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 .
Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been thoroughly reviewed and considered. Claims 1-8, 10-11, 15, 20-23, 26-27, 29, and 43 are pending and are examined on the merits herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/13/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Applicant’s Amendments
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4, 8, and 15 were objected to for various informalities. In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims submitted 10/27/2025, these objections have been withdrawn.
35 USC 112(b) Rejections
Claims 11, 15, 21, and 23 were rejected for various indefiniteness issues. In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims submitted 10/27/2025, these rejections have been withdrawn.
35 USC 103 Rejections
Claims 1-8, 10-11, 15, 20-23, 26-27, 29, and 43 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makarov et al. (WO 2012/112582 A2) and various combinations of references. Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been thoroughly reviewed and considered. These rejections have been maintained for all pending claims except claims 15, 21, and 23, which required new grounds of rejection due to Applicant’s claim amendments. See “Response to Applicant’s Arguments” below.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Regarding the 35 USC 103 Rejections, Applicant argues that Makarov does not teach the claimed invention, as the reference does not teach that its primers are a nucleic acid template, as they utilize a target nucleic acid for primer extension (Remarks, pages 8-9). Applicant also states that the blocking domains of Makarov are distinct from those of the instant invention and would not function similarly to those claimed (Remarks, pages 9-11). Finally, Applicant argues that the proposed modification of the Pc region of Makarov suggested by the Examiner would render Makarov inoperable for its intended purpose (Remarks, pages 11-13).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against Makarov because it teaches primers, this is not precluded by the current claims. Claim 1 recites a “nucleic acid template,” and this term is defined in the instant specification as, “a nucleic acid comprising at least two guide strands (106 and 107) forming at least one cross-junction (100),” (para. 38). The term “guide strand” refers “to part of the nucleic acid template and serves as the basic building block of the nucleic acid template,” (para. 46). Thus, these terms do not confer any particular function, and any two nucleic acid sequences which form at least one cross-junction would be considered a “nucleic acid template” as claimed. The Examiner thus asserts that Makarov cannot be said not to teach a “nucleic acid template” simply because it refers to its polynucleotides as primers. This also applies to instant claim 29, which recites a method of forming a nucleic acid template, as this does not require any particular function (or lack thereof) from the nucleic acid template. Regarding instant claim 43, one of the guide strands of Makarov (the P polynucleotide) is considered a primer, which is not precluded by the instant claims, and this is hybridized to the other guide strand of the nucleic acid template. Makarov teaches that this primer sequence may be extended by a polymerase with strand displacement activity, thus meeting the limitations of this claim (see para. 27 of the Non-Final Rejection). Though some applications of Makarov may require a target nucleic acid, this is not precluded by the instant claims, as these claims all comprise the listed elements, and so may include additional, not-claimed elements. See MPEP 2111.03.
As to Applicant’s arguments regarding the blocking domain of Makarov, it was first noted in the “Claim Interpretation” section of the Non-Final Rejection that the instant “blocking regions” are “part of a single guide strand that forms a “blocking domain” with a second strand, where the blocking domain stops a polymerase from moving along or copying the template strand (paras. 53 and 57 of the instant specification).” Thus, in the instant claims, blocking regions on each of the guide strands form a single blocking domain, which would by nature block strand displacement activity of a polymerase, as it would block movement of a polymerase along either guide strand. In para. 20 of the Non-Final Rejection, the R group of Makarov was discussed, which is on a single strand, as pointed out by Applicant. However, using additional teachings of Makarov regarding modifications to nucleotides, the Examiner argues that it would be prima facie obvious to create a blocking domain of MOE nucleotides, and provided both a motivation and reasonable expectation of success for doing so (see para. 20 of the Non-Final Rejection).
Applicant states in their Remarks that this modification uses hindsight, but Makarov does teach that both strands of their primer combination may include a modified nucleic acid, as well as the blocker portion of the primers (e.g. paras. 6-9 and 151). Makarov does not place restrictions on where the modified nucleic acids may be, and because they can be on both primer strands, the invention encompasses the modifications being on nucleotides that are annealed to one another. MOE is one such modification taught by Makarov (para. 79), and thus, a blocking domain of MOE modifications would be possible for the ordinary artisan to develop using the teachings of Makarov. Reasoning for creating such a region is provided by the Examiner – “Thus, it would be prima facie obvious for the ordinary artisan to use a double stranded region containing at least one MOE on the 5’ end of the first polynucleotide and the 3’ end of the second polynucleotide as a blocking group in Makarov, as this would block extension from the 3’ end of the second polynucleotide, which is the purpose of the blocking group of Makarov (para. 95), while also allowing for a more stable blocking group compared to the stability of a single modified nucleotide on the second polynucleotide. This is because the bond between the MOE nucleotides would need to be disrupted to force polymerase activity, rather than simply altering a single nucleotide on the second polynucleotide,” (para. 20 of the Non-Final Rejection). This reasoning does not rely on hindsight, but on the teachings of the reference and knowledge/logic that would be available to the ordinary artisan.
Finally, regarding Applicant’s arguments against the modifications to the Pc sequence, it is first noted that the instant claims provide no required length for the portion of the junction domain that is identical to the third synthesis region. There is also no requirement that the second junction domain be any particular sequence. In Makarov, Pc is stated to comprise a “unique” sequence, while Fd is stated to be “a polynucleotide sequence sufficiently complementary to Pc” such that the two will hybridize under appropriate conditions (para. 6). The “first junction domain” in Makarov is considered the entirety of the Pc sequence, until the blocking region is reached. In the Non-Final Rejection, it is noted that based on Makarov’s teachings regarding the length of a unique sequence and the Pc sequence, that the entirety of Pc need not be totally unique, and thus could be partially identical to a sequence used elsewhere in the primers (such as the Fb sequence, as stated by the Examiner; para. 22 of the Non-Final Rejection). There is no requirement that the non-unique portion of Pc be directly adjacent to the Pa sequence, as asserted by Applicant on page 13 of their Remarks. Para. 13 of Makarov notes that Fd and Pc should be at least 70% complementary to one another to bind as intended. Thus, Makarov encompasses embodiments in which the unique portion of Pc is in the middle of the junction domain, near the blocking region, or near the Pa region, while still containing non-unique nucleotides surrounding this unique region. Fd is specifically designed to be complementary to Pc, and specifically at least 70% complementary to Pc, and so, would be designed to be complementary to the unique portion of Pc while taking the entire design of Pc into account. The ordinary artisan would be capable of modulating the complementarity of Fd to Pc as necessary, and would be capable of designing Fd to be complementary to the non-unique portions of Pc as well if needed to fall in line with the 70% complementarity guidelines of Makarov. Thus, while Applicant’s intent with their invention may be the first figure shown on page 12 of their Remarks, this level of specificity is not currently claimed, and the teachings of Makarov used and cited by the Examiner do not necessarily result in the “prophetic invention” shown by Applicant on page 13 of their Remarks. Furthermore, as the Fd region of Makarov is specifically designed for the Pc region, there is no reason to think that the proposed change to the Pc region would result in a change of operation of Makarov at all.
Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the grounds of rejection related to the prior art presented in the Non-Final Rejection have been maintained and reiterated below. New grounds of rejection were required for claims 15, 21, and 23 due to Applicant’s claim amendments.
Claim Interpretation
For the instant claims, a “synthesis region” is defined in the instant specification as, “part of a template strand (guide strand) that is to be copied to the nucleic acid sequence being synthesized,” (para. 48). This paragraph also notes that a synthesis region can be any length, with a minimum example length of a single nucleotide. Therefore, in the instant claims, this means that for a given length of nucleotides greater than or equal to two, said length can be considered two synthesis regions if it meets the definition of a synthesis region provided above. It is also noted that a “junction domain” is any part of a guide strand that hybridizes to a second guide strand (para. 50 of the instant specification). A “blocking region” is part of a single guide strand that forms a “blocking domain” with a second strand, where the blocking domain stops a polymerase from moving along or copying the template strand (paras. 53 and 57 of the instant specification).
Additionally, as noted in para. 162 of the instant specification, the term ”substantially identical’ means that two or more nucleotide sequences have at least 65% identical nucleotides.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 5-6, 22, 27, 29, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makarov et al. (WO 2012/112582 A2).
Makarov teaches the use of specific primer and probe design (Abstract). Specifically, the reference teaches a primer combination comprising a first and second polynucleotide, where each polynucleotide has a region complementary to a target and a second region complementary to the other primer polynucleotide (para. 6). The basic structure of this combination is shown in Figure 1, where the P strand is analogous to the first guide strand of the instant invention and the F strand is analogous to the second guide strand. Figure 1 shows an R group on the 3’ end of the F strand, which signifies a blocking group (paras. 14 and 95) to prevent extension by a polymerase. This R group can include modified nucleotides (para. 95). Additionally, the Pc group (the second region of the first polynucleotide from the 3’ end) comprises a unique sequence that hybridizes to the Fd region (the first region of the second polynucleotide from the 3’ end; para. 6). Makarov also teaches that the polynucleotides can contain modifications (paras. 6 and 71). These specific modifications can include 2’-MOE groups (para. 79). According to the instant specification, a blocking domain can include a super stable double stranded region comprising one or more MOE nucleotides, and use of these modifications are well-known in the art (para. 53). Thus, it would be prima facie obvious for the ordinary artisan to use a double stranded region containing at least one MOE on the 5’ end of the first polynucleotide and the 3’ end of the second polynucleotide as a blocking group in Makarov, as this would block extension from the 3’ end of the second polynucleotide, which is the purpose of the blocking group of Makarov (para. 95), while also allowing for a more stable blocking group compared to the stability of a single modified nucleotide on the second polynucleotide. This is because the bond between the MOE nucleotides would need to be disrupted to force polymerase activity, rather than simply altering a single nucleotide on the second polynucleotide. There would be a reasonable expectation of success as Makarov already teaches that both polynucleotides can contain modified nucleotides, and teaches the use of MOE nucleotides as one such modification. These MOEs would thus be bound to each other and form a blocking domain analogous to the blocking domain described in the instant claims (instant claim 22).
The first region of the first polynucleotide (the Pa region in Figure 1) can be at least 30 nucleotides long and complementary to a target (para. 15), and so in accordance with the “Claim Interpretation” section above, this would include two synthesis regions.
Makarov does not define what a “unique” sequence is, but notes in para. 85 that it is at least 10-30 nucleotides. Pc generally can be about 5 to 200 bases long (para. 15). Thus, the unique portion of Pc that is complementary to Fd does not have to be the entirety of the Pc sequence. It would be prima facie obvious to have the other nucleotides of the non-unique Pc sequence be complementary to the target polynucleotide in the same manner as the Pa sequence, and thus would be at least partially identical to the Fb sequence. By creating a short unique sequence that is not the entire length of Pc and having a portion of Pc be identical to Fb, this would cut down on primer design time and resources. As the entirety of the invention of Makarov is geared toward primer design and methods for doing so, the ordinary artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Thus, Makarov renders obvious the nucleic acid template of instant claim 1, where the reference teaches: a first polynucleotide with a first and second synthesis region (both in Pa), a junction domain that has a portion substantially identical to a third synthesis region (the non-unique portion of Pc identical to a portion of Fb) and a portion that is complementary to a second junction domain (the unique portion of Pc), and a first blocking region (the modified MOE 5’ end), as well as a second polynucleotide with a second blocking region (the modified MOE 3’ end), a second junction domain (Fd that is complementary to the unique portion of Pc), and a third synthesis region (Fb; instant claims 1 and 29).
Regarding claim 5, Makarov teaches that the Fb region can be from about 10-5000 bases (para. 15), and so in accordance with the “Claim Interpretation” section above, this would include two synthesis regions.
Claim 6 describes a scenario in which the second guide strand then forms another junction at its 5’ end with a third guide strand, where the structure of the junction and strands is the same as that described for the first two guide strands. In Makarov, Figure 2 shows two three-way junctions, where the second polynucleotide binds to the first polynucleotide, the target nucleic acid, and a third polynucleotide (para. 59). Thus, it would be prima facie obvious to use the same structure described above in the rejection of claim 1 with the two three-way junction structure of Makarov, as utilizing multiple different polynucleotide structures would unnecessarily complicate the primer combination design while utilizing additional resources.
Regarding claim 27, the P polynucleotide of Makarov is a primer, as the 3’ end can be extended, as shown in Figures 1, 5, 7C, and 8A for example. Thus, this 3’ end can be considered a primer annealed to the first polynucleotide/guide strand.
Regarding claim 43, Makarov teaches that the 3’ end of the first polynucleotide (which can be considered a primer, as noted above in the rejection of claim 27) can be extended (see for example Figures 1, 5, 7C, and 8A). The reference also specifically teaches a method in which the Pa sequence is extended by a polymerase (para. 18). Para. 147 describes a variety of polymerases that may be used in the invention, including those with strand displacement activity, such as Bst.
Claims 2-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makarov et al. (WO 2012/112582 A2) in view of Fujimoto et al. (Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry Letters, 2016).
Makarov teaches the methods of claims 1 and 6, as described above. However, this reference does not discuss cross-linking methods.
Fujimoto teaches the use of photo-cross-linkable fluorescent oligodeoxyribonucleotides having 3-cyanovinylcarbazole nucleosides (Abstract). This 3-cyanovinylcarbazole can cross-link with complementary DNA or RNA within seconds of exposure to UV radiation, and once this cross-link is formed, it creates a thermally irreversible covalent bond (page 5312, columns 1-2 joining para.). Fujimoto teaches that this fluorescent cross-linker can stabilize fluorescent signals under denaturing conditions, form strong bonds that are not easily detached, and allows for more efficient and stable imagining of target sequences (page 5314, column 2, para. 2).
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the blocking domain of Makarov with the 3-cyanovinylcarbazole cross-link taught by Fujimoto. As described above, Makarov teaches that the polynucleotides of their invention may contain modified nucleotides, and also teaches the use of fluorescent labels (e.g. para. 128 and Figure 9A). Thus, it would be obvious to add a 3-cyanovinylcarbazole cross-link to the MOE blocking domain of Makarov, as thus would still allow for the blocking of polymerase extension while also allowing for fluorescence detection of the polynucleotides. This could be helpful in analyzing amplification products or the results of other downstream methods, such as sequencing. Fujimoto teaches that this cross-link forms a strong and stable bond that would make it an attractive choice for the ordinary artisan, and it would be easy to incorporate into the existing modified nucleotide methods of Makarov, as the 3-cyanovinylcarbazole structure is well known and can quickly bind to a target sequence, as evidenced by Fujimoto.
Thus, claims 2-4 and 7-8 are prima facie obvious over Makarov in view of Fujimoto.
Claims 10-11, 15, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makarov et al. (WO 2012/112582 A2) in view of Hogan et al. (US 5,424,413 A).
Claims 10-11 describe a scenario in which a fourth guide strand is added to the template, and the third strand and fourth strand are connected in the same manner as the first/second and second/third guide strands. This essentially creates three three-way junctions. Claim 15 adds onto this by requiring a fifth guide strand, where the fourth and fifth strands are connected in the same manner as the first/second, second/third, and third/fourth guide strands. This similarly creates four three-way junctions. Makarov does teach the use of two three-way junctions, as described above in the rejection of claim 6, but does not teach more than this.
Hogan teaches various nucleic acid hybridization probes with target-specific sequences and arm sequences (i.e. three-way junctions; see Abstract and Figure 1A). Figure 6D shows an example probe with three three-way junctions, where there are four probe oligonucleotides that have target specific portions and portions specific to another probe sequence.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the probe design of Hogan in the invention of Makarov to add a fourth polynucleotide and create a three three-way junction, where the fourth polynucleotide has the same structure as the previous three. Even in this configuration, only the first polynucleotide would be extended, as is shown in Figure 2 of Makarov, but by providing a fourth polynucleotide, it would allow for additional binding to the target sequence. This would be particularly useful if the target sequence is a variant or mutant in a sample that has both wild-type and variant sequences, such as in a sample from a cancer patient, or if a user is particularly interested in amplifying only a portion of a sequence and wants to ensure primer hybridization accuracy, thus motivating the ordinary artisan. Makarov does discuss contexts in which their invention can be used to detect mutants (e.g. paras. 116 and 165), and mentions that primers can specifically be designed to detect either wild-type or mutant sequences (para. 167). As Hogan already teaches that three three-way junctions can be created, there would be a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, the third and fourth polynucleotides of Makarov could be joined in a manner similar to the first/second and second/third polynucleotides of Makarov.
Thus, claims 10-11 are prima facie obvious over Makarov in view of Hogan.
Further regarding claim 15, Hogan teaches the use of fifth strands in probes and additional rearrangements of sequences (see Figures 9D-E and 20A-C for example). Hogan also notes that the probes of their invention may encompass one or more junctions with three or more nucleic acid strands involved, and that, “Virtually any combination of junctions is possible as long as the arm regions form a stable duplex only in the presence of target,” (column 14, para. 2). Thus, the ordinary artisan would realize that any number of three-way junctions could be used in Hogan, depending on the length of the probes and the target nucleic acid being hybridized to. Consequently, in the combination of Makarov in view of Hogan described above for claims 10-11, the ordinary artisan would recognize that additional guide strands could be added to create four (and potentially even more) three-way junctions. These additional junctions would provide the same benefits as the third three-way junction described above – namely additional target binding, which is particularly useful in the case of the presence of mutant or variant sequences where hybridization of guide strands to the target may not be 100%, as well as increased amplification accuracy for targeting particular portions of a sequence. The additional junction would provide additional security in the case of widely variable or repetitive sequences, as it would increase the amount of desired hybridization of the first polynucleotide of Makarov to the target (i.e. the polynucleotide to be extended). As Hogan teaches that additional junctions can be formed, there would be a reasonable expectation of success.
Thus, claim 15 is prima facie obvious over Makarov in view of Hogan.
Regarding claims 21 and 23, Makarov in view of Hogan teaches the method of claim 15, as described above. In the rejection of claim 1, it was stated that Makarov renders obvious the use of a double-stranded blocking domain consisting of two MOE modified nucleotides. This blocking domain would be analogous to the first blocking domain of the claimed invention, and would read on instant claims 21 and 23.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makarov et al. (WO 2012/112582 A2) in view of Gopalkrishnan et al. (US 2019/0169024 A1).
Makarov teaches the method of claim 1, as described above. However, Makarov does not teach the use of 3-letter codes.
Gopalkrishnan teaches methods and compositions for producing nucleic acid nanostructures (Abstract). The reference teaches that by using 3-letter codes, wherein only three of the four nucleotides are used, secondary structures and undesired intermolecular interactions can be minimized or eliminated, and that using a 3-letter code helps to maintain a linear molecular structure (para. 5). Figures 1-2 demonstrate how 3-letter codes exhibit little secondary structure compared to 4-letter codes, and Figure 3 shows how 3-letter codes have less undesired interactions compared to 4-letter codes (paras. 9-11).
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Gopalkrishnan to incorporate 3-letter codes into the polynucleotides of Makarov. These codes could be included in the unique portion of the second region of the first polynucleotide and the associated complementary region of the second polynucleotide. Gopalkrishnan demonstrates the utility of such codes, and so the ordinary artisan would be motivated to incorporate them into the polynucleotides of Makarov to ensure that the polynucleotides do not form undesired bonds or secondary structures that would prevent accurate binding with each other and the target sequences. As the unique portion of the first polynucleotide is not designed to correspond to the target sequence, its specific sequence would not affect any other aspect of the polynucleotide(s) design, and would not affect the function of the polynucleotides relative to the target sequence or the primer functions of the first polynucleotide.
Thus, claim 20 is prima facie obvious over Makarov in view of Gopalkrishnan.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makarov et al. (WO 2012/112582 A2) in view of Wang et al. (US 2018/0148775 A1).
Makarov teaches the method of claim 1, as described above. However, Makarov does not teach the use of solid supports.
Wang teaches methods of amplification with primers (Abstract). Wang notes that primers can hybridize with a probe and target to form a three-way junction (para. 24). These primers or probes may be attached to a surface such as beads or glass, and this attachment can still occur during amplification (para. 44). Amplification products may then also be detected with beads (paras. 45 and 190).
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate solid supports into the methods of Makarov. In particular, the 5’ end of the second polynucleotide of Makarov can be attached to a solid surface such as a bead. This would still allow the first polynucleotide to be extended, and would not affect hybridization with the target sequence. By immobilizing the primers, this would then create amplification products immobilized to the beads (as said products result from primer extension), and said products could easily be moved or manipulated for further analysis. This would also allow for washing steps where any primers, targets, or polynucleotides not attached to the solid surface could be washed away, lowering levels of background noise for detection steps. There would be a reasonable expectation of success as Wang specifically teaches that this attachment to a solid support can be performed on three-way junctions in the context of amplification methods.
Thus, claim 26 is prima facie obvious over Makarov in view of Wang.
Conclusion
No claims are currently allowable.
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 FRANCESCA F GIAMMONA whose telephone number is (571)270-0595. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7-5pm.
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, Gary Benzion can be reached at (571) 272-0782. 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.
/F.F.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1681
/SAMUEL C WOOLWINE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1681