DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant's response filed 9/29/2025 has been fully considered. The following rejections
and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4-11, and 14-19 are pending and examined on the merits.
Claim 2-3 and 12-13 are canceled.
Priority
The instant application filed 11/8/2021 is a 371 National Stage entry of PCT/US2020/031844 filed on 5/7/2020, and claims the benefit of priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/844,700 filed on May 07, 2019. Thus, the effective filing date of the claims is May 07, 2019.
The applicant is reminded that amendments to the claims and specification must comply with 35 U.S.C. § 120 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.121 to maintain priority to an earlier-filed application. Claim amendments may impact the effective filing date if new subject matter is introduced that lacks support in the originally filed disclosure. If an amendment adds limitations that were not adequately described in the parent application, the claim may no longer be entitled to the priority date of the earlier filing.
Withdrawn Rejections
35 USC § 101
The rejection of claims 1, 4-11, and 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. 101 withdrawn in view of Applicant's claim amendments. See “Response to Arguments under 35 USC § 101”, below, for details.
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 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process, a mathematical concept, organizing human activity, or a law of nature or natural phenomenon without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP § 2106, claims found to recite statutory subject matter (Step 1: YES) are then analyzed to determine if the claims recite any concepts that equate to an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon (Step 2A, Prong 1). In the instant application, the claims recite the following limitations that equate to an abstract idea:
Claim 17: “evaluate neurological activity and/or function of the brain organoid” provides an evaluation (evaluating neurological activity of the organoid) that may be performed in the human mind and is therefore considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
These recitations are similar to the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations in Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and comparing information regarding a sample or test to a control or target data in Univ. of Utah Research Found. v. Ambry Genetics Corp. (774 F.3d 755, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO (689 F.3d 1303, 103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2012)) that the courts have identified as concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind or are mathematical relationships. Therefore, these limitations fall under the “Mental process” and “Mathematical concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. As such, claims 17-19 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES).
Claims found to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong 1 are then further analyzed to determine if the claims as a whole integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or not (Step 2A, Prong 2). The judicial exceptions listed above are not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite an additional element or elements that reflects an improvement to technology. Specifically, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1: “receive the voltage change information from the sensor” provides insignificant extra-solution activities (receiving data is a pre-solution activity involving data gathering steps) that do not serve to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
“transmit the processed signals” provides insignificant extra-solution activities (transmitting data is a post-solution activity involving data sharing steps) that do not serve to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
“receiving the processed signals” provides insignificant extra-solution activities (receiving data is a pre-solution activity involving data gathering steps) that do not serve to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
The steps for receiving and transmitting data are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not serve to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application because they are pre- and post-solution activities involving data gathering, data manipulation, and sample manipulation steps (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)).
Claims found to be directed to a judicial exception are then further evaluated to determine if the claims recite an inventive concept that provides significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not serve to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application.
The limitations for receiving and transmitting data are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not serve to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application. Furthermore, no inventive concept is claimed by these limitations as they are well-understood, routine, and conventional.
The additional elements do not comprise an inventive concept when considered individually or as an ordered combination that transforms the claimed judicial exception into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: No). As such, claims 17-19 are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments filed 9/29/2025 are fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that claims 1-19 are not "directed to an abstract idea of a mental process, a mathematical concept, organizing human activity, or a law of nature or natural phenomenon without significantly more" (Remarks 9/29/2025 Page 1). Applicant argues that the amendment to claim 1 no longer recites the judicial exception indicated by Examiner. Examiner agrees that the amendment to claim 1, specifically the removal of "process the voltage change information to produce processed signals", renders the claim as no longer directed to mathematical calculations (producing voltage change requires calculating a difference) that are considered a mathematical concept, which is an abstract idea.
However, claim 17 remains unamended, and still recites "the responses of the controlled device are used to evaluate neurological activity and/or function of the brain organoid", which the Examiner has indicated above provides an evaluation (evaluating neurological activity of the organoid) that may be performed in the human mind and is therefore considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea. While claim 17 is not specifically addressed in the Applicant's Remarks, it depends from amended claim 1 and therefore Applicant would presumably make the same argument that the additional elements of amended claim 1 ("receiving and transmitting of information from the 'brain organoid'") provide real-world practical application to claim 17 as well (Remarks 9/29/2025 Pages 2-3). Applicant concludes their argument with the following analysis; that because claim 1 includes the additional element of a brain organoid culture that is tangible which does not exist in nature, "this element is well beyond any judicial exception and renders claim 1, upon which the remaining claims depend, as patent eligible" (Remarks 9/29/2025 Page 3). The Examiner notes that the property of the brain organoid as being tangible, natural, organic, native, or the like is not what is in question here under Step 2A Prong 2 or Step 2B. As noted by Applicant, Step 2A Prong 2 is concerned with practical application of the judicial exception by way of an additional element. The Examiner maintains that the elements of receiving and transmitting information to/from a brain organoid are not a practical application because, as indicated above, these are insignificant extra-solution activities involving data sharing/gathering steps that do not serve to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B is concerned with whether or not the recited additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, again, as noted by Applicant. The Examiner again maintains that the elements of receiving and transmitting information to/from a brain organoid do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no inventive concept is claimed by these limitations as they are well-understood, routine, and conventional, as evidenced by Brown et al. (Page 2, col 2, paragraph 2 "The invention of the patch clamp technique has allowed experimenters to record single ion channels, small groups of channels, or intracellular membrane potentials or current in practically any cell type using only a single electrode. Since its development in the late 1970s many variations have been established, and it is now considered the gold standard method for studying the activity of ion channels", Brown et al., "Patch clamp." British Journal of Hospital Medicine 77.5 (2016): C74-C77).
Therefore, while claims 1, 4-11, and 14-16 are no longer rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea, the rejection of claims 17-19 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-11, and 14-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartlaub et al. (Hartlaub et al, Modeling Human Brain Circuitry Using Pluripotent Stem Cell Platforms, Front. Pediatr., 04 March 2019, Sec. Pediatric Neurology, Volume 7 - 2019. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2019.00057) in view of Collins (US-20180120294), Tan et al. (Tan et al., A neural interface provides long-term stable natural touch perception. Sci. Transl. Med.6,257ra138-257ra138(2014). DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3008669), and Prox et al. (Prox et al., Integrated biocircuits: engineering functional multicellular circuits and devices, Journal of Neural Engineering, Volume 15, Number 2, Published 14 February 2018, DOI 10.1088/1741-2552/aaa906).
Regarding claim 1, Hartlaub teaches a brain organoid culture (Page 5 Figure 1 "Brain organoid on a chip").
Hartlaub also teaches the brain organoid culture is comprised predominantly of proliferative neural progenitor cells (NPCs) that have self-organized into a polarized neuroepithelium-like structure having pyramidally-shaped neurons, dendritic spines and structurally defined synapses (Page 3 col 1 paragraph 1 "Six-month-old developed whole brain organoids were shown to contain cells predominately belonging to the neuroectodermal lineage such as astrocytes, oligodendrocyte precursor cells, neural progenitor cells, dopaminergic neurons, cortical neurons such as GABAergic and glutamatergic neurons, interneurons, retinal cells, and mesodermal progenitor cells", Page 4 col 1 paragraph 4 "An efficient differentiation protocol was used to generate hDG and pyramidal human CA3 neuronal subtypes using hiPSCs from schizophrenic (SZ) and healthy patients", and Page 1 Introduction paragraph 1 “Then through a process of synaptic refinement and dissipation of the subplate occurring between weeks 24 and 28 GA, more permanent connections are established within the cortical plate that include longer range thalamo-cortical and corticocortico circuits (1–4)”).
Hartlaub also teaches the brain organoid culture comprise pyramidally-shaped neurons, dendritic spines and structurally defined synapses (Page 4 col 1 paragraph 4 "An efficient differentiation protocol was used to generate hDG and pyramidal human CA3 neuronal subtypes using hiPSCs from schizophrenic (SZ) and healthy patients").
Hartlaub also teaches a sensor comprising a multi-electrode array (MEA) that sense voltage amplitude and/or frequency in the brain organoid culture (Page 5 col 2 paragraph 2 "With the development of new technologies to record extracellular field potentials from multiple neurons with high spatial and temporal resolution using multi-electrode arrays (MEAs), assays could be developed to record the electrophysiological properties of brain organoids in the context of normal development or exposure to environmental factors.").
Hartlaub does not explicitly teach; a processing unit to receive the voltage amplitude and/or frequency from the sensor and transmit the voltage amplitude and/or frequency; the MEA is attached to or immediately adjacent to a substrate comprising the brain organoid culture; nor a controlled device for receiving the voltage amplitude and/or frequency.
However, Collins teaches a processing unit to receive the voltage amplitude and/or frequency from the sensor and transmit the voltage amplitude and/or frequency (Para.0050 "In accordance with yet another aspect of the present invention, there are provided methods for measuring voltages from the cells or stimulating the cells using current or voltage pulses using a Field Point Gated Array (FPGA) or microcontroller equipped with memories including flash, SDRAM, SRAM and hard drive and to control the devices such as voltage pulse generator, fluidic pumps and valves and memory transaction as well as transmit data from the voltage amplifiers/Data acquisition (DAQ) system to a remote server wirelessly or through wire.").
However, Prox teaches the MEA is attached to or immediately adjacent to a substrate comprising the brain organoid culture (Page 4 Figure 1 description "A microelectrode array (MEA) integrated with clustering structures for investigating in vitro neurodynamics in confined interconnected sub-populations of neurons", and Page 4 Figure 1(D) "MEA integrated with interconnected neuronal populations").
However, Tan teaches a controlled device for receiving the voltage amplitude and/or frequency (Page 10 col 2 last paragraph "Control of the hand was driven by subjects using standard surface electromyography signals").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the methods of Hartlaub as taught by Collins in order to measure the voltage changes from the brain organoid culture and to send electric signals as stimulation (Para.0050 "there are provided methods for measuring voltages from the cells or stimulating the cells using current or voltage pulses”). One skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because both approaches are using differentiated iPSCs cultured on multi-electrode (or micro-electrode) arrays (MEAs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the methods of Hartlaub as taught by Prox in order to capture synchronized burst events to instill learned responses by a network from an external stimulus (page 5 col 2 paragraph 1 "Evidence for plasticity within in vitro neuronal culture is thought to reside in the synchronized burst events (SBE) that begin to occur as networks mature (Madhavan 2007). Extensive research has been pursued in developing methodology for inducing SBEs to instill a learned response by a network from an external stimulus (Jimbo et al 1998, Marom and Shahaf 2002, Le Feber et al 2010, Pimashkin et al 2016, Sokolov et al 2016). Traditionally this involves the use of chemical antagonists (Baruchi and Ben-Jacob 2007, Li et al 2007), and/or electrical stimulation and recording with microelectrode arrays (MEAs) (Massobrio et al 2015)"). One skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because both approaches are using differentiated iPSCs cultured on MEAs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the high density MEAs of Hartlaub with the controlled device of Tan in order to improve sensation coverage on the prosthetic hand device (page 7 col 1 paragraph 1 "Higher density contact arrays may further improve coverage on the hand"). One skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because both approaches are using electrical signals from neuronal cells to control a device.
Regarding claim 4, Prox also teaches the sensor is attached to or immediately adjacent to a substrate comprising the brain organoid culture; and the sensor is in contact with the brain organoid culture (Page 4 Figure 1(D) "MEA integrated with interconnected neuronal populations").
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Collins also teaches the sensor and processing unit are connected with one or more cables comprising electrical or optically conducting wires; and the sensor and processing unit are wirelessly connected (Para.0156 "Data from the system to record signals and to control the system may be carried out remotely using a wired network or wireless network connected to computer system 12 via connection 11.").
Regarding claim 7, Hartlaub also teaches the voltage change information comprises one or more of neuron spikes, electrocorticogram signals, local field potential signals, and electroencephalogram signals (Page 1 col 1 paragraph 4 "Multi-electrode array (MEA) recordings and whole-cell patch clamp techniques established that the SZ hCA3 neurons had defects in both spontaneous and evoked electrophysiological activity.").
Regarding claim 8, Prox also teaches the MEA is patterned (Page 4 Figure 1(A) "Adhesion of neurons on photolithographic grid pattern").
Regarding claim 9, Prox also teaches the controlled device is one or more of the group consisting of a computer, a computer display, a mouse, a cursor, an artificial or prosthetic limb, a robot or robotic device, a computer controlled device, a vehicle, and a communication device or system (Page 3 paragraph 1 "With the aim to develop a platform technology of implantable and programmable cellular systems, namely Integrated Biocircuits, such designs could be engineered to leverage more robust communication with neural networks to modulate and restore disrupted brain functions. In addition, this venture introduces the concept of autologous biodevices that would greatly improve the stability and biocompatibility of future neuroprosthetics (Guo 2016).").
Regarding claim 10, Tan also teaches the controlled device comprises a feed-back system (Page 5 col 2 paragraph 2 "Sensory feedback significantly improved performance (43 to 93% success) without audiovisual feedback (test of two proportions, P < 0.001, n = 15 per condition) (Fig. 5E).").
Regarding claim 11, Tan also teaches the feed-back system comprises signals to deliver a physical, optical or chemical stimuli to the brain organoid culture transmitted from a sensor on the controlled device (Page 3 col 2 paragraph 3 "Modulation of stimulation intensity resulted in a description by subject 1 of the perception changing from “tingly” to “as natural as can be.” He variously described the sensation as pulsing pressure, constant pressure, vibration, tapping, and rubbing on a texture. In the full-scale modulation pattern, the width of the pulses in the pulse train (f(0) = 100 Hz) followed a slow (f(mod) = 1 Hz) sinusoidal envelope.").
Regarding claim 14, Prox also teaches the brain organoid culture comprises cells differentiated from induced pluripotent stem cells (Page 6 col 2 paragraph 2 "In another study, human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) suspension cultures with FGF2 and inhibitors of bone morphogenetic protein (BMP), Wnt/β-catenin, and TGF-β/activin/nodal pathways, aggregated into 3D layered structures of that closely resembled forebrain in vivo cytoarchitecture. These aggregates contained hiPSC-derived radial glia and cortical neurons that had genetic profiles eliciting a transcriptional program that was highly enriched in transcription factors involved in the development of the dorsal telencephalon (Mariani et al 2012).").
Regarding claim 15, Hartlaub also teaches the iPSCs are derived from somatic cells of a subject with a neurodegenerative disease or disorder (Page 4 col 1 paragraph 4 "An efficient differentiation protocol was used to generate hDG and pyramidal human CA3 neuronal subtypes using hiPSCs from schizophrenic (SZ) and healthy patients").
Regarding claim 16, Tan also teaches the controlled device responds to the processed signals (Page 5 col 2 paragraph 2 "When sensory feedback was not provided, the subject successfully plucked 43 and 77% of the cherries without (S−/AV−) or with (S−/AV+) audiovisual feedback, respectively. When sensory feedback was provided, the subject successfully plucked 93 and 100% of the cherries without (S+/AV−) or with (S+/AV+) audiovisual feedback, respectively (Fig. 5E).").
Regarding claim 17, Tan also teaches the responses of the controlled device are used to evaluate neurological activity and/or function of the brain organoid (Page 5 col 2 paragraph 2 "Sensory feedback significantly improved performance (43 to 93% success) without audiovisual feedback (test of two proportions, P < 0.001, n = 15 per condition) (Fig. 5E).").
Regarding claim 18, Collins also teaches the controlled device is used to study changes in neurological activity and/or function in the presence and absence of an external stimuli (Para.0178 "In each reactor, several recording electrodes 1501 and a center stimulating electrode 1502 are formed in an n×m array as in FIG. 15A.").
Regarding claim 19, Collins also teaches the external stimuli is a chemical agent, drug or protein (Para.0173 "In this chip, perfusion or fluidic pulse of cell media with drug is carried out for several days to weeks.").
Response to Arguments under 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments filed 9/29/2025 are fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant asserts that Hartlaub does "not teach or suggest a brain organoid culture comprising an MEA and controlled device", and that the Examiner recognized that Hartlaub, Collins nor Tan explicitly teach the sensor comprise a multi-electrode array (MEA) (Remarks 9/29/2025 Page 3). The Examiner has indicated above that Hartlaub does in fact teach a brain organoid culture comprising a MEA for sensing voltage and/or amplitude (Page 5 col 2 paragraph 2 "With the development of new technologies to record extracellular field potentials from multiple neurons with high spatial and temporal resolution using multi-electrode arrays (MEAs), assays could be developed to record the electrophysiological properties of brain organoids in the context of normal development or exposure to environmental factors."). Examiner has also indicated above that while Hartlaub does not explicitly teach "a controlled device for receiving the voltage amplitude and/or frequency", Tan teaches this limitation (Page 10 col 2 last paragraph "Control of the hand was driven by subjects using standard surface electromyography signals").
Applicant asserts that Collins does not teach or suggest brain organoids, however concedes that "Hartlaub in view of Collins, at most provides a brain organoid culture in a microfluidic device with one or more sensors", and that the difference from this and the present invention is that the present invention is not directed to a microfluidic device and rather is directed to "a controlled device" (Remarks 9/29/2025 Page 4). The Examiner notes that the microfluidic device of Collins and the prosthetic devices of Tan encompass "a controlled device" as indicated above.
Applicant asserts that Tan is not reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the Applicant "because it neither (1) addresses the same problem nor (2) serves the same purpose" (Remarks 9/29/2025 Page 5). Examiner notes that while Tan does not use a brain organoid to control a device, the same biological material (brain/neurons) is being sensed (voltage) using electrodes. Thus, the subject matter of Tan is reasonably pertinent to the Applicant's problem "to understand the biological signaling in brain organoid cultures" (Remarks 9/29/2025 Page 3) because the same methods may be used for measuring these signals in both Tan and the instant application (as well as Hartlaub and Collins), rendering a strong motivation and reasonable expectation of success for combination of the three references.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant also asserts that Prox does not teach a brain organoid (Remarks 9/29/2025 Page 6). The Examiner notes that the support from Prox is for the integration of the MEA to a brain organoid. While it is conceded that Prox does not explicitly teach a brain organoid, it is obvious to integrate the MEA biocircuit with Hartlaubs brain organoid to yield an MEA that is attached to or immediately adjacent to a substrate comprising the brain organoid culture.
Finally, regarding "the brain organoid of claim 1, which recites '…a polarized neuroepithelium-like structure having pyramidally-shaped neurons, dendritic spines and structurally defined synapses…", the Applicant asserts that "none of the cited reference teach such a brain organoid comprising such a biological structure" (Remarks 9/29/2025 Page 6). The Examiner has indicated above that Hartlaub also teaches the brain organoid culture is comprised predominantly of proliferative neural progenitor cells (NPCs) that have self-organized into a polarized neuroepithelium-like structure having pyramidally-shaped neurons, dendritic spines and structurally defined synapses (Page 3 col 1 paragraph 1 "Six-month-old developed whole brain organoids were shown to contain cells predominately belonging to the neuroectodermal lineage such as astrocytes, oligodendrocyte precursor cells, neural progenitor cells, dopaminergic neurons, cortical neurons such as GABAergic and glutamatergic neurons, interneurons, retinal cells, and mesodermal progenitor cells", Page 4 col 1 paragraph 4 "An efficient differentiation protocol was used to generate hDG and pyramidal human CA3 neuronal subtypes using hiPSCs from schizophrenic (SZ) and healthy patients", and Page 1 Introduction paragraph 1 “Then through a process of synaptic refinement and dissipation of the subplate occurring between weeks 24 and 28 GA, more permanent connections are established within the cortical plate that include longer range thalamo-cortical and corticocortico circuits (1–4)”).
Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained. All other claims depend from claim 1, therefore their rejection is also maintained.
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 TH REE-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 finaI action.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert A. Player whose telephone number is (571)272-6350. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Larry D. Riggs can be reached on 571-270-3062. 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.
/R.A.P./Examiner, Art Unit 1686
/LARRY D RIGGS II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1686