DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's response, filed 1/31/2025, has been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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 .
Priority
This application filed 08/09/2021 is a National Stage entry of PCT/US20/20047, with an International Filing Date of 02/27/2020, and claims priority from Provisional Application 62815951, filed 03/08/2019. The claims are therefore examined as filed on 03/08/2019, the effective filing date. In future actions, the effective filing date of one or more claims may change, due to amendments to the claims, or further review of the priority application(s).
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are examined.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Drawings
The corrected drawings filed 1/31/2025 are accepted.
Withdrawn Specification Objections
The objection of the disclosure in the Office action mailed 10/31/2024 is withdrawn in view of the amendments filed 1/31/2025.
Withdrawn Claim Objections
The objection to claims 1 and 8, in the Office action mailed 10/31/2024 is withdrawn in view of the amendments filed 1/31/2025.
Withdrawn Rejections
The rejection of claims 8-14 under 35 U.S.C. §101, in the Office action mailed 10/31/2024 is withdrawn in view of the amendments filed 1/31/2025, as the claims are now directed to a database comprising one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing non-functional descriptive material, rather than any instructions or executable code that recites an abstract idea.
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 1-7 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of mental processes and mathematical concepts, without significantly more.
The MPEP at MPEP 2106 sets forth steps for identifying eligible subject matter:
(1) Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
(2A)(1) Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
(2A)(2) Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
(2B) If the claims recite a judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception, do the claims recite additional elements that provide an inventive concept and amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
With regard to step (1) (Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?): Claims 1-7 and 15-20 are directed to statutory classes. Claims 1-7 are directed to a process (a method of variant calling), and claims 15-20 are directed to a machine product (a server comprising a database interface, processor and computer memory).
With regard to step (2A)(1) (Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception?): Yes. The claims recite the abstract ideas of processing data using mental steps and mathematical concepts. Claims that recite nothing more than abstract ideas, natural phenomena, or laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection (see MPEP 2106.04).
Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, (mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes (including procedures for collecting, observing, evaluating, and organizing information (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). In particular, these abstract ideas include but are not limited to:
Matching sequence data fragments against a database describing a locus of interest (mental process; the human mind is capable of matching data strings to a database; claims 1, 15)
Breaking a de Bruijn graph format of sequence data to form sequence fragments (mental process; the human mind is capable of breaking a de Bruijn graph to form sequence fragments/ arrange data; claims 1, 15)
Calling the sequence data as a variant sequence from one or more databases when the sequence data has the highest count of k-mers (mental process; the human mind is capable of making a determination based on data; claim 1)
Identifying junction k-mers in the sequence data or the sequence information (mental process; the human mind is capable of identifying junction k-mers in sequence data, as junction k-mers occur where a modification to a given sequence begins or ends; claim 6)
Calculating a relative support at identified junction k-mers (mental process/mathematical concept; section [0073] of the specification indicates that this calculation is done by dividing the counted number of appearances of the variant junction k-mer by the sum of the counted number of appearances of the variant junction k-mer and the reference junction k-mer – the human mind is capable of performing such a calculation, and doing so it a mathematical concept; claim 7)
Dependent claims 2-5, and 16-20 further limit the abstract ideas recited in the independent claims, and do not change their characterization as abstract ideas.
Therefore, the claims recite elements that constitute one or more judicial exceptions.
With regard to step (2A)(2) (Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?): No. Claims 1-7 do not recite additional elements to the abstract ideas listed in step (1) and therefore cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 15-20 recite the additional element of a server comprising a database interface, a process, and a computer memory that enable the processor to perform the claimed steps. Claim 15-20 also recite the additional elements of receiving genomic sequence data from a data source, preparing a database call for transmitting via the database interface, receiving the sequence information via the database interface, and transmitting a report across a communication network via the database interface that includes results.
While claims 15-20 recite the additional element of acquiring and outputting data, such data gathering and outputting steps, without any technical details of how the data is obtained, or transmitted/output are insignificant extrasolution activities that do not add a meaningful limitation to the claims (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Similarly, an additional element of an interface or communication network for sending and receiving data without further detail on the structure and function of the interface or network, merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). As a result, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In addition, while claims 15-20 recite additional elements related to the use of computers, they do not provide any specific details by which the server, processor, interface or memory performs or carries out the judicial exception listed in step (2A)(1), nor do they provide any details of how specific structures of the computer are used to implement these functions. The judicial exception is therefore not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea, as they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), and as a result, the claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
With regard to step (2B) (Do the claims recite additional elements that provide an inventive concept and amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?): No. Claims 1-7 do not recite any additional elements and therefore cannot have an inventive concept that provides significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 15-20 recite an abstract idea with additional elements. However, these additional elements are general computer elements added to abstract ideas, and non-particular instructions to apply the abstract idea by linking it to a field of use or extrasolution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(f-h)). General computer elements used to perform an abstract idea do not provide an inventive concept, and similarly, non-particular instructions to gather or produce data do not provide an inventive concept. Non-particular instructions to gather or output data are also considered well-understood, routine and conventional activities (see MPEP 2106.05(d), which indicates that limitations such as “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” from Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362, and “Storing and retrieving information in memory” from Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 are recognized as conventional activities). The claims therefore do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As a result, the claims as a whole do not provide an inventive concept.
Response to Arguments – Rejections Under 35 USC § 101
In the reply filed 1/31/2025, Applicant asserts that the claims do not recite abstract ideas, including mental processes and mathematical concepts (remarks pg 11-12). However, both of these are present in the claims. For example, claims 1 and 15 recite the step of matching sequence data fragments against a database. The human mind is capable of matching data sequence data fragments against a database. The Applicant also asserts that the limitations can only be performed by a device (remarks pg 12), however there is no such device required in claim 1 or its dependents, and the device of claim 15 amounts to performing the abstract idea on a computer. According to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) section III, the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. Using a computer as a tool to perform the process is still considered to recite an abstract idea.
Similarly, the limitation of claim 7 of calculating a relative support at identified junction k-mers in considered both a mental process and a mathematical concept, as it is a mathematical calculation, and is described as such in the specification section [0073], which indicates that this calculation is done by dividing the counted number of appearances of the variant junction k-mer by the sum of the counted number of appearances of the variant junction k-mer and the reference junction k-mer. It is also a mental process because this calculation can be performed in the human mind using pen and paper.
The Applicant further argues that the claims are not directed to any of the examples provided in the Eligibility Guidance for mathematical concepts or mental processes because the operations are performed on a particular type of data and with a particular purpose (remarks pg 12). However, this is irrelevant if the step is still performable in the human mind (in the case of mental processes) or recites a mathematical relationship, formula or calculation (in the case of mathematical concept. Nothing in the claims suggests otherwise. Therefore, the claims recite several abstract ideas.
The Applicant also asserts that the claims as a whole integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application by addressing a technical problem associated with processing particular types of data, specifically by organizing and efficiently operating a database such that the data stored are easily and efficiently accessible and minimizing time between database call and response (remarks pg 13). However, in order for claims as a whole to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of an improvement to technology, there must be an additional element in the claims, and the improvement must be realized in the additional element, not in the abstract idea. The MPEP 2106.05(a), specifically states: “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018 )).” There are no additional elements recited in claims 1-7, and the only additional elements currently recited in the claim 15-20 are steps for implementing the abstract idea using generic computer elements, and for sending/receiving data, which as explained in the rejection above, have been found by the courts to be extrasolution activities/field of use. Nothing in the claims suggest that the function or structure of the computer has been changed – the asserted improvement, rather, is to is to the algorithm or method of analyzing data, which cannot be considered an additional element that integrates the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The Applicant also asserts that the additional elements when viewed in combination may render the claim eligible and amount to significantly more (remarks pg 13-14). However, this can only occur when there are recited additional elements in the claims, and when these additional elements recite an inventive concept that is not well-understood, routine or conventional, or are simply adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The MPEP 2106.05 explains that a claims that is significantly more/an inventive concept cannot be furnished by the abstract idea itself (see Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Instead, an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966). An additional element, therefore, is required for the claim to amount to significantly more. As previously explained, there are no additional elements recited in claims 1-7, and the only additional elements currently recited in the claim 15-20 are steps for implementing the abstract idea using generic computer elements, and for sending/receiving data using well-understood, routine, and conventional methods.
As such, the claims recite several abstract ideas, and do not recite any meaningful additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; nor do any of the additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejection
Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NGUYEN 2017 “Viral Neoepitopes And Uses Thereof” (US 20170032103 A1, previously cited).
Claim Interpretation and Scope and Contents of Prior Art
Claim 1 recites a method of variant calling of genomic or transcriptomic sequence data at a locus of interest, comprising: matching sequence data fragments against a database describing a genomic or transcriptomic locus of interest, wherein the sequence data fragments are formed by breaking a de Bruijn graph format of the sequence data at the locus of interest into the at least two fragments, each comprising at least two k-mers. With respect to this limitation, NGUYEN teaches variant calling for patient sequence data that includes DNA or RNA sequences (genomic or transcriptomic) to identify neoepitopes or epitopes of interest (a locus of interest)[0010, 0040]; this involves matching sequence reads against a reference sequence [0010] from a database describing the epitope/locus of interest [0020, 24], and generating a de Bruijn graph using the sequence data composed of sets of k-mers [0010, 0050-51].
Claim 1 also recites that the database comprises sequence information for a reference sequence of the locus in the format of a de Bruijn graph; sequence information for at least one variant sequence of the locus in the format of a de Bruijn graph; wherein the sequence information for at least one variant sequence of the locus comprises the at least two fragments, wherein each fragment comprises at least two k-mers, and wherein each fragment is unique and is specific to the at least one variant. With respect to this limitation, NGUYEN teaches that the database can contain sequence information for reference sequences [0045] and that a de Bruijn graph can be generated using the reference sequences and variant sequence [0010, 0050]; and reference sequences can also be used to build a reference graph [0054]. NGUYEN also teaches that the variant sequence contains the sets of k-mers/sequence fragments, where each fragment comprises k-mers and corresponds to a specific epitope/variant [0038, 58].
Claim 1 also recites the limitation of calling, from the one or more databases, the sequence data as a variant sequence with which the sequence data has the highest count of k-mers. With respect to this limitation, NGUYEN teaches variant calling by implementing a weighted vote process in which each patient sequence read provides a vote (“quantitative read support”) for each of the alleles based on the k-mers of that sequence read that match the sequence of the allele, such that the cumulatively highest vote for an allele then indicates the most likely predicted HLA allele [0058].
Claim 2 recites the limitation wherein the sequence data is genomic sequence data.
With respect to this limitation, NGUYEN teaches variant calling from DNA sequences, or from whole genome sequencing data [0010, 16].
Claim 3 recites the limitation wherein the sequence data is transcriptomic sequence data. With respect to this limitation, NGUYEN teaches variant calling from RNA sequences, where the data includes expression and expression level [0010, 41].
Claim 5 recites the limitation wherein the at least one variant sequence is selected from the group consisting of single nucleotide variants, multiple nucleotide variants, insertions, deletions, gene fusions, and haplogroups. With respect to this limitation, NGUYEN teaches that the variant sequence includes single nucleotide variations [0045], deletions, and insertions [0035].
Claim 6 recites the limitation of identifying junction k-mers in the sequence data or the sequence information. With respect to this limitation, NGUYEN teaches analyzing the de Bruijn graph of k-mers to determine junctions at which tumor and reference sequences diverge [0050, 52].
Claim 7 recites the limitation of calculating a relative support at the identified junction k-mers. With respect to this limitation, NGUYEN teaches determining support at the junctions [0052-53, 58].
Claim 8 recites a database describing a genomic or transcriptomic locus of interest, the database comprising one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media on which a first sequence information for a reference sequence of a locus in the format of a de Bruijn graph is stored; and a second sequence information is stored for at least one variant sequence of the locus in the format of a de Bruijn graph; wherein the sequence information for at least one variant sequence of the locus comprises at least two fragments, and wherein each fragment is unique and is specific to the at least one variant. It should be noted that because claim 8 and its dependents recite non-transitory computer readable media storing non-functional descriptive material (i.e no performable instructions), the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, so no functional relationship exists. As a result, this claim and its dependents would be anticipated by any non-transitory computer readable media (see. MEPP 2111.05). With respect to this, NGUYEN teaches non-transitory computer readable media for storing databases and instructions [0039].
Although it is not required to anticipate the claims, it should be noted that NGUYEN also does teach the contents of the database of claim 8 and its dependents, explained below. With respect to claim 8, NGUYEN teaches databases for genomic/transcriptomic locus’ of interest containing sequence information for reference sequences and variant sequences and that a de Bruijn graph can be generated using the reference sequences and variant sequences [0010, 0020, 0045, 0050]. NGUYEN also teaches that the variant sequence contains the sets of k-mers/sequence fragments, where each fragment comprises k-mers and corresponds to a specific epitope/variant [0038, 58].
Claim 9 recites the limitation of the database comprising a list of k-mer junctions. With respect to this limitation, NGUYEN teaches that the reference sequences contain k-mer junctions [0050, 52].
Claim 10 recites the limitation of the list of k-mer junctions appearing in the first and second sequence information. With respect to this limitation, NGUYEN teaches listing the k-mers (including the junction k-mers) in the reference sequence information (first) and the variant sequence information (second) [0011, 34].
Claim 11 recites the limitation of a count corresponding to each k-mer in the list of k-mers, the count corresponding to the number of occurrences of the each k-mer in the first and second sequence information. With respect to this limitation, NGUYEN teaches a tallied vote (count) for each k-mer that matches a corresponding segment in the sequence information [0011, 34, 54].
Claim 12 recites the limitation of a variant tag corresponding to each k-mer in the list of k-mers. With respect to this limitation, NGUYEN teaches variants corresponding to specific sequences/k-mers, such as neoepitope sequences due to SNPs in a patient [0045].
Claim 13 recites the limitation wherein at least some of the variant tags identify the corresponding k-mers with the reference sequence. With respect to this limitation, NGUYEN teaches that the variants identify the corresponding sequences/k-mers with the reference sequence [0045, 54, 58].
Claim 14 recites the limitation wherein at least some of the variant tags identify the corresponding k-mers with a single nucleotide variant, a multiple nucleotide variant, an insert, a deletion, a gene fusion, or a haplogroup. With respect to this limitation, NGUYEN teaches that the variant tags can identify the corresponding k-mers/sequences with single nucleotide variations [0045], deletions, and insertions [0035].
Claim 15 recites the limitation of a server comprising a database interface; a processor coupled with the database interface; and computer memory coupled with the processor comprising instructions that, when executed by the processor, enable the processor to perform the method. With respect to this limitation, NGUYEN teaches that computational analysis of sequencing data is performed using servers, interfaces, and other computing devices that comprise a processor configured to execute software instructions stored on a tangible, non-transitory computer readable storage medium [0039].
Claim 15 also recites the limitations of receiving genomic sequence data from a data source; formatting the genomic sequence data into a de Bruijn graph; breaking the sequence data in the de Bruijn graph format into at least two fragments; and preparing a database call for transmitting via the database interface, wherein the database call comprises a call for sequence information for a reference sequence of a locus of interest in the format of a de Bruijn graph. With respect to this limitation, NGUYEN teaches receiving genomic sequencing data from a database [0039, 45], generating a de Bruijn graph using the sequence data composed/broken into sets of k-mers [0010, 0050-51], and exchanging data using interfaces [0039], where a reference sequence is received/provided for a locus of interest in the de Bruijn graph [0050].
Claim 15 also recites the limitation of receiving the sequence information via the database interface; comparing the at least two fragments with at least a portion of the reference sequence of the locus of interest; and generating a report across a communication network via the database interface that includes results of the comparison of the at least two fragments with the at least a portion of the reference sequence of the locus of interest. With respect to this limitation, NGUYEN teaches receiving genomic sequencing data from a database using interfaces [0039, 45], comparing the locus of interest/neoepitopes with the reference sequence [0008, 10, 45, 50], and reporting the results of the comparison Fig 1, using computing devices and across networks, and using the interfaces to exchange data [0039].
Claim 16 recites the limitation wherein the sequence information further comprises at least one variant sequence of the locus of interest. With respect to this limitation, NGUYEN teaches that the sequence data includes neoepitopes or epitopes of interest (a variant sequence of the locus of interest)[0010, 0040, 45].
Claim 17 recites the limitation wherein the sequence information comprises a list of k-mers and a count for each k-mer in the list of k-mers. With respect to this limitation, NGUYEN teaches a tallied vote (count) for each k-mer that matches a corresponding segment in the sequence information [0011, 34, 54].
Claim 18 recites the limitation wherein the comparing comprises identifying matches between a set of k-mers in the at least two fragments and one or more k-mers in the list of k-mers. With respect to this limitation, NGUYEN teaches matching the reference sequences with the set of patient k-mers for the locus of interest [0010, 50].
Claim 19 recites the limitation wherein the report identifies the sequence data as corresponding to the reference sequence or the variant sequence based on the matching. With respect to this limitation, NGUYEN teaches reporting that the sequence data matches the reference or variant sequence (Fig 1, [0094]).
Claim 20 recites the limitation wherein the computer memory comprises additional instructions that, when executed by the processor, further enable the processor to transmit the sequence data via the database interface. With respect to this limitation, NGUYEN teaches that the computing system includes a memory with software instructions that enable a processor to transfer sequence data via a database interface [0027, 39].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejection
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NGUYEN 2017 as applied to claims 1-3 and 5-20 above, and further in view of REID 2017 “Genetic Variant-Phenotype Analysis System And Methods Of Use” (US 20170286594 A1, previously cited).
Claim Interpretation and Scope and Contents of Prior Art
NGUYEN teaches the limitations of claims 1-3 and 5-20 above.
Claim 4 recites the limitation wherein the at least one variant sequence of the locus is de-identified. NGUYEN does not explicitly teach this limitation. However, REID teaches deidentifying a genetic profile composed of sequence data [0117, 0122, 0178].
Resolving Ordinary Skill in the Art and Obviousness Rationale
A teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify or combine the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. Specifically, a person of ordinary skill in clinical genetic analysis would have been motivated to combine the teachings of NGUYEN with the teachings of REID, in order to achieve the claimed invention, because anonymizing or de-identifying patient data is standard practice in many medical settings, and one would be motivated to include a de-identifying step to protect patient privacy. A person of ordinary skill would reasonably expect success from combining these teachings, as both NGUYEN and REID teach methods of analyzing patient genetic data, and a de-identifying step can be applied to any patient data. Therefore, the claims at issue would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as there is both a reason to modify or combine the prior art, and a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP 2143.02 (I)).
Response to Arguments under 35 USC § 102 and 103
In the reply filed 01/31/2025, Applicant asserts that the method of claims 1-7 differs from the cited reference in that in the claims, sequence fragments are formed by breaking a de Bruijn graph format of the sequence data at the locus of interest into at least two fragments each comprising at least two-kmers (remarks pg 15). The reference NGUYEN teaches generating a de Bruijn graph from sequence fragments composed of k-mers [0038, 58], and also teaches a database comprising the same sequence information as in the claims – in this way NGUYEN inherently teaches that the fragments can be used to create the de Bruijn graph, and also that the resulting graph can be broken into fragments to use in the database. As a result, any resulting improvements from the claims from this process would also be found in the process of NGUYEN, and NGUYEN still anticipates the claimed invention.
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 MARY C LEVERETT whose telephone number is (571)272-5494. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 5:00pm M-Th.
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, Karlheinz R. Skowronek can be reached on (571) 272-9047. 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.
/M.C.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1687
/OLIVIA M. WISE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1685