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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-13 were pending.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, and 11 are amended.
Claims 1-13 are examined herein.
Withdrawn Rejections
The rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in view of claim 1 amendment.
The rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn in view of claim amendments. The amendments necessitated a new prior art search and new grounds of rejection have been found in view of prior art reference of Payne et al. (Clin Chem. 2000 Feb;46(2):175-82).
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 1-13 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.
Claim 1 recites “a gap between two adjacent testing points d1, d2 corresponds to a testing point d3 of another adjacent line, and the distance between the centers of the two testing points d1 and d3 is 1.6-1.8 mm; the distance between the centers of the two testing points d2 and d3 is l.6-l.8mm” (last par.) and claim 3 recites “a gap between two adjacent testing points d 1, d2 corresponds to a testing point d3 of another adjacent line, and the distance between the centers of the two testing points dl and d3 is 1.66 mm; the distance between the centers of the two testing points d2 and d3 is 1.66mm”.
The limitations are very confusing because: (a) it is unclear how a gap, which is a distance between two adjacent testing points corresponds to a testing point d3 and (b) it is unclear what two adjacent testing points d1 and d3 are recited because in Fig. 1 d1 is a diameter and d2 is a distance; there are no drawings where d1, d2, and d3 label any testing points.
The limitations will be interpreted as the distances between the centers of the two testing points is l.6-l.8 mm and 1.66 mm.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1, 3-10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mi (CN103048466), in view of O’Farrell et al. (PGPub 2012/0184462), hereinafter O’Farrell-2012, and Hu et al. (Anal Chem. 2016 Jun 21;88(12):6577-84).
Regarding claim 1, Mi teaches a test strip detection technology capable of rapidly quantifying tissue cell proteins ([0002]). The reference teaches a substrate (nitrocellulose membrane (5), [0016]), a sampling area (sample pad (3), [0011]), a colloidal gold area (gold label pad (4), [0011]), a protein testing area (detection area (6) ([0011]), and a water absorption area (adsorption pad (7), [0016]) arranged on the substrate in sequence from one end to the other end of the substrate (Fig. 1 and 2). The protein testing area comprises a plurality of testing points arranged in a plurality of lines, wherein the centers of the testing points in each line connected with each other to form a straight line which is perpendicular to a flow direction of a sample to be detected (detection area (6) with a plurality of detection dots (61), Fig. 2).
Regarding the limitation of the test strip, which uses an absorbance scanning detector to count the number of chromogenic testing points showing positive result and their absorbance values of each test strip, Mi teaches “observe the number of detection dots to determine whether the expression of the detected protein is positive or negative” ([0014]) and “by reading the number of colored detection dots, the level of the detection protein content in the tissue cells can be quickly judged, and then combined with other methods to obtain an accurate diagnostic result” ([0017]).
Mi does not specifically teach the testing points in the protein testing area are arranged as an alternating array, and an absorbance scanning detector.
Regarding claim 1, O’Farrell-2012 teaches lateral flow devices using two dimensional features (Abstract and Fig. 6-9) analogous to the test strip of Mi. O’Farrell-2012 also teaches the testing points in the protein testing area are arranged as an alternating array (Fig. 19E, bottom panel - 1mm Zig-Zag Spacing).
Additionally, O’Farrell-2012 teaches the test point diameter as “Any suitable drop volumes can be used to make spots with any suitable or desirable sizes” ([0098]). For example, Table 1 discloses that drop volume of 100 nL has hemisphere diameter of 725 µm falling within the recited range and therefore meeting the limitation of claim 1, which recites a range of 0.7-0.9 mm.
Regarding the spacing between the test points on the test strip, O’Farrell-2012 teaches that “reagent dots can have any suitable space(s) or distance(s) between or among the dots” ([102]), meeting the spacing values recited in claim 1.
Regarding the limitation of “the testing points are arranged in n+1 lines, where n is 3-20, the number of testing points contained in each line is 3-30, the testing point in another adjacent line "blocks" the gap between the centers of two adjacent testing points”, O’Farrell-2012 teaches the test points can be arranged in multiple ways. For example, Fig 6 illustrates 9 lines of the testing points, which are falling within the range and therefore meeting the limitation of claim 1, which recites the testing points are arranged in n+1 lines and n is 3-20.
Also, Fig 6 illustrates 5 test points in one line, which is falling within the range and therefore meeting the limitation of claim 1, reciting the number of testing points contained in each line is 3-30.
Finally, Fig 6 illustrates that the distance between the testing points in horizontal direction is less than the size of the test point in horizontal direction. Therefore, when arranged as an alternating array a testing point in an adjacent line would inherently "block" the gap between two adjacent testing points meeting the new limitation of “the testing point in another adjacent line "blocks" the gap between two adjacent testing points”.
O’Farrell-2012 does not specifically teach limitations “the testing points in the protein testing area are arranged as an alternating array, and the alternating array refers to a gap therebetween the centers of two adjacent testing points in one line corresponds to one testing point in another adjacent line” and “wherein the vertical distance between two adjacent lines refers to the vertical distance of straight lines formed by connecting the centers of testing points of two adjacent lines”. However, Fig. 19E demonstrates spatial arrangement of the testing points in a staggered configuration as disclosed in Fig. 1 of the specification.
Regarding the specific vertical distances, distances between the centers of adjacent testing points and their diameters, and the new limitations of claims 1 and 3 - since Applicant has not disclosed that the specific limitations recited in instant claims (specific distances between the centers of adjacent testing points and their diameters) are for any particular purpose or solve any stated problem and the prior art teaches that in the field of immunoassays the diameters of the testing points often vary depending on equipment used for spotting the capture reagents and the dispensed volume of the capture reagents, absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to discover the optimum workable ranges depending on specific assay requirements and available equipment. The same argument is applicable to the specific distances between the centers of adjacent testing points – the distances also depend on specific assay requirements and available equipment.
The limitation of “an equilateral triangle is formed between two adjacent testing points in one line and one testing point in another adjacent line corresponding to a gap between said two adjacent testing points in the line” is interpreted as a rearrangement of parts. Placing the testing points in an equilateral triangle configuration would not have modified the operation of the test strip; therefore, this configuration is unpatentable. See MPEP 2144.04: In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding the limitation of an absorbance scanning detector to count the number of chromogenic testing points, Applicant fails to claim the absorbance scanning detector by its structure as an actual component of the device. Therefore, quantitation of the assay results with the absorbance scanning detector is interpreted as an intended use of the test strip of claim 1. O’Farrell-2012 teaches “quantification of the analyte through a direct measurement of the concentration gradient either by eye or using a reader” ([0163]) and the labels can be colorimetric or colloidal gold labels ([0135]). Therefore, the reader of O’Farrell-2012 is capable of performing this limitation and measure absorbance values of testing points because colorimetric and colloidal gold labels are detected through their absorbance. The reader of O’Farrell-2012 meets the intended use of the absorbance scanning detector.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the test strip of Mi by employing the alternating array of the testing points as taught by O’Farrell-2012 as an obvious matter of simple substitution of one known element (alternating array) for another to obtain predictable results. O’Farrell-2012 teaches both arrangements of the test points: the alternating array (Fig. 19E) and the uniform array of Mi (Fig. 6-9). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected to obtain predictable results because the modification of O’Farrell-2012 does not change the principle of the lateral flow assay of Mi, but merely changes the arrangement of the test points along the strip.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the test strip of Mi by employing the alternating array of the testing points as taught by O’Farrell-2012 (Fig. 19E) arranged in at least five lines of test points (Fig. 6) as an obvious matter of simple substitution of one known element (alternating array) for another to obtain predictable results.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected to obtain predictable results because the O’Farrell-2012’s modification and the alternating array of at least five lines of test points do not change the principle of the lateral flow assay of Mi, but merely change the arrangement of the test points along the strip.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the test strip of Mi by employing a reader as an absorbance scanning detector as taught by O’Farrell-2012 as an obvious matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected to obtain predictable results because the test strip of Mi and the reader of O’Farrell-2012 have different functions, operate independently from each other, and their combination would not have produced a ‘new’ or ‘different function’.
Mi and O’Farrell-2012 do not specifically teach the standard curve which with a correlation coefficient ≥0.99 for standard solution of different concentrations corresponding to their total absorbance value is drawn.
Regarding claim 1, Hu teaches sensitive and quantitative detection of a protein using lateral flow test strips (Title). Hu also teaches a standard curve with a correlation coefficient ≥0.99 for standard solution.
Specifically, Hu teaches a calibration curve for CRP detection with R2 = 0.995, meeting the limitation of claim 1 reciting a correlation coefficient ≥0.99 (Fig. 4B). Hu does not specifically teach calibration curve measured by absorbance; however, the correlation coefficient does not depend on the optical properties of a label. The label merely detects and reports the quality of the calibration curve.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the test strip of Mi and O’Farrell-2012 by employing a calibration curve as taught by Hu because all quantitative assays require a calibration curve for analyte measurement. This is both a requirement and a motivation.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected to obtain predictable results because the test strip of Mi and O’Farrell-2012 is based on lateral flow assay format, and Hu teaches that this format is capable of achieving very good correlation coefficient.
Regarding claims 3-4:
Regarding the specific distances between the centers of adjacent testing points and the gaps - since Applicant has not disclosed that the specific limitations recited in instant claims (specific distances between the centers of adjacent testing points and the gaps) are for any particular purpose or solve any stated problem and the prior art teaches that in the field of immunoassays the diameters of the testing points often vary depending on equipment used for spotting the capture reagents and the dispensed volume of the capture reagents, absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to discover the optimum workable ranges depending on specific assay requirements and available equipment. The same argument is applicable to the specific distances between the centers of adjacent testing points – the distances also depend of the specific assay requirements and available equipment.
Regarding claim 5, O’Farrell-2012 teaches a quality control area “control line typically comprises a species-specific anti-immunoglobulin antibody, specific for the conjugate antibody on the conjugate” ([0013]).
Regarding claim 6, Mi teaches “using colloidal gold or colloidal silver to couple with the monoclonal antibody or polyclonal antibody of the detection protein, and dropping the colloidal gold or colloidal silver antibody complex formed after coupling onto the gold label pad” ([0012]).
Regarding claim 7, Mi teaches “a monoclonal antibody or polyclonal antibody that binds to the protein to be detected can be fixed in the detection area, and then the protein to be detected (which has formed a complex with the gold-labeled or silver-labeled antibody) is combined with the antibody in the detection area” ([0017]).
Regarding claims 8 and 10, O’Farrell-2012 teaches that the distances between the test points can be the same or different ([0102]).
Regarding claim 9, Mi teaches detecting HER2 protein ([0035]).
Regarding claim 12, MPEP 2112.01(III) instructs that non-functional printed matter does not distinguish claimed product. Where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter (i.e., instructions), which is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. Therefore, the test strip of Mi in view of O’Farrell-2012 and Hu meets claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Mi teaches a use of the test strip for detecting tissue cellular protein HER2 and a method for testing tissue cellular protein ([0035]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mi, in view of O’Farrell-2012, Hu, and further in view of O’Farrell (Wong, R., Tse, H. (eds) Lateral Flow Immunoassay. Humana Press, (2009), pp. 1-34), hereinafter O’Farrell-2009.
The teachings of Mi, in view of O’Farrell-2012, and Hu have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 2, Mi, O’Farrell-2012, and Hu teach a gold label pad (Mi, [0011]), immobilizing a monoclonal antibody or polyclonal antibody against the protein to be detected on the detection area (Mi, [0013]), the test strip comprises nitrocellulose membrane with the detection area (protein testing area of claim 2) located on the nitrocellulose membrane [Mi, 0016]).
Additionally, regarding the limitation of claim 2, reciting “a shape of the testing point comprises a circle, a square, or a combination thereof” Mi, O’Farrell-2012, and Hu teach “The reagent dots in the test device can have any suitable shapes, e.g., any suitable regular or irregular shape. In one example, at least one of the reagent dots has a shape that is a line, a circle, a rod, a square …” (O’Farrell-2012, [0101]). The reagent dots of O’Farrell-2012 are the testing points of instant invention.
Mi, O’Farrell-2012, and Hu do not specifically teach the colloidal gold is provided with glass fibers.
O’Farrell-2009 teaches “Evolution in Lateral Flow–Based Immunoassay Systems” (Title) and design of various components of a lateral flow test strip. O’Farrell-2009 also teaches colloidal gold provided with glass fibers.
Specifically, O’Farrell-2009 teaches that the materials of choice for the conjugate pad are glass fibers, polyesters, or rayons (pg. 12, par. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the test strip of Mi, O’Farrell-2012, and Hu by employing glass fibers as taught by O’Farrell-2012 for coating with the colloidal gold as an "obvious to try" approach of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (glass fibers, polyesters, or rayons), with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected to obtain predictable results because the glass fiber is one of the three kinds of fibers routinely used as the conjugate pad material (O’Farrell-2009, pg. par. 2). All three kinds of fibers have suitable properties for lateral flow test strips (O’Farrell-2009, pg. par. 3-5).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mi, in view of O’Farrell-2012, and Hu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Payne et al. (Clin Chem. 2000 Feb;46(2):175-82).
The teachings of Mi, O’Farrell-2012, and Hu have been set forth above.
Mi, O’Farrell-2012, and Hu do not specifically teach the correlation coefficient R2 of the standard curve is 0.9966.
Regarding claim 11, Payne teaches an immunoassay for HER-2/neu in serum (Title and Abstract.Methods). Specifically, Payne teaches R2 of the standard curve for HER-2/neu is 0.999 (pg. 179, col. 2, last par.). HER-2/neu is another name for HER2.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the test strip of Mi, O’Farrell-2012, and Hu, by employing antibodies as taught by Payne and expect the R2 coefficient to be in the range of 0.995 as taught by Hu (Hu, Fig. 4B) and 0.999 as taught by Payne (pg. 179, col. 2, last par.).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected to obtain predictable results because both Hu and Payne teach immunoassays for HER2 biomarker.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed March 28, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that amended claim 1 recites “a gap between two adjacent testing points dl, d2 corresponds to a testing point d3 of another adjacent line, and the distance between the centers of the two testing points dl and d3 is 1.6-1.8 mm; the distance between the centers of the two testing points d2 and d3 is l.6-l.8mm” (pg. 7, par. 2). Specifically, Applicant argues that “technical feature between amended claim 1 and DI and D2 is that the spacing between the test points on the test strip of the amended claim 1 is relatively large, specifically 1.66 mm, whereas the distance between the test points in D2 is relatively small, ranging from I to 600 μm. D2 does not disclose or teach the technical feature of the test point spacing being 1.66 mm as in amended claim 1 of the present application” (pg. 7, last par. – pg. 8, par. 1).
The argument is not persuasive because the prior art Mi, O’Farrell, and O’Farrell-2012 already teaches the test strip of instant invention. Regarding the spacing between the test points on the test strip, O’Farrell-2012 teaches that “reagent dots can have any suitable space(s) or distance(s) between or among the dots” ([102]), meeting the spacing values recited in claim 1.
Finally, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05). Routine optimization is not considered inventive and no evidence has been presented that the spacing between the test points on the test strip recites as 1.6-1.8 mm is other than routine, that the optimization has any unexpected properties, or that the results should be considered unexpected in any way as compared to the closest prior art.
Applicant states that “Based on the newly added technical features” (pg. 8, par. 2). The argument is not persuasive because Applicant fails to identify the newly added technical features and their location in the specification.
Additionally, the argument of “The test points arranged in this specific manner ensure that liquid flowing through the gaps between the test points in the first column is captured by the test points in the second column (see the red arrow of Fig. 1 of the present application). Therefore, the test strip of the present invention can sufficiently detect the target in the liquid, resulting in more accurate detection outcomes” (pg. 8, last par. – pg. 9, par. 1) fails to address the prior art of Mi, O’Farrell, and O’Farrell-2012, and point out specifically where the deficiencies that Applicant claims to have solved are mentioned.
Also, in response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (more accurate detection outcomes) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Moreover, the argument of “the testing point in another column must 'block' the gap between the centers of two adjacent testing points” (pg. 8, last par.) and “D2 does not disclose or teach the feature of "the testing point in another column must 'block' the gap between the centers of two adjacent testing points" as recited in amended claim I of the present application” (pg. 9, par. 2) are not present in the specification as a requirement for making a decision on the spacing while placing the test points. The specification fails to disclose any “block” as related to the spacing values. The meaning of the term block as related to liquid flow is well understood in the art, but the meaning of “block” of instant application is not defined in the art and not defined in the specification.
Finally, the argument “the test strip of amended claim 1 of the present application solves this problem and improves the accuracy of the detection results” (pg. 9, par. 2) fails to point out the prior art references where this problem is mentioned.
Applicant argues that “Furthermore, the test points arranged in this manner maximize the number of test points within a limited area, thereby improving the accuracy and sensitivity of the results” (pg. 9, last par.). The argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (improving the accuracy and sensitivity of the results) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that the prior art references do not disclose “the correlation between the test point spacing and the test results” (pg. 10, par.1-2) and the test strip of instant invention is “enabling accurate and intuitive quantitative testing” (pg. 10, par. 4). The arguments are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (the correlation between the test point spacing and the test results; the number of the chromogenic testing points; and enabling accurate and intuitive quantitative testing) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant states that the test strip of the instant invention shows “an R2 value of 0.9966, demonstrating an excellent technical effect. This outstanding technical effect enables the test strip of the present application to perform accurate quantitative detection” (pg. 11, par. 1). The argument is persuasive. The prior art references of Mi, O’Farrell-2012, and Hu do not teach the R2 value of 0.9966. However, this amendment to claim 11, necessitated a new prior art search and new grounds of rejection have been found in view of newly found prior art references of Payne et al. (see above for details). Briefly, Payne teaches that HER2 protein can be detected in an assay with a calibration curve having R2=0.999. As such Hu and Payne teach R2 range from 0.995 to 0.999.
Applicant argues that “Note the above beneficial technical effects are unexpected” (pg. 11, par. 4). The argument is not persuasive because a showing of unexpected results must be based on evidence, not argument or speculation, such that conclusory statements should be supported by comparative data showing the statistical significance or magnitude of difference between the prior art and claimed invention. In this instance Applicant fails to support the unexpected nature of the presented results by comparing them to the prior art results.
Applicant argues that “the applied references would not render obvious the claimed thioredoxin mutant” (pg. 11, par. 5). The argument is not clear because no mutants are recited in the claims.
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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Volkov whose telephone number is (571) 272-1899. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bao-Thuy Nguyen can be reached on (571) 272-0824. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ALEXANDER ALEXANDROVIC VOLKOV/
Examiner, Art Unit 1677
/REBECCA M GIERE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1677
Prosecution Insights