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 .
Application Status
This action is written in response to applicant’s correspondence received on 10/17/2025. Claims 1 and 4-10 are pending. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2-3 have been cancelled. Claim 10 is newly added. All pending claims are currently under examination.
Any rejection or objection not reiterated herein has been overcome by amendment. Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been thoroughly reviewed, but are not persuasive to place the claims in condition for allowance for the reasons that follow. This Office Action is Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 – New Rejection Necessitated by Amendment
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
the claimed invention is directed to a naturally occurring product of nature without significantly more.
The following 101 rejection is a new rejection made in light of Applicant’s amendments filed 10/17/2025.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites a modified fibronin H protein comprising an N-terminal, central region, and C-terminal, where either the N or C terminal has been deleted. Claim 1 further recites that the central region has three or more linked central repeat selected from SEQ ID NOs 5-8 and 10-12, where the amino acid sequences can be the same or different. Claim 1 recites that the missing N-terminal region is SEQ ID NO:1 and the C-terminal is SEQ ID NO:2.
With regards to the structure recited in claim 1, UniProt A0A4C1Z980 (hereinafter ‘980, UniProt accession number A0A4C1Z980, published 7/3/2019) teaches a firbonin protein and amino acid sequence (pages 1 and 2). Note that ‘980 does not comprise SEQ ID NO:1 at its N-terminus, and therefore structurally is identical to a protein which has such an N-terminal sequence deleted.
Furthermore, regarding the claim limitation that the central region comprises linked repeat sequences, where the sequences can be the same or different amino acids, ‘980 comprises two copies of instantly recited SEQ ID NO:10 and one copy of
SEQ ID NO: 8 (see alignment, below):
1369-AAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAGSGAGAGGAGGYGAGAGAGAGAGAGGAGGAGGAGGAGGAGGYGGAGVVYVSAGGAGAGAGSGAGAGSGAGAGAGSGAGAGGAGAAAGAGAGAGSG
AAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAGSGAGAGGAGGYGAGAGAGAGAGAGGAGGAGGAGGAGGAGGYGGAGVVYVSAGGAGAGAGSGAGAGSGAGAGAGSGAGAGGAGAAAGAGAGAGSG
AGSGSGAGAGAGSGAGAGSGAGAGAGAGSGAAGGAGAGAGAG- 1527 (Residues 1369-1527 of ‘980)
AGSGSGAGAGAGSGAGAGSGAGAGAGAGSGAAGGAGAGAGAG -159 (SEQ ID NO: 10, bottom)
2919-AAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAGSGAGAGGAGGYGAGAGAGAGAGAGGAGGAGGAGGAGGAGGYGGAGVVYVSAGGAGAGAGSGAGAGSGAGAGAGSGAGAGGAGAAAGAGAGAGSG
AAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAGSGAGAGGAGGYGAGAGAGAGAGAGGAGGAGGAGGAGGAGGYGGAGVVYVSAGGAGAGAGSGAGAGSGAGAGAGSGAGAGGAGAAAGAGAGAGSG
AGSGSGAGAGAGSGAGAGSGAGAGAGAGSGAAGGAGAGAGAG – 3385 (residues 2919-3385 of ‘980, top)
AGSGSGAGAGAGSGAGAGSGAGAGAGAGSGAAGGAGAGAGAG – SEQ ID NO: 10 (bottom)
3195-AGSGSGAGAGAGSGAVAGSGAGSGAAGGAGAGAGAGAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAGSGAGAGGAGGYGAGAGAGAGAGAGGASGGYGSYGSGVAAGAGAGAGVGGSRGAGVGAGVGAG
AGSGSGAGAGAGSGAVAGSGAGSGAAGGAGAGAGAGAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAGSGAGAGGAGGYGAGAGAGAGAGAGGASGGYGSYGSGVAAGAGAGAGVGGSRGAGVGAGVGAG
YGSALNSGAGAGAGAGAGAGGAAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAG – 3353 (Residues 3195-3353 of ‘980, top)
YGSALNSGAGAGAGAGAGAGGAAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAG – SEQ ID NO: 8 (bottom)
Thus, ‘980 comprises two copies of SEQ ID NO: 10 from residues 1369-1527 and 2919-3385. ‘980 further comprise a copy of SEQ ID NO: 8 from residues 3195-3353 (See alignments, above). Thus, ‘980 comprises a central region which comprises at least three or more linked repeat units (linked by covalent bonds in the region), where the repeat units are selected from two copies of SEQ ID NO: 10 and one copy of SEQ ID NO: 8 (“wherein each central region consists of the same and/or different amino acid sequences).
Additionally, ‘980 comprises SEQ ID NO: 2 at its C-terminus (See alignment below):
3354-FASYGRPGVRGCQLSRKYLLVKVGLRSTCSDC – 3385 (Residues 3354-3385 of ‘980)
FASYGRPGVRGCQLSRKYLLVKVGLRSTCSDC – SEQ ID NO: 2
Thus, ‘980 is a naturally occurring amino acid sequence as taught by ‘980 to occur E. japonica as evidenced by the amino acid sequence provided with the structure (Step 2A, prong 1).
Furthermore, ‘980 is a protein that was isolated by Kono (Kono N et al. 2019 Apr 29;2:148) and uploaded to UniProt (see page 1 of ‘980). Kono teaches that the data they generated were from naturally occurring genomes of various bagworms (Abstract, Table 1). Thus, ‘980 is a naturally encoded gene within a bagworm cell.
Regarding steps 2A prong 2 and Step 2B, no other elements are recited in claim 1 which would impart practical application or transform the claim into significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim is simply directed to an amino acid sequence. Claim 1 is therefore not patent eligible subject matter. Furthermore, regarding the claim limitation that the repeat units are “linked,” the repeat units are linked in ‘980 because they are linked by adjoining amino acid residues, and therefore are linked within the same protein structure.
Regarding claim 4, as taught by ‘980, the ‘980 protein is encoded by E. japonica
(page 1 of ‘980 for organism and gene locus information). Thus, claim 4 is reciting a
naturally encoded gene as taught by ‘980 (page 1). Claim 4 does not recite any
additional elements which would integrate the claim limitations into a practical
application or transform it into significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites an expression vector expressing the gene of
claim 4. The claims and specification do not clearly define the term “expression vector.”
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “expression vector” would include,
for instance, the natural expression system of the genome of E. japonica. ‘980 teaches
the recited gene of claim 4, that it is encoded in a locus and translated into a protein
(page 1 of ‘980). Therefore, the “expression vector” of claim 6 is a naturally occurring
product of nature, where the expression vector is expressed as protein in the cell of the
host organism. Claim 6 does not recite additional claim limitations which would integrate
the limitations into a practical application or transform the claim into significantly more
than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites a transformant consisting of a host comprising the expression vector of claim 6. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim is
simply directed to a cell comprising the expression vector of claim 6. Thus, claim 7 is
simply drawn to naturally occurring cell (i.e., a cell of E. japonica which is expressing the
gene taught in ‘980).
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 most broadly encompasses an insect cell, as the term
“insect culture cell” is not specifically defined in the specification, claims, or drawings.
Thus, claim 8 is drawn to a cell inside of the bagworm insect E. japonica (page 1 of
‘980).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites that there are four or more linked central repeat units. As discussed above, ‘980 comprises three central repeat units from those selected in claim 1 (see alignments above, where ‘980 comprises two copies of SEQ ID NO: 10 and one copy of SEQ ID NO: 8). ‘980 further comprises an additional linked repeat unit which matches instantly recited SEQ ID NO: 12 (see alignment below):
2145-
AAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAGSGAGAGGAGGYGAGAGAGAGAGAGGAGGAGGAGGAGGYGGASVVYVGAGGAGAGAGSGAGAGSGAGAGAGSGAGAGGAGAAAGAGAGAGSGAGSGSGA
AAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAGSGAGAGGAGGYGAGAGAGAGAGAGGAGGAGGAGGAGGYGGASVVYVGAGGAGAGAGSGAGAGSGAGAGAGSGAGAGGAGAAAGAGAGAGSGAGSGSGA
GAGAGSGAGAGSGAGAGAGAGSGAAGGAGAGAG – SEQ ID NO: 12 (top)
GAGAGSGAGAGSGAGAGAGAGSGAAGGAGAGAG – 2298 (residues 2145-2298 of ‘980, bottom)
Thus, ‘980 comprises two copies of central repeat unit SEQ ID NO: 10, one copy of central repeat unit SEQ ID NO: 8, and one copy of central repeat unit SEQ ID NO: 12, for a total of four central repeat units selected from those sequences listed in claim 1 (see alignments above for claims 1 and 10). Thus, the structure of ‘980 also reads on instantly recited claim 10, where the structure is identical to the naturally occurring product of ‘980 without markedly different characteristics. Furthermore, no other claim limitations are recited in the claim. Claim 10 is therefore drawn to a naturally occurring product of nature with no other limitations which would integrate the product into a practical application or transform the claim into significantly more (Steps 2A prong 2 and Step 2B). Claim 10 is therefore not patent eligible subject matter.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant argues that by limiting claim 1 to SEQ ID NOs 5-8 and 10-12 the subject matter is patent eligible. This argument is not persuasive because the Applicant’s amendments necessitated a new search which uncovered the protein structure ‘980 which comprises SEQ ID NOs 8, 10, and 12 and reads on the presently recited claim limitations. Claims 1, 4, 6-8, and 10 are therefore not patent eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) – Withdrawn
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the original 112(b) rejections. Regarding the 112(b) rejection of claim 6, the rejection is withdrawn. The phrase "a state that allows for the expression" is defined in the specification at paragraph 30. Thus, claim 6 is not indefinite.
112(a) – Enablement - Withdrawn
The 112(a) enablement rejection in the non-final rejection mailed 7/1/2025 is withdrawn. The Applicant argues that the claims are drawn to specific limitations with regards to the core central repeat unit. This argument is persuasive, as a practitioner is enabled to make and use such products recited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 -New Rejection Necessitated by Amendment
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by UniProt A0A4C1Z980 (hereinafter ‘980, UniProt accession number A0A4C1Z980, published 7/3/2019).
The following 102 rejection is a new rejection made in light of Applicant’s amendments filed 10/17/2025.
With regards to the structure recited in claim 1, UniProt A0A4C1Z980 (hereinafter ‘980, UniProt accession number A0A4C1Z980, published 7/3/2019) teaches a firbonin protein and amino acid sequence (pages 1 and 2). Note that ‘980 does not comprise SEQ ID NO:1 at its N-terminus, and therefore structurally is identical to a protein which has such an N-terminal sequence deleted, as presently recited in claim 1.
Furthermore, regarding the claim limitation that the central region comprises linked repeat sequences, where the sequences can be the same or different amino acids, ‘980 comprises two copies of instantly recited SEQ ID NO:10 and one copy of
SEQ ID NO: 8 (see alignment, below):
1369-AAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAGSGAGAGGAGGYGAGAGAGAGAGAGGAGGAGGAGGAGGAGGYGGAGVVYVSAGGAGAGAGSGAGAGSGAGAGAGSGAGAGGAGAAAGAGAGAGSG
AAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAGSGAGAGGAGGYGAGAGAGAGAGAGGAGGAGGAGGAGGAGGYGGAGVVYVSAGGAGAGAGSGAGAGSGAGAGAGSGAGAGGAGAAAGAGAGAGSG
AGSGSGAGAGAGSGAGAGSGAGAGAGAGSGAAGGAGAGAGAG- 1527 (Residues 1369-1527 of ‘980)
AGSGSGAGAGAGSGAGAGSGAGAGAGAGSGAAGGAGAGAGAG -159 (SEQ ID NO: 10, bottom)
2919-AAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAGSGAGAGGAGGYGAGAGAGAGAGAGGAGGAGGAGGAGGAGGYGGAGVVYVSAGGAGAGAGSGAGAGSGAGAGAGSGAGAGGAGAAAGAGAGAGSG
AAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAGSGAGAGGAGGYGAGAGAGAGAGAGGAGGAGGAGGAGGAGGYGGAGVVYVSAGGAGAGAGSGAGAGSGAGAGAGSGAGAGGAGAAAGAGAGAGSG
AGSGSGAGAGAGSGAGAGSGAGAGAGAGSGAAGGAGAGAGAG – 3385 (residues 2919-3385 of ‘980, top)
AGSGSGAGAGAGSGAGAGSGAGAGAGAGSGAAGGAGAGAGAG – SEQ ID NO: 10 (bottom)
3195-AGSGSGAGAGAGSGAVAGSGAGSGAAGGAGAGAGAGAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAGSGAGAGGAGGYGAGAGAGAGAGAGGASGGYGSYGSGVAAGAGAGAGVGGSRGAGVGAGVGAG
AGSGSGAGAGAGSGAVAGSGAGSGAAGGAGAGAGAGAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAGSGAGAGGAGGYGAGAGAGAGAGAGGASGGYGSYGSGVAAGAGAGAGVGGSRGAGVGAGVGAG
YGSALNSGAGAGAGAGAGAGGAAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAG – 3353 (Residues 3195-3353 of ‘980, top)
YGSALNSGAGAGAGAGAGAGGAAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAG – SEQ ID NO: 8 (bottom)
Thus, ‘980 comprises two copies of SEQ ID NO: 10 from residues 1369-1527 and 2919-3385. ‘980 further comprise a copy of SEQ ID NO: 8 from residues 3195-3353 (See alignments, above). Thus, ‘980 comprises a central region which comprises at least three or more linked repeat units (linked by covalent bonds in the region), where the repeat units are selected from two copies of SEQ ID NO: 10 and one copy of SEQ ID NO: 8 (“wherein each central region consists of the same and/or different amino acid sequences).
Additionally, ‘980 comprises SEQ ID NO: 2 at its C-terminus (See alignment below):
3354-FASYGRPGVRGCQLSRKYLLVKVGLRSTCSDC – 3385 (Residues 3354-3385 of ‘980)
FASYGRPGVRGCQLSRKYLLVKVGLRSTCSDC – SEQ ID NO: 2
Thus, ‘980 recites all of the structural claim limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, ‘980 teaches that the protein is associated with a open reading frame (ORF) and nucleotide sequence (page 1, lines “GN” and “RP”). Thus, ‘980 teaches a gene encoding the protein of claim 1, as a practitioner could immediately envision that the protein taught by ‘980 is encoded by a gene.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites that there are four or more linked central repeat units. As discussed above, ‘980 comprises three central repeat units from those selected in claim 1 (see alignments above, where ‘980 comprises two copies of SEQ ID NO: 10 and one copy of SEQ ID NO: 8). ‘980 further comprises an additional linked repeat unit which matches instantly recited SEQ ID NO: 12 (see alignment below):
2145-
AAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAGSGAGAGGAGGYGAGAGAGAGAGAGGAGGAGGAGGAGGYGGASVVYVGAGGAGAGAGSGAGAGSGAGAGAGSGAGAGGAGAAAGAGAGAGSGAGSGSGA
AAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAGSGAGAGGAGGYGAGAGAGAGAGAGGAGGAGGAGGAGGYGGASVVYVGAGGAGAGAGSGAGAGSGAGAGAGSGAGAGGAGAAAGAGAGAGSGAGSGSGA
GAGAGSGAGAGSGAGAGAGAGSGAAGGAGAGAG – SEQ ID NO: 12 (top)
GAGAGSGAGAGSGAGAGAGAGSGAAGGAGAGAG – 2298 (residues 2145-2298 of ‘980, bottom)
Thus, ‘980 comprises two copies of central repeat unit SEQ ID NO: 10, one copy of central repeat unit SEQ ID NO: 8, and one copy of central repeat unit SEQ ID NO: 12, for a total of four central repeat units selected from those sequences listed in claim 1 (see alignments above for claims 1 and 10). Thus, the structure of ‘980 also reads on instantly recited claim 10, where the structure is identical to the amino acid sequence recited in ‘980.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant argues that the new amendments render the original 102 rejection moot. This argument is persuasive. However, Applicant’s amendments have prompted a new search which has uncovered ‘980 which reads on claims 1,4, and 10 as discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 – New Rejection Necessitated by Amendment
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia (Xia XX et al.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Aug 10;107(32):14059-63) in view of Kono (Kono N et al. 2019 Apr 29;2:148) and UniProt A0A4C1Z980 (hereinafter ‘980, UniProt accession number A0A4C1Z980, published 7/3/2019).
The following 103 rejection is a new rejection made in light of Applicant’s amendments filed 10/17/2025.
Xia is a research article that focuses on the recombinant production of silk in engineered E. coli cells with the aim of making stronger fibers (Title, Abstract, and throughout). Xia teaches that silk strength is a desirable quality in a fiber with numerous applications (e.g., Abstract). Xia therefore teaches a motivation to manufacture silks with high tensile strength/fiber strength (Abstract). Furthermore, Xia teaches the construction of recombinant microorganisms (E. coli) comprising expression vectors, where the expression vectors are transformed into E. coli to make transformants comprising the expression vector encoding a gene to express silk (see Figure 1 and its caption).
Xia does not explicitly teach the sequence of the protein of claim 4.
Kono teaches sequencing bagworm genomes, including the silk firboin gene (Abstract). Kono teaches the fibroin gene ‘980 (see page 1 of ‘980, which teaches that the sequence of the fibroin gene was uploaded by Kono). The teachings of Kono/’980 regarding the gene recited in claim 4 are discussed above in the 102 rejection of claim 4. Thus, Kono teaches the gene recited in claim 4. Furthermore, Kono teaches that bagworm silk in particular has high tensile strength and therefore teaches a motivation to use the sequences of silk that they teach (Title, Abstract, and Discussion).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the present claims to modify the expression constructs taught by Xia to encode the bagworm silk gene taught by Kono/’980 because such a combination is the simple substitution of one known element for another. In the present case, a practitioner would substitute the silk proteins taught by Xia for the bagworm silk proteins taught by Kono/’980. Furthermore, a practitioner would be motivated to make such a substitution because Kono/’980 teaches that bagworm silk is particularly strong (Kono Abstract), and tensile strength is a primary benefit and motivation taught in the Abstract of Xia for mass production of silk.
Regarding claim 9, Xia teaches culturing the transformants and preparing the protein after the culture process (e.g., page 14061, left column, first paragraph).
Response to Arguments
The Applicant argues that a feature of the invention is that a greater amount of protein can be produced. This argument is not found to be persuasive because no claim limitations exist to indicate an amount of protein to be produced. Furthermore, Kono supplies an additional motivational teaching to use the bagworm silk of their research, teaching that it has superior tensile properties. Therefore, motivation exists to combine the teachings of Xia and Kono because both teach that tensile strength are a desired property.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 5 contains potentially allowable subject matter. Claim 5 recites specific genes with defined sequences, namely, SEQ ID NOs 16, 18, 24, and 26. Furthermore, ABSS and NCBI BLAST database searches have been conducted, and these sequences appear to be free of the art. Furthermore, the Applicants were in possession of the claimed subject matter, as these sequences are only related to the sequences of genes. Furthermore, NCBI BLAST searches for each of the sequences was performed and these sequences were found to be non-naturally occurring products.
Claim 5 is presently not allowed because of its dependency 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 DOUGLAS CHARLES RYAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8406. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Ram Shukla can be reached at (571)-272-0735. 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.
/D.C.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1635
/RAM R SHUKLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1635