyrene Matrix," Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2017; newly cited).
Regarding claims 1, 3-9, 11, and 13, Paterno discloses a method comprising imaging (luminescence imaging of film in right portion of Fig. 3c, page 6755, copied below) a sample (polystyrene composite film) using a substituted dibenzo[hi,st]ovalene (DBO 1) (abstract; Fig. 1b, portion copied below). Paterno's DBO 1 compound satisfies the structural limitations regarding the compound recited in claims 1, 3-9, 11, and 13.
PNG
media_image1.png
216
283
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
372
292
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding the preamble limitation "A method of performing single-molecule localization microscopy (SMLM), stimulated emission depletion microscopy (STED), minimal emission fluxes microscopy (MINFLUX) or structured illumination and localization microscopy (SIMFLUX)," it is noted that a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
Regarding claim 15, the limitation "The method in accordance with claim 1 for high resolution evaluations of biological systems, for a detection of material imperfections, and for monitoring and detecting nano-structure fabrication" is reciting purposes or intended uses of the method of claim 1, without positively reciting any additional steps. Because the additional limitations of claim 15 merely recites the purpose of the method of claim 1, and because the positively recited step of the body of independent claim 1 stands alone without being further modified by the limitations of claim 15, the necessary limitations for anticipation of the method are disclosed by Paterno. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
Claims 1-7, 11, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Godin ("Single-nanotube tracking reveals the nanoscale organization of the extracellular space in the live brain," Nature Nanotechnology; 21 November 2016) as evidenced by Gao ("Toward the suppression of cellular toxicity from single-walled carbon nanotubes." Biomater. Sci. 2016; previously relied upon).
Regarding claim 1, Godin discloses a method comprising imaging (via single-molecule localization microscopy) a sample [observing the local ECS structures and rheology in brain tissue using super-resolution imaging, abstract; "Single-molecule tracking of luminescent SWCNTs in live ECS brain tissue," Fig. 1 caption; "we extracted in each movie frame i the localization of the nanotube centre-of-mass (xi, yi) in the imaging plane with subwavelength precision (∼40 nm)," page 239, right col.; "Using a similar approach to single-molecule localization microscopy, a large number of nanotube localization coordinates obtained with subdiffraction precisions were pooled to create a super-resolved image of the ECS" page 214, last para.; Fig. 3] using single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) coated with phospholipid-polyethylene glycol (PL-PEG) (first two para. of Methods).
The examiner takes official notice that a single-walled carbon nanotube is a cylinder made from a single sheet of graphene. Accordingly, a single-walled carbon nanotube is a compound that is "a substituted or unsubstituted polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon comprising six or more substituted and/or unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon rings, wherein each of at least six of the six or more substituted and/or unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon rings is fused with at least another one of the at least six substituted and/or unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon rings."
The PL-PEG-coated SWCNTs used by Godin were prepared by two techniques using either PL-PEG or PL-PEG-NH2 (first two para. of Methods). Godin cites Gao (reference 22) for coating SWCNTs with PL-PEG (page 238, right col.). Gao provides further evidence of the structures of PL-PEG-coated SWCNTs (Fig. 3 copied below).
PNG
media_image3.png
525
1527
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As evidenced by Gao, Godin's coating method using PL-PEG results in noncovalent modification of SWCNTs ["Phospholipid–polyethylene glycol (PL–PEG) deserves a particular focus since it has become a widely used non-covalent suspension agent for bio-applications of SWCNTs both in vitro and in vivo. The hydrophobic PL chains attach to the surface of nanotubes, with the hydrophilic PEG chains increasing the solubility and stability of nanotubes in a high salt and serum containing environment" in 4.2. Non-covalent encapsulation, page 237, right col., first para.].
As evidenced by Gao, Godin's coating method using PL-PEG-NH2 results in covalent modification of SWCNTs ("PEG-modified SWCNTs are commonly used and are usually produced by an amidation reaction of –COOH groups of oxidized nanotubes with –NH2 groups of PEG" in 4.1. Covalent modification, page 236, right col., first para.).
Accordingly, the claimed compound corresponds to either an unsubstituted hydrocarbon forming a cylinder of a hexagonal lattice of fused six-membered aromatic rings (in the case of the non-covalent attachment of PL-PEG to SWCNT) or a substituted hydrocarbon forming a cylinder of a hexagonal lattice of fused six-membered aromatic rings (in the case of the covalent attachment of PL-PEG-NH2 to SWCNT).
Regarding the preamble limitation "A method of performing single-molecule localization microscopy (SMLM), stimulated emission depletion microscopy (STED), minimal emission fluxes microscopy (MINFLUX) or structured illumination and localization microscopy (SIMFLUX)," it is noted that a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Nevertheless, Godin discloses use of a similar approach to single-molecule localization microscopy (page 214, last para.; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 2, Godin discloses that the compound is used in the high-resolution microscopy as fluorescent marker ("detect the SWCNT-emitted fluorescence" in "Wide-field fluorescence microscopy set-up" of first page of Methods), and wherein the compound is used in photoactivated localization microscopy ("photoluminescence," Fig. 1; "Single-SWCNT photoluminescence imaging was performed with an inverted microscope," in "Wide-field fluorescence microscopy set-up" of first page of Methods).
Regarding claim 3, a SWCNT of Godin, because it is a cylinder of a single sheet of graphene, comprises six to 91 aromatic hydrocarbon rings fused to each other. It is noted that the transitional term "comprising" is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements. See MPEP 2111.03. Accordingly, the scope of the compound of claim 3 is permitted to have greater than 91 aromatic hydrocarbon rings.
Regarding claim 4, a SWCNT of Godin, because it is a cylinder of a single sheet of graphene, comprises the unit "-Ar1(Ar2)x-. It is noted that the transitional term "comprising" is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements. See MPEP 2111.03. Accordingly, the scope of the compound of claim 3 is permitted to have greater than 6 aromatic hydrocarbon rings.
Regarding claim 5, a SWCNT of Godin, because it is a cylinder of a single sheet of graphene, comprises a unit with the general formula (1), wherein in general formula (1) two adjacent residues R are linked with each other to form C6-aromatic group.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, a SWCNT of Godin, because it is a cylinder of a single sheet of graphene, comprises a unit with the general formula (2), wherein in general formula (2), two of adjacent residues of R1 to R8 and Ar are linked with each other to form an aromatic or cyclic group.
Regarding claim 11, a SWCNT of Godin, because it is a cylinder of a single sheet of graphene, comprises a unit with the general formula (3), wherein two adjacent residues Ra and Rb are linked with each other to form an aromatic group.
Regarding claim 13, a SWCNT of Godin, because it is a cylinder of a single sheet of graphene, comprises a unit with the general formula (23), wherein in general formula (23) two adjacent residues R are linked with each other to form C6-aromatic group.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation "The method in accordance with claim 1 for high resolution evaluations of biological systems, for a detection of material imperfections, and for monitoring and detecting nano-structure fabrication" is reciting purposes or intended uses of the method of claim 1, without positively reciting any additional steps. Because the additional limitations of claim 15 merely recites the purpose of the method of claim 1, and because the positively recited step of the body of independent claim 1 stands alone without being further modified by the limitations of claim 15, the necessary limitations for anticipation of the method are disclosed by Godin. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7, 11, 13, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,958,796. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Patented claims 12 and 13 anticipates and are narrower than instant claim 1 in reciting a method comprising coupling the compound of patented claim 1 with a target molecule and performing a particular microscopy technique. The patented method comprising using a compound and specific microscopy techniques is narrower than "imaging a sample using a compound" as recited in instant claim 1.
Regarding instant claim 2, patented claim 1 discloses fluorescence photo-activation localization microscopy (FPALM) with the compound of patented claim 1 and therefore discloses that the compound is used in the high-resolution microscopy as fluorescent marker.
Regarding instant claims 3 and 4, the compound of patented claim 1 anticipates the compound recited in the instant claims.
Regarding instant claims 5-7, 11, and 13, the compound of patented claim 1 does not explicitly require that the "hydrophilic group" is selected from the options of R1 to R8 and Ar recited in the instant claims. It is noted, however, that US 11,958,796 provides a broad special definition of "hydrophilic group" (col. 5, lines 12-16). Given the extremely broad scope of groups encompassed by the "hydrophilic group" of the compound of patented claim 1, and given the broad scope of the substitution permitted by the scope of instant claims 5-7, 11, and 13, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing that the "hydrophilic group" of patented claim 1 is selected from the choices of substitution recited in instant claims 5-7, 11, and 13.
Instant claim 15 merely recites an intended use of the method of instant claim 1 ("The method in accordance with claim 1 for high resolution evaluations of biological systems… and for monitoring and detecting nano-structure fabrication"). Because the method of claim 15 (including the limitations of claim 1) does not clearly recite any additional active, positive steps, the claim broadly interpreted to be anticipated by patented claim 13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 17 April 2026 have been considered and are not fully persuasive and/or are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant's arguments do not specifically address the modified ground of rejection of claim 4 under 35 USC 112(b).
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), Applicant argues that "Coles fails to have any reference to SMLM or any other high resolution microscopy technique." This moot argument is not persuasive with respect to the new grounds of rejection for anticipation by Paterno because the rejected claims do not positively recite a step that uses SMLM or another high resolution microscopy technique. The only positively recited step of the independent claim 1 is "imaging a sample using a compound, wherein the compound is …" This broad claim interpretation is not applied to dependent claim 2, which has not been rejected over Paterno.
When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the microscopy techniques of the claim 1 preamble are not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) regarding Godin, Applicant argues that "Nanographene is different to single-walled carbon nanotubes, since single-walled carbon nanotubes are [not] discrete and distinct molecules." In response, the examiner disagrees with the statement that SWCTs are not discrete and distinct molecules. Nevertheless, the terminology "discrete and distinct molecules" is absent from the claims, and any structural difference(s) between SWCTs and nanographene are not reflected in the compound recited in the rejected claims.
Applicant further argues the following:
Different super-resolution mechanism: Godin does neither achieve super-resolution via blinking fluorescence property (which is the mechanism underlying SMLM, SIMFLUX or MINFLUX), nor stimulated emission depletion fluorescence property (which is the mechanism underlying STED). Godin's method is single-particle tracking of a single non-blinking nanotube over time; super-resolution is only obtained by accumulating many localizations of the same emitter as it diffuses. Hence, Godin's method is not any of the standard super-resolution microscopy, e.g. SMLM, STED, SIMFLUX, MINFLUX, as specified in claim of the present patent application. In contrast to Godin, the method of claim 1 of the present patent application explicitly enables one of the super-resolution microscopies SMLM, STED, SIMFLUX or MINFLUX imaging methods. Again, Godin bases on a different imaging modality and data interpretation: Godin uses diffusion and confinement analysis to infer extracellular space geometry and viscosity, but does not achieve molecular- scale resolution of cellular structures per se. In contrast thereto, claim 1 of the present patent application is directed to super-resolution imaging using the claimed dyes under standard super-resolution modalities.
This argument is not persuasive because the claims do not recite achieving super-resolution via blinking fluorescence property, let alone positively recite a step of using any of the techniques recited in the claim preamble, as previously discussed. 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).
Moreover, the abstract of Godin teaches that "Here we show an approach to directly observe the local ECS structures and rheology in brain tissue using super-resolution imaging" (bolding added), and the full text further discusses these super-resolved images.
Regarding the double patenting rejections, Applicant argues that the patented claims "require the coupling of a respective compound and a target molecule for performing microscopy, whereas claim 1 of the present patent application uses the respective compound itself for imaging the sample." This argument is not persuasive because using a compound and specific microscopy techniques, as recited in the patented claims, is narrower than "imaging a sample using a compound" as recited in instant claim 1, and therefore anticipates the instant claim.
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 MICHELLE ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-5043. The examiner can normally be reached M, T, Th, and F, 12-4 P.M.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
/MICHELLE ADAMS/ Examiner, Art Unit 1797
/JENNIFER WECKER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights