DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Status
The amendment of 07/09/2026 has been entered. Claims 61-63 and 66-75 are currently pending in this US patent application and were examined on their merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 61-63 and 66-75 are newly rejected as necessitated by amendment under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Amended claim 61 recites “salad greens such as spinach” in line 18. The phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Because claims 62-63 and 66-75 depend from the indefinite claim 61 but provide no clarification of the indefinite language therein, these claims are also indefinite. Therefore, claims 61-63 and 66-75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted the limitation “salad greens such as spinach” as “salad greens.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 61-63 and 66-75 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhao et al., Brazilian J. Microbiol. 42: 567-575 (2011; cited on the IDS filed 04/27/2023), in view of Vardharajula et al., J. Plant Interactions 6(1): 1-14 (March 1, 2011).
Please note: this rejection has been slightly augmented to incorporate discussion of the newly-added limitations in the amended claims of 07/09/2026. However, because the basis of the rejection is unchanged, the rejection has been retained.
Zhao teaches a method of selecting microorganisms that benefit plant growth (page 567, title and abstract). For Claims 61-63, 66 and 73: the reference teaches a method comprising a) subjecting one or more crop plants to a growth medium (growth involves multiplying the plant, for claim 62; the Examiner notes that any plant may be considered a “crop plant” and that Sophora alopecuroides, the plant used by Zhao, is a species of pea plant, which is one of the types of crop plant recited in amended claim 61) in the presence of a first set of one or more microorganisms (wherein plant material: nodules/roots as the source of microorganisms, page 568, left column, 2nd full paragraph, line 2++, for claim 73) by subjecting healthy plants (two or more plants, page 568, left column, 2nd full paragraph++) growing in northwestern China which inherently with a first set of microorganisms in the soil as growth medium and wherein the growth medium/soil comprises abiotic stressor under dry climate (page 570, right column, 1st full paragraph, line 4++, for claim 63) as drought/heat (“drought” and “heat” are not claimed/defined to be distinct from teaching of dry climate in northwestern China in cited art, wherein the natural soil/growth medium conferring abiotic stress: dry/drought, for claim 66); b) selecting one or more plant parts/nodules based on increased resistance/tolerance of drought/heat: health growth (claims 63 and 66, page 572, Table 2, claim 79 and nutrient utilization such as phosphate solubilization, page 572, Table 1, claim 80); c) acquiring a second set of one or more microorganisms from the nodules of the said healthy plants: MQ23 and MQ23R (page 570, right column, 2nd full paragraph++) which have a different set of microorganisms as the whole plants when growing in Northwestern China; and d) repeating steps a) to c) one or more times wherein the second set of microorganisms from nodules in step c) is used as the first set of microorganisms in step a) of any successive repeat by subjecting the nodule/root to grow in greenhouse conditions (at 28oC which is considered warm/heat condition of abiotic stressor because “heat” is not claimed/defined to be distinct from teaching of warm temperature in greenhouse condition in cited art, page 568, left column, 2nd full paragraph, line 20++). For claim 67, Zhao teaches different selection criteria are used in different iterations: such as first round selection of healthy plants from northwestern China (page 568, left column, 2nd full paragraph++) and in the greenhouse selection round: nodules were selected (page 568, left column, last line++). For Claim 68: the reference teaches the second set of microorganisms are acquired in crude form (“crude form” is not defined in the instant specification to be distinct from the teaching of cited art, therefore any nodule mixture meets the limitation, page 570, left column, 1st full paragraph, line 2++). For Claim 69: the reference teaches separating the two or more microorganism into individual isolates (page 569, left column, 2nd full paragraph++), selecting two individual isolates: MQ23 and MQ23R (page 570, right column, 1st full paragraph++) and combining the selected two individual isolates (page 572, Table 1) which is used as a first set of microorganisms in step a) in plant inoculation assay (page 572, left column, 1st full paragraph++). For Claim 74: the reference teaches method selects for one or more endophytes: MQ23 and MQ23R (page 570, right column, 1st full paragraph++). For Claim 75: the reference teaches combining the selected two microorganisms (co-inoculated MQ23 and MQ23R, page 572, Tables 1-2) with sterilized vermiculate, for example as one additional ingredient to support plant growth (page 569, right column, end of 4th paragraph).
Zhao does not explicitly teach repeating steps a) to c) one or more times using the acquired second set as first set of microorganisms as recited in claims 61 and 70, two or more methods performed separately and the second set of microorganisms are combined as recited in claims 71-72. Zhao also does not teach that the abiotic stressor is drought, as recited in instant claim 61.
Vardharajula teaches that the inoculation of plants with beneficial microorganisms promotes plant growth and increases drought tolerance in arid or semiarid areas (see entire document, including page 1, left column, paragraph 1). Bacillus spp. were isolated from the rhizospheres of different crops (millet, sunflower, and maize) grown in semiarid locations and evaluated for their ability to grow under water-stress conditions (page 2, right column, paragraph 2; cf. steps (a)-(c) of claim 61; the three crop plants examined by Vardharajula are all in the list of crop plants recited in amended claim 61). Seeds were inoculated with the most drought-tolerant of the Bacillus isolates and grown under drought stress that was induced by discontinuing watering (page 3, right column, paragraph 1; cf. step (d) of claim 61; this teaching represents the repetition of steps (a) and (b) of claim 61). Bacteria were isolated and enumerated from the soil and rhizoplane following cultivation (page 3, right column, paragraph 2; cf. step (d) of claim 61; this teaching represents the repetition of step (c) of claim 61).
While Zhao does not explicitly teach repeating steps a) to c) one or more times using the acquired second set as first set of microorganisms as recited in claims 61 and 70, two or more methods performed separately and the second set of microorganisms are combined as recited in claims 71-72, Zhao teaches repeating steps a)-c) under greenhouse conditions (at 28oC, which is considered warm/heat condition of abiotic stressor and which is not the same original drought/dry field condition in northwestern China, page 568, left column, 2nd full paragraph, line 20++) to isolate microorganisms (page 568, left column, last line++) with excellent performance of drought tolerance (page 570, right column, 1st full paragraph, line 6++) and re-isolation of strain (MQ23R, page 570, left column, 1st full paragraph, line 6++) from plant nodules/roots (under greenhouse condition, which is also considered a method performed separately) and combination/co-inoculation of MQ23 and MQ23II (page 572, left column, line 2++).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to repeat the selection steps as claimed for microorganisms or combination of microbes with drought/heat tolerance.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the modification because the cited reference teaches method of screening for bacterial from plants with drought/heat tolerant and Zhao teaches repeating claimed steps a)-c) under greenhouse condition to isolate microorganisms (page 568, left column, last line++) with excellent performance of drought tolerance (page 570, right column, 1st full paragraph, line 6++). In addition, it is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to repeat and combine the screening steps/method/microbes as claimed to obtain predictable results of successful screening of microorganisms/endophytes with drought/heat tolerance as taught and motivated by Zhao.
An ordinary skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation of success of achieving such modifications because all of the cited references teach the various steps of the claimed method including repeat the selection steps to select for endophytes and combine the isolated microorganisms, etc., is routine and known in the art.
While Zhao does not teach performing the method with drought as the abiotic stressor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to do so because Vardharajula teaches that the inoculation of plants with beneficial microorganisms promotes plant growth and increases drought tolerance in arid or semiarid areas and that bacteria can be isolated from the rhizospheres of crops grown in these areas and screened for their ability to improve plant drought tolerance. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that performing the method of Zhao with the drought stress of Vardharajula would successfully result in the identification of microorganisms with the ability to improve the growth of plants under drought stress conditions.
Therefore, claims 61-63 and 66-75 are rendered obvious by Zhao in view of Vardharajula and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
The Supreme Court has acknowledged:
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation…103 likely bars its patentability…if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person’s skill. A court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions……the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 U.S. 2007) (emphasis added).
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 61-63 and 66-75 remain rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1-4 and 8-15 of USPN10900029 in view of Zhao and Vardharajula. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, because both claims direct to method for the selection of microorganisms capable of improving plant health with similar steps. The patent directs to improved nitrogen fixation whereas the instant application direct to improved resistance to drought/heat. However, Zhao and Vardharajula teach similar (see rejections above) method of selecting microorganisms that improves resistance of plant against drought with success. Therefore, it is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings with Zhao and Vardharajula to achieve expected success of selection of microorganisms capable of improving resistance of plants to drought. Accordingly, the method of the instant application is ‘rendered obvious’ by the patent in view of Zhao and Vardharajula.
Claims 61-63 and 66-75 remain rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1-4 and 8-16 of USPN9809812 in view of Zhao and Vardharajula. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, because both claims direct to method for the selection of microorganisms capable of improving plant health with similar steps. The patent directs to imparting beneficial phenotypes to a plant whereas the instant application direct to improved resistance to drought/heat. However, Zhao and Vardharajula teach similar (see rejections above) method of selecting microorganisms that improves resistance of plant against drought with success. Therefore, it is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings with Zhao and Vardharajula to achieve expected success of selection of microorganisms capable of improving resistance of plants to drought. Accordingly, the method of the instant application is ‘rendered obvious’ by the patent in view of Zhao and Vardharajula.
Claims 61-63 and 66-75 remain rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1-3 and 16 of USPN11466266 in view of Zhao and Vardharajula. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, because both claims direct to method for the selection of microorganisms capable of imparting beneficial phenotypes to a plant with similar steps. The patent directs to imparting beneficial phenotypes to a plant whereas the instant application direct to improved resistance to drought/heat. However, Zhao and Vardharajula teach similar (see rejections above) method of selecting microorganisms that improves resistance of plant against drought with success. Therefore, it is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings with Zhao and Vardharajula to achieve expected success of selection of microorganisms capable of improving resistance of plants to drought. Accordingly, the method of the instant application is ‘rendered obvious’ by the patent in view of Zhao and Vardharajula.
Claims 61-63 and 66-75 remain rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1-2, 10 and 19-20 of USPN9365847 in view of Zhao and Vardharajula. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, because both claims direct to method for the selection of microorganisms capable of imparting beneficial phenotypes to a plant with similar steps. The patent directs to imparting beneficial phenotypes to a plant whereas the instant application direct to improved resistance to drought/heat. However, Zhao and Vardharajula teach similar (see rejections above) method of selecting microorganisms that improves resistance of plant against drought with success. Therefore, it is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings with Zhao and Vardharajula to achieve expected success of selection of microorganisms capable of improving resistance of plants to drought. Accordingly, the method of the instant application is ‘rendered obvious’ by the patent in view of Zhao and Vardharajula.
Claims 61-63 and 66-75 remain rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1-2, 4, 11-12 and 18-19 of USPN9260713 in view of Zhao and Vardharajula. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, because both claims direct to method for the selection of microorganisms capable of imparting beneficial phenotypes to a plant with similar steps. The patent directs to imparting beneficial phenotypes to a cereal plant whereas the instant application direct to improved plant resistance to drought/heat. However, Zhao and Vardharajula teach similar (see rejections above) method of selecting microorganisms that improves resistance of plant against drought with success. Therefore, it is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings with Zhao and Vardharajula to achieve expected success of selection of microorganisms capable of improving resistance of plants to drought. Accordingly, the method of the instant application is ‘rendered obvious’ by the patent in view of Zhao and Vardharajula.
Claims 61-63 and 66-75 remain rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1, 4, 5-7 and 16-17 of USPN9150851 in view of Zhao and Vardharajula. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, because both claims direct to method for the selection of microorganisms capable of imparting beneficial phenotypes to a plant with similar steps. The patent directs to imparting beneficial phenotypes to a plant whereas the instant application direct to improved plant resistance to drought/heat. However, Zhao and Vardharajula teach similar (see rejections above) method of selecting microorganisms that improves resistance of plant against drought with success. Therefore, it is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings with Zhao and Vardharajula to achieve expected success of selection of microorganisms capable of improving resistance of plants to drought. Accordingly, the method of the instant application is ‘rendered obvious’ by the patent in view of Zhao and Vardharajula.
Claims 61-63 and 66-75 remain provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10-12 and 16-26 of co-pending application 17/141494 in view of Zhao and Vardharajula. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, because both claims direct to method for the selection of microorganisms capable of improving plant health with similar steps. The co-pending application directs to improving resistance to fungal pathogen whereas the instant application direct to improved resistance to drought/heat. However, Zhao and Vardharajula teach similar (see rejections above) method of selecting microorganisms that improves resistance of plant against drought with success. Therefore, it is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings with Zhao and Vardharajula to achieve expected success of selection of microorganisms capable of improving resistance of plants to drought. Accordingly, the method of the instant application is ‘rendered obvious’ by the patent in view of Zhao and Vardharajula.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has traversed the above rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Vardharajula. Applicant states that Zhao does not teach an iterative, directed screening method (remarks, page 6). This argument has been fully considered but has not been found persuasive.
As discussed above, while Zhao does not explicitly teach repeating steps a) to c) one or more times using the acquired second set as first set of microorganisms as recited in claims 61 and 70, two or more methods performed separately and the second set of microorganisms are combined as recited in claims 71-72, Zhao teaches repeating steps a)-c) under greenhouse conditions (at 28oC, which is considered warm/heat condition of abiotic stressor and which is not the same original drought/dry field condition in northwestern China, page 568, left column, 2nd full paragraph, line 20++) to isolate microorganisms (page 568, left column, last line++) with excellent performance of drought tolerance (page 570, right column, 1st full paragraph, line 6++) and re-isolation of strain (MQ23R, page 570, left column, 1st full paragraph, line 6++) from plant nodules/roots (under greenhouse condition, which is also considered a method performed separately) and combination/co-inoculation of MQ23 and MQ23II (page 572, left column, line 2++).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to repeat the selection steps as claimed for microorganisms or combination of microbes with drought/heat tolerance.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the modification because the cited reference teaches method of screening for bacterial from plants with drought/heat tolerant and Zhao teaches repeating claimed steps a)-c) under greenhouse condition to isolate microorganisms (page 568, left column, last line++) with excellent performance of drought tolerance (page 570, right column, 1st full paragraph, line 6++). In addition, it is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to repeat and combine the screening steps/method/microbes as claimed to obtain predictable results of successful screening of microorganisms/endophytes with drought/heat tolerance as taught and motivated by Zhao.
An ordinary skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation of success of achieving such modifications because all of the cited references teach the various steps of the claimed method including repeat the selection steps to select for endophytes and combine the isolated microorganisms, etc., is routine and known in the art.
Applicant states that neither Zhao nor Vardharajula teaches or suggests successive cycles of drought-stress screening (remarks, page 6). This argument has been fully considered but has not been found persuasive.
As discussed above, while Zhao does not teach performing the method with drought as the abiotic stressor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to do so because Vardharajula teaches that the inoculation of plants with beneficial microorganisms promotes plant growth and increases drought tolerance in arid or semiarid areas and that bacteria can be isolated from the rhizospheres of crops grown in these areas and screened for their ability to improve plant drought tolerance. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that performing the method of Zhao with the drought stress of Vardharajula would successfully result in the identification of microorganisms with the ability to improve the growth of plants under drought stress conditions.
Applicant states that Zhao’s greenhouse conditions do not constitute drought stress or any other abiotic stressor (remarks, pages 7-8). This argument has been fully considered but has not been found persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner notes that the above-presented rejection is predicated not upon Zhao alone or Vardharajula alone but, rather, on the combination of Zhao and Vardharajula. The elements of the instant claims that Applicant states are not taught by Vardharajula (namely, the performance of an iterative screening process of microorganisms on plants) are taught by Zhao. As discussed above and in the previous Office action, while Zhao does not teach performing the method with drought as the abiotic stressor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to do so because Vardharajula teaches that the inoculation of plants with beneficial microorganisms promotes plant growth and increases drought tolerance in arid or semiarid areas and that bacteria can be isolated from the rhizospheres of crops grown in these areas and screened for their ability to improve plant drought tolerance. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that performing the method of Zhao with the drought stress of Vardharajula would successfully result in the identification of microorganisms with the ability to improve the growth of plants under drought stress conditions. Vardharajula need not supply every element of the instantly claimed method; rather, Vardharajula in combination with Zhao only needs to supply the missing element from Zhao in order for the instant claims to be rendered obvious by Zhao in view of Vardharajula.
Applicant states that the claimed food crop plants distinguish the invention from Zhao’s Sophora alopecuroides, which Applicant asserts is a wild, non-agricultural legume species that is not cultivated as a food crop (remarks, page 8). This argument has been fully considered but has not been found persuasive.
The Examiner notes that Sophora alopecuroides is a species of pea, and pea is one of the recited ‘crop plants’ of amended claim 61, which does not require specific species of the recited plants. The Examiner further notes that Vardharajula teaches the use of three of the ‘crop plants’ recited in amended claim 61: millet, sunflower, and maize.
Applicant has traversed the above rejections and provisional rejection on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being patentably indistinct from the recited patents/pending applications in view of Zhao and Vardharajula for the same reasons as having traversed the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Vardharajula (remarks, pages 8-9). This argument has been fully considered but has not been found persuasive for the same reasons it was found unpersuasive with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Therefore, the Examiner has maintained the rejections presented above.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 Erin M. Bowers, whose telephone number is (571)272-2897. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Thursday, 6:30-4:00.
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, Sharmila Landau, can be reached at (571)272-0614. 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.
/Erin M. Bowers/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1653 09/22/2026
Prosecution Insights