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 .
Remarks
This office action fully acknowledges Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed 01 April 2026.
Claims 1-4 and 7-18 are pending.
Claims 5-6 are cancelled.
Claims 8-18 are withdrawn.
No new claims are added.
Claim Interpretation
With respect to Claim 7, the recitation is interpreted that the specimen is any one of those recited elements or the combination thereof two or more of the elements, not merely the combination of all of the elements. Examiner asserts that it may be Applicant’s intention to provide a Markush group-type listing to the types of specimen afforded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected 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.
The term “rapidly” in Claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rapidly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The relative term renders indefinite the metes and bounds of the computer alternating the light source between on and off states, the specification further fails to remedy the indefiniteness as the specification does not provide a particular definition or scope to the term, such as a particular range of time intervals between which the light source is actuated.
Appropriate clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 7, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. (US 2007/0231790 A1), referred to herein as “Su,” in view of Huang et al. (US 2019/0033252 A1), referred to herein as “Huang”, and Hassibi et al. (US 2020/0292457 A1), hereinafter “Hassibi”, and as evidenced through Grieshaber et al. (Grieshaber, D.; MacKenzie, R.; Vörös, J.; Reimhult, E. Electrochemical Biosensors - Sensor Principles and Architectures. Sensors 2008, 8, 1400-1458.), hereinafter “Grieshaber”.
Regarding Claim 1, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Su teaches a field effect transistor (FET)-based bio-sensing system ([0002]), comprising: a sensor assembly (Fig. 3) comprising:
A nanowire FET chip configured with at least one fluidic channel ([0077, 0098]);
a light source (Su teaches a Photo-activated field effect transistor for bioanalyte detection ([0003]), wherein irradiation of analytes in a liquid sample result in a photo-induced charge-separation ([0013] -- or “photo-activation” as in [0026]), and wherein an electrical sensor is capable of detecting said charge separation ([0070]) for providing information regarding the target analyte(s) in question. Su further teaches, “In a specific embodiment, the radiation is electromagnetic radiation in the form of…visible light…” ([0089]). Su teaches the benefit of this approach as more specific and sensitive compared to existing teachings ([0016]) -- Despite this, Su does not specifically teach the structural element of a light source. However, given that, Su teaches sample irradiation using (among others) visible light, and that the principle of detection via photo-activation taught by Su fully depends on said irradiation, as discussed above, there must necessarily exist a light source in Su such that the detection of analytes via photo-activation is enabled.),
wherein the nanowire FET chip comprising:
a substrate ([0030]);
a buried oxide layer disposed onto the substrate ([0104]: “Microcontact Printing ((CP). An “ink” of alkanethiols is spread on a patterned PDMS stamp. The stamp is then brought into contact with the substrate, which can range from coinage metals to oxide layers.” – See further para. [0076] discussing a metal-oxide-semiconductor FET (MOSFET) as a chip used in Su. Further note that the oxide layer is buried under the source/drain/nanowire in a standard nanowire FET device as evidenced through Grieshaber; see Grieshaber Fig. 7 below.);
a semiconductor nanowire disposed onto the buried oxide layer ([0077]: “In another embodiment of the invention, various nano-materials can be used in the field effect transistor, especially for serving as the channel between the source and drain, for enhanced sensitivity and selectivity. In a specific embodiment, the FET comprises a nanowire...” Further, nanowire FET devices comprise the nanowire standardly disposed over the oxide layer (to electrically insulate the wire) as evidenced through Grieshaber – see the general schematic (Grieshaber Fig. 8) below.);
a source region and a drain region formed at opposite ends of the semiconductor nanowire, defining a sensing area therebetween (See para. [0008] and Fig. 2 showing the source and drain, and para. [0077] discussing the nanowire as the channel between source and drain. See also Fig. 2 showing the sensing area being between the source and drain.); and
a back gate disposed beneath the buried oxide layer (See paras. [0008, 0074-0075] discussing the gate, and note that the gate in a nanowire FET is standardly disposed beneath the oxide layer, as evidenced through Grieshaber – see the general schematic (Grieshaber Fig. 8) below.),
wherein the sensing area of the FET chip includes a layer of linker molecules covalently bound thereto, and a plurality of probe molecules immobilized on the linker molecules ([0080]: “In the above embodiments of the invention, the first binding partner is immobilized on a surface of the sensor...Further, the immobilization can be made by forming a covalent bond between the first binding partner and the surface...” – [0115]: “The second binding partner may...be bound to...the first binding partner...”),
wherein the plurality of probe molecules comprise capture antibodies configured to bind with the specimen ([0091]: “As shown, capture molecules or capture probes, such as antibodies, are immobilized on a surface of the gate area of a field effect transistor.”); wherein the specimen is bound to a secondary antibody conjugated with an enzyme ([0115]: “A second binding partner, such as an antibody...conjugated with, or attached to a sensor compound, is bound to the analyte.” – [0037]: “The terms “label,” “tag” and “sensor compound” are used interchangeably...A label or tag used in biological assays include, but not limited to...an enzyme...”), and the enzyme reacts with a colorless substrate introduced into the fluidic channel to produce a colored product via an enzymatic color reaction ([0084]: “a sandwich type immunoassay, such as an ELISA type of detection assay, in which the first binding partner, or the capture molecule, is an antibody with affinity for the analyte, usually an antigen...The skilled artisan will be familiar with a variety of techniques by which an analyte/binding partner complex may be detected, any of which may be utilized within the scope of the embodiments of the invention.” Herein, the skilled artisan would recognize that the main enzyme systems used in ELISA are Horseradish peroxidase (works in a redox reaction with hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) to produce a colored product) and Alkaline phosphatase (hydrolyzes phosphate groups from colorless substrates to produce a colored product), thereby satisfying the colorimetric change requirement of the claim.),
as in Claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
432
764
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further regarding Claim 1, while Su teaches the general assembly and fundamental elements of a photo-activated field effect transistor as claimed in Claim 1 and as discussed above, Su does not specifically teach:
a fluidic pump;
and an electrical measurement unit;
wherein the fluidic channel is set over the sensing area of the nanowire FET chip and has an inlet and an outlet, and the fluidic pump is connected to the inlet of the fluidic channel and operable to drive a fluid and/or a specimen through the fluidic channel;
wherein the electrical measurement unit is connected to the sensor assembly to monitor a change in the electrical characteristics of the FET chip,
wherein the electrical measurement unit comprises a computer,
as in Claim 1.
However, Huang teaches a commensurate field effect transistor device (Fig. 2) and system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a fluidic pump 1010 (Fig. 10 and [0054]);
and an electrical measurement unit 102/106/108 (Fig. 1 and [0055]: “A readout circuit 106 is provided to measure signals from the sensors in sensor array 102 (the data acquisition unit) and to generate a quantifiable sensor signal indicative of the amount of a certain analyte that is present in a target solution…” – [0056]: “A controller 108 (the computer) may be used to send and receive electrical signals to both sensor array 102 and readout circuit 106 to perform bio- or chemical-sensing measurements.” – See further the discussion regarding Claim 3 below for the amplifier.),
wherein the fluidic channel has an inlet 1006 and an outlet 1008 (Fig. 10 and [0113]), and is set over the sensing area of the FET chip (See Fig. 10 showing the fluidic channel 1004 as being set over the sensors 1016a/b being the sensing area(s).), and the fluidic pump 1010 is connected to the inlet 1006 of the fluidic channel 1004 and operable to drive a fluid and/or a specimen through the fluidic channel 1004 (Fig. 10 shows the pump 1010 connected to the inlet 1006. – [0054]: “Fluid delivery system 104 may include any number of valves, pumps, chambers, channels designed to deliver fluid to sensor array 102.”), and the fluidic pump 1010 is connected to the inlet 1006 of the fluidic channel 1004 and operable to drive a fluid and/or a specimen through the fluidic channel 1004 (Fig. 10 shows the pump 1010 connected to the inlet 1006. – [0054]: “Fluid delivery system 104 may include any number of valves, pumps, chambers, channels designed to deliver fluid to sensor array 102.”),
wherein the electrical measurement unit 102/106/108 is connected to the sensor assembly 200 (Fig. 2 shows the electrical/measuring components 102/106/108 of the system as connected to the FET sensor 200 via electrical contacts 216 and 218. Fig. 1 further illustrates the connectivity of the system.) to monitor a change in the electrical characteristics of the FET chip ([0055]: “A readout circuit 106 is provided to measure [electrical] signals from the sensors in sensor array 102.” -- Thus, the overall electrical measurement unit 102/106/108 accordingly monitors changes in the electrical characteristics of the FET chip), wherein the electrical measurement unit comprises a computer ([0058]: “Controller 108 may include one or more processing devices, such as a microprocessor, and may be programmable to control the operation of readout circuit 106 and/or sensor array 102.”), as in Claim 1.
The microfluidic elements of Huang compose a structure wherein a plurality of FET sensors may be arranged in a single device, whereby a biological sample fluid is delivered to the plurality of detectors by the pump and microfluidic channels (Such as in Fig. 10), wherein the electrical measurement unit monitors and translates signals from the FET array. By this, the structure of Huang is capable of multiplexed analysis, and the structure is further capable of re-use after washing with a wash solution ([0074]).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the photo-activated field effect transistor taught by Su with microfluidic and electrical elements such as in Huang so as to provide a structure capable of re-use and multiplexed analysis as discussed above.
Further regarding Claim 1, Su/Huang does not specifically teach the FET chip discussed above wherein the computer is configured to rapidly switch the light source between an on state and an off state alternatively, and perform detection by measuring both a dark current when the light source is off and a photocurrent when the light source is on, wherein the electrical characteristics contain information about a the dark current and the photocurrent; the dark current corresponds to a change of charge resulting from binding of the specimen to the probe molecules; and the photocurrent corresponds to molecular absorption of the light source by the colored product of the enzymatic color reaction, as in Claim 1.
However, Hassibi teaches a respective biosensor comprising capture probes specific for a particular analyte, the capture probes immobilized on a semiconductor chip for electrical detection ([0008, 0026]), and a computer configured to rapidly switch the light source between an on state and an off state alternatively (See Fig. 6 and [0004]: “optical excitation pulses are analyzed after each excitation pulse is turned off”), and perform detection by measuring both a dark current when the light source is off ([0136]: “when added to dark current Idc, forms the random offset current” – See also Fig. 6 showing the measurement readout continuing when the excitation source is off, thereby measuring dark current each time the light source is in the off state.) and a photocurrent when the light source is on ([0133]: “The TGF pixels within the 32×32 array include a ΔΣ current detector that takes the photocurrent, Iph, as its input and produces a 1-bit digital output stream that is transferred into the on-chip decimation array.” -- See also Fig. 6 showing the measurement readout continuing when the excitation source is on, thereby measuring photocurrent each time the light source is in the on state.). Therein, this pulsed protocol is beneficial for reducing the signal-to-noise ration ([0081]), thereby improving the accuracy and precision of detection.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the FET device of Su/Huang wherein the computer is configured to rapidly switch the light source between an on state and an off state alternatively, and perform detection by measuring both a dark current when the light source is off and a photocurrent when the light source is on, such as suggested by Hassibi, so as to improve the signal to noise ratio and increase detection accuracy and precision.
Further as in Claim 1, regarding the dark current corresponds to a change of charge resulting from binding of the specimen to the probe molecules; and the photocurrent corresponds to molecular absorption of the light source by the colored product of the enzymatic color reaction:
When the light source in Su is off, as indicated by Su as a state of the light source before exposing the binding complex to light ([0092]), the dark current measurement provided through the pulsed protocol of Hassibi would necessarily only be due to (or experience a change due to) binding of analyte molecules to the capture probe, which implicitly provides a change in the charge landscape of the individual probe/analyte when formed as a complex due to direct electrostatic addition, localized electron density shifts, and structural (conformational) rearrangements. Further, when the colorimetric reaction occurs in Su through a typical ELISA, the colored molecules implicitly absorb visible light (causing the color). As such, when the light source is on, a change in charge will be observed upon absorption by the colored molecules because when a photon is absorbed by a molecule, the photon can transfer all its energy to an electron. If the photon's energy is higher than the material's binding energy (or work function), the electron is completely ejected, leaving behind a positively charged atom or region. If the photon's energy is less than the material's binding energy (or work function), the electron is promoted from a low-energy state to a high-energy state. This movement leaves a "hole" (a positive charge) in its original location and places the electron (a negative charge) in a new location, creating an internal charge separation which directly alters the local charge distribution.
Thus, in Su the dark current necessarily corresponds to a change of charge resulting from binding of the specimen to the probe molecules; and the photocurrent necessarily corresponds to molecular absorption of the light source by the colored product of the enzymatic color reaction as such processes are implicit in the change in charge distribution of the analyte solution in the channel above the chip as in Su/Huang.
Regarding Claim 3, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Huang teaches the FET system discussed above wherein the electrical measurement unit comprises:
a signal amplifier ([0078]: “Dual gate back-side FET sensor 502 may be coupled to additional circuitry fabricated within substrate 504…The circuitry may include amplifiers…”), and
a data acquisition unit 106 ([0055]: “A readout circuit 106 is provided to measure signals from the sensors in sensor array 102 and to generate a quantifiable sensor signal indicative of the amount of a certain analyte that is present in a target solution…”),
as in Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 4, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, when an apparatus is claimed, its patentability is based on the structure of the apparatus and not on the function it performs or the field in which it is applied. In this case, the type of information/electrical characteristics handled by the electrical measurement unit used in the claimed FET system is immaterial, as the function of determining properties/handling information related to the specimen remains the same.
Further, limitations based on the intended use of a structure do not confer patentability if the prior art is capable of performing the same function – see MPEP 2111.02(II). In this case, the electrical measurement unit 102/106/108, and particularly the readout circuit 106 ([0055]: “provided to measure signals from the sensors in sensor array”), of the FET system taught by Su in view of Huang is commensurately capable of monitoring electrical characteristics that contain information about both dark current and photocurrent, wherein the photocurrent is the absolute value of the difference between the current under illumination of the light source and the dark current (Given that photocurrent and dark current are merely the current flowing through the FET chip in the presence and absence of incident photon flux respectively.), and thus structurally anticipates the instant Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 7, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. When an apparatus is claimed, its patentability is based on the structure of the apparatus and not on the function it performs or the field in which it is applied. In this case, the type of specimen used in the claimed FET system is immaterial, as the function of measuring properties related to the specimen remains the same. To this end, the specimen is drawn to an intended workpiece that is not a positively claimed element of the system.
Further, limitations based on the intended use of a structure do not confer patentability if the prior art is capable of performing the same function – see MPEP 2111.02(II). In this case, the FET system taught by Su in view of Huang is commensurately capable of the analysis of biological specimens ([0030]: “The analytes for detection by a bioFET will normally be of biological origin, such as—without limitation—proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, tissue fragments, or portions thereof.”), and thus structurally anticipates the instant Claim 7.
Examiner further notes that “the specimen” is not a positively claimed structural element of the device and is drawn to the intended workpiece “a specimen” recited in Claim 1. As discussed above, Huang discloses the positively claimed structural element of a FET system that is fully capable of use with biological specimens.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su in view of Huang and Hassibi, as applied to Claims 1, 3-4, and 7 above, and in further view of Sharpe et al (US20140273192A1), referred to herein as “Sharpe,” and Crenshaw et al. (US20090142846A1), referred to herein as “Crenshaw.”
Regarding Claim 2, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Su/Huang does not specifically teach the FET system discussed above wherein the light source is a monochromator light source with a fiber connecting to the sensor assembly and/or a diode mounted on the sensor assembly.
However, regarding the monochromator light source, Su teaches, “…the radiation [or illumination] should not affect the underlying chemical or biological binding process, but only create an electrical charge separation within the label used in the process. A person skilled in the art should know the type and strength of the radiation to be used for the detection based on the nature of the electrical sensor and its surface, the biding partners, the analytes and the labels used in the procedure.” ([0089]). Thus, Su implies a narrow wavelength selection from a broader range depending on the sample/analytes at hand so as to be compatible with said sample/analytes at hand.
Despite this, Su does not specifically teach the structural element of a monochromator.
However, Crenshaw teaches the use of a microfluidic chip where a light source is employed for measuring biochemical reactions, as similarly contemplated by Su, wherein a monochromator is taught for “isolating a restricted region of the electromagnetic spectrum” depending on the sample to be analyzed at hand ([0187-0188]).
By this, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the FET chip taught by Su/Huang with a monochromator such as taught by Crenshaw so as to enable the wavelength selection contemplated by Su so as to avoid interference by unwanted wavelengths affecting the underlying biological processes on which measurement using the device depends.
Further, regarding the fiber connecting the monochromator light source to the sensor assembly, Sharpe teaches a microfluidic chip for the high throughput cell-sorting (abstract) wherein, “In one embodiment, a plurality of fiber optics may be employed to deliver multiple beams to one or more flow channels” ([0050]). Said beams provide an excitation wavelength to the sample and a detector captures the resulting fluorescence, providing information about multiple sample analytes of interest in the multiplexed structure supplied by a single light source and multiple fibers.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the light source of the photo-activated field effect transistor of Su/Huang with a fiber optic arrangement such as in Sharpe so as to provide multiple illumination beams from the single light source of Su to each FET sensor in the FET sensor array of Huang, wherein the light is confined within the fiber so as to avoid signal loss when delivering it to the chip, and would have a reasonable expectation of success in Su/Huang.
Response to Arguments
Drawings
Applicant’s replacement drawings sheets labeling the nanowire (indicated by Applicant as being previously mislabeled as the channel on page 9 of the instant Applicant’s remarks) overcome the drawings objection set forth by the previous office action. The drawings rejection is now withdrawn.
35 USC 112
Applicant’s amendments to Claim 1 providing specific architecture to the claimed FET device sufficiently overcome the rejections of Claim 1 as indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth by the previous office action. As such, the 35 USC 112(b) rejections over Claim 1 are withdrawn.
35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments are on the alleged grounds that none of the cited prior art references teach or suggest the amended Claim 1 recitations providing for a computer configured to measure both photocurrent and dark current while rapidly switching the light source on and off.
Applicant’s amendments sufficiently overcome the previous claim construction set forth by the prior office action as the photocurrent and dark current being drawn to intended use of the device, the amended computer now providing specific structural configuration thereto. However, the newly cited prior art of Hassibi provides for a semiconductor-type sensor having capture probes immobilized on a substrate surface and a controller monitoring photocurrent and dark current while pulsing a light source so as to improve the signal-to-noise ratio ([0136-0138]), wherein one skilled in the art would find it obvious to provide this configuration to Su/Huang so as to improve the accuracy and precision of measurement, as discussed above in the body of the action.
As such, Examiner sets forth the new grounds of rejection of Claims 1, 3-4, and 7, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments requiring the controller and its specific configuration, as unpatentable under 35 USC 103 over Su in view of Huang and Hassibi.
Applicant further argues that neither Su nor Hwang teach an ELISA-type arrangement where an enzyme produces a colorimetric change, and where the subsequent optical absorption by the colored molecule results in a photocurrent signal.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because Su teaches “a sandwich type immunoassay, such as an ELISA type of detection assay, in which the first binding partner, or the capture molecule, is an antibody with affinity for the analyte, usually an antigen...The skilled artisan will be familiar with a variety of techniques by which an analyte/binding partner complex may be detected, any of which may be utilized within the scope of the embodiments of the invention.” ([0084]). Therein, the skilled artisan would recognize that the main enzyme systems used in ELISA are Horseradish peroxidase (works in a redox reaction with hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) to produce a colored product) and Alkaline phosphatase (hydrolyzes phosphate groups from colorless substrates to produce a colored product), thereby satisfying the colorimetric change requirement of the claim.
Further, with regard to the photocurrent/absorption signal (Applicant’s cited computer to measure “molecular absorption...by the colored product”), when the ELISA is utilized in Su as suggested by Su, a colorimetric change is implicitly provided. As such a colorimetric change necessarily absorbs in the visible spectrum (as the color is visible to a viewer), the colored molecule absorbs light from the light source. Such an absorption when the light source is on necessarily causes a change in charge to be observed upon absorption by the colored molecules because when a photon is absorbed by a molecule (as indicated as occurring by the mere coloration of the molecule), the photon can transfer all its energy to an electron. If the photon's energy is higher than the material's binding energy (or work function), the electron is completely ejected, leaving behind a positively charged atom or region. If the photon's energy is less than the material's binding energy (or work function), the electron is promoted from a low-energy state to a high-energy state. This movement leaves a "hole" (a positive charge) in its original location and places the electron (a negative charge) in a new location, creating an internal charge separation which directly alters the local charge distribution. Such a change in the charge distribution is detected by the FET device as the current flowing through the detection area is altered by changes in charge in the fluid thereabove. As such, the device of Su is actually configured to measure molecular absorption, wherein the computer provided through Huang commensurately monitoring the charge distribution in the FET chip of Huang would commensurately detect such a change in Su. Thus, the combination of Su/Huang provides for a system for measuring absorbance of a colored product as claimed.
Thus, Examiner maintains the rejection of Claims 1, 3-4, and 7 as unpatentable over Su in view of Huang in the ELISA colorimetric change and detection aspects and, as discussed above, added the reference of Hassibi for the photocurrent, dark current, light source on/off provisions.
Applicant further alleges that the additional prior art references of Sharpe and Crenshaw fail to cure the asserted deficiencies of the amended Claim 1. However, as discussed above, no such deficiencies exist in view of Su/Huang with regard to an ELISA colorimetric assay, and the newly added prior art of Hassibi necessitated by Applicant’s amendments accounts for the light source on/off photocurrent and dark current aspects. As such, no deficiencies in amended Claim 1 are present which require Sharpe or Crenshaw, and Applicant’s arguments are thereby moot and claims depending from Claim 1 are not allowable merely by virtue of dependence on Claim 1.
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 BENJAMIN KASS whose telephone number is (703)756-5501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-3638. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
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 visit 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 need assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/B.J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/NEIL N TURK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights