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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-12, 14, and 16-21) in the reply filed on 9/24/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 25 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/24/2025.
Claims 1-12, 14, and 16-21 are pending and being examined on the merits.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copies have been filed in parent Application No. EP19216696.5, filed on 12/16/2019, and in parent Application No. EP19196008.7 filed 9/6/2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement (see, for example, pages 2 and 3 of the specification). 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Disclosures
Summary of Requirements for Patent Applications Filed On Or After July 1, 2022, That Have Sequence Disclosures
37 CFR 1.831(a) requires that patent applications which contain disclosures of nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences that fall within the definitions of 37 CFR 1.831(b) must contain a “Sequence Listing XML”, as a separate part of the disclosure, which presents the nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences and associated information using the symbols and format in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.831-1.835. This “Sequence Listing XML” part of the disclosure may be submitted:
1. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.831(a) using the symbols and format requirements of 37 CFR 1.832 through 1.834 via the USPTO patent electronic filing system (see Section I.1 of the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System (https://www.uspto.gov/PatentLegalFramework), hereinafter “Legal Framework”) in XML format, together with an incorporation by reference statement of the material in the XML file in a separate paragraph of the specification (an incorporation by reference paragraph) as required by 37 CFR 1.835(a)(2) or 1.835(b)(2) identifying:
a. the name of the XML file
b. the date of creation; and
c. the size of the XML file in bytes; or
2. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.831(a) using the symbols and format requirements of 37 CFR 1.832 through 1.834 on read-only optical disc(s) as permitted by 37 CFR 1.52(e)(1)(ii), labeled according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(5), with an incorporation by reference statement of the material in the XML format according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(8) and 37 CFR 1.835(a)(2) or 1.835(b)(2) in a separate paragraph of the specification identifying:
a. the name of the XML file;
b. the date of creation; and
c. the size of the XML file in bytes.
SPECIFIC DEFICIENCIES AND THE REQUIRED RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE ARE AS FOLLOWS:
Specific deficiency - Sequences appearing in the specification are not identified by sequence identifiers (i.e., “SEQ ID NO:X” or the like) in accordance with 37 CFR 1.831(c). See pages 65, 67, and 69-76. For this reason the specification has been formally objected to and appropriate correction is required (see below).
Required response – Applicant must provide:
A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3), and 1.125 inserting the required sequence identifiers, consisting of:
• A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version);
• A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and
• A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter.
Specific deficiency - Sequences appearing in the drawings are not identified by sequence identifiers in accordance with 37 CFR 1.831(c). Sequence identifiers for sequences (i.e., “SEQ ID NO:X” or the like) must appear either in the drawings or in the Brief Description of the Drawings. See Figure 17b.
Required response – Applicant must provide:
Amended drawings in accordance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) inserting the required sequence identifiers;
AND/OR
A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3), and 1.125 inserting the required sequence identifiers (i.e., “SEQ ID NO:X” or the like) into the Brief Description of the Drawings, consisting of:
• A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version);
• A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and
• A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter.
Specification
The use of the terms “Ampligase” (pg 31) and “Illumina NextSeq/NovaSeq” (pg 33), which are trade names or marks used in commerce, have been noted in this application. These terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the terms.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The examples above are not an exhaustive list of unmarked trade names or marks used in commerce throughout the specification. Please carefully read through and properly notate each instance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1(c): “reversely transcribing” should be “reverse[[ly]] transcribing”.
Claim 1(f): “sequencing of amplified DNA oligonucleotides” should read “sequencing [[of]]the amplified DNA oligonucleotides”.
Claim 20(a): “obtained from existing cell lines, primary cells, blood cells, somatic cells, derived from organoids or xenografts” should read “obtained from existing cell lines, primary cells, blood cells, somatic cells, or derived from organoids or xenografts”.
Claim 20(c): “pluripotent stem cells (iPS)” should either read “induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS)” or “pluripotent stem cells [[(iPS)]](PS)”. Page 19 of the specification describes the cells and/or nuclei as potentially coming from induced pluripotent stem cells, so the first option above would be consistent with the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112b - Indefiniteness
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 1-12, 14, and 16-21 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: Claim 1 contains the limitation “a first sequence corresponding to a fourth sequence comprised in the second oligonucleotide used in step (b)”. It is unclear what is meant by “corresponding to” in this context. As written, the first sequence in the third oligonucleotide could be the same as this undefined fourth sequence in the second oligonucleotide or it could be complementary to the fourth sequence. As such, the claim is indefinite and clarification is required. For purposes of examination, “corresponding to” is being interpreted as “complementary to” to remain consistent with the depiction of the method in Figures 2-4.
Claims 2-12, 14, and 16-21 depend from claim 1, inherit these deficiencies and are rejected on the same basis.
Claim 8: Claim 8 is directed to the method of claim 1 “wherein the method further comprises a step of linear extension subsequent to DNA ligation, wherein the linear extension comprises adding a primer comprising RNA nucleotides and adding a reverse transcriptase enzyme”. While it is clear where in the method of claim 1 this occurs, it is unclear what is being used as the template for the linear extension. The primer is only described as having RNA nucleotides but not what these RNA nucleotides are complementary to. Clarification is required.
Claim 9: Claim 9 is directed to the method of claim 1 “wherein the method further comprises a step of linear extension comprising adding a primer comprising random oligonucleotides”. It is unclear as to where this step would occur within the method of claim 1 or if the “linear extension” is already a step (such as second strand synthesis (between step (c) and (d) or amplification (step (e)) that is being further modified using a primer “comprising random oligonucleotides”. Because it is unclear where this step is being incorporated it is also unclear what is being used as the template for this linear extension. Additionally, it is unclear how a primer, which is an oligonucleotide itself, would comprise multiple random oligonucleotides. For purposes of examination, this extra “linear extension step” is being interpreted as the “Random priming” step which occurs after Round 2 fluidic indexing with the third oligonucleotide and before amplification for library enrichment (as depicted in Figure 3). However, clarification is required.
Claim 11: Claim 11 recites the limitation "the 3’ poly-A tail" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no 3’ poly-A tail defined in claim 1, from which claim 11 depends.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the limitation of step (d), in which the cell and/or nuclei generated in step (c) are combined with a third oligonucleotide attached to a microbead in a second reaction compart. There are two options in step (d) regarding the third oligonucleotide. In option (i), the third oligonucleotide comprises a first sequence corresponding to a fourth sequence on the second oligonucleotide of step (b). In option (ii), the third oligonucleotide is provided along with a fourth oligonucleotide, wherein the third oligonucleotide has a first sequence complementary to a first sequence of a fourth oligonucleotide and the fourth oligonucleotide comprises a second sequence that is complementary to the third sequence of the second oligonucleotide of step (b). If option (i) is chosen, then the method further comprises a step of second strand DNA synthesis subsequent to step (c) and prior to step (d). If option (ii) is chosen, then the method further comprises a step of DNA ligation. Claims 3-7 further limit the optional step of second strand DNA synthesis, and claims 8 and 21 further limit the optional step of DNA ligation.
For purposes of examination, if prior art teaches the step of option (d)(i), then claims 3-7 will need to be addressed by said prior art or other secondary references, whereas claims 8 and 21 will be considered as further limitations of an optional step of DNA ligation and therefore automatically rejected. If prior art teaches the step of option (d)(ii), then claims 8 and 21 will need to be addressed by said prior art or other secondary references, whereas claims 3-7 will be considered as further limitations of an optional step of second strand DNA synthesis and therefore automatically rejected.
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, 6-8, 10-12, 14, 16, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (Cao et al., Science 2017; cited on IDS of 8/11/2023) in view of Regev (Regev et al., WO 2016040476 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Cao teaches a method of single-cell combinatorial indexing for multiplexed sequencing of oligonucleotides comprising RNA (Abstract, Introduction). Cao teaches providing permeabilized cells comprising a first oligonucleotide comprising RNA and combining said cells in a first reaction compartment with a second oligonucleotide (claim 1(a) and (b); Overview of sci-RNA-seq and Fig 1A). The second DNA oligonucleotide comprises a first compartment-specific index, a sequence complementary to the first oligonucleotide (polythymidine sequence), and a primer binding site (claim 1(b); “the PCR primers target the barcoded polythymidine primer on one end”; Overview of sci-RNA-seq and Fig 1A). Cao teaches annealing the DNA second oligonucleotide to the first oligonucleotide and performing in situ reverse transcription to obtain an elongated second oligonucleotide (claim 1(c); Overview of sci-RNA-seq and Fig 1A). Cao teaches pooling the cells and then redistributing into a second reaction compartment. Cao teaches performing second strand synthesis in said second reaction compartment (claim 1(d)(i)). Cao teaches that the third oligonucleotide comprises a second indexing sequence and a primer binding site (Overview of sci-RNA-seq and Fig 1A-B). Cao then teaches amplifying the DNA oligonucleotides and sequencing the amplified DNA oligonucleotides.
Cao does not teach performing second strand synthesis prior to combining the cells with the third oligonucleotide in the second reaction compartment, but with respect to the order of steps, it is noted that the courts have held that any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930); Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959)). See MPEP §2144.04 IV C. Therefore, the claimed order of steps is an obvious variant of the steps of the cited prior art.
Cao does not teach that the third oligonucleotide is provided in the second reaction compartment attached to a microbead. However, delivery of microbead-bound oligonucleotides to reaction compartments for sequencing preparation of RNA is known in the art, as taught by Regev.
Regev teaches a method of molecular barcoding of nucleic acids using emulsion-based microfluidics (Abstract). Regev teaches attachment of barcoded oligonucleotides to microbeads for isolation into microfluidic droplets with cells (paragraphs [00186, 00192, and 00197]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to have modified the method of Cao with that of Regev. One would be motivated to deliver the third oligonucleotide via microbead to the cells being processed given the assertion by Regev that attaching barcoded oligonucleotides onto beads allows for efficient profiling of a vast number of cells and provides a compartment-specific barcode for processing of the contents of the droplet (paragraphs [0011 and 00190]). One would have a reasonable expectation of success given that Regev demonstrates successful partitioning of microbeads carrying barcoded oligonucleotides with cells (Figure 8A).
Regarding claims 6 and 7: Cao teaches, subsequent to second strand DNA synthesis, a step of introducing untemplated nucleotides at the 5’ end of the synthesized second strand DNA wherein the untemplated nucleotides are introduced using a transposase enzyme (Tn5 transposase; Fig 1A and Overview of sci-RNA-seq).
Regarding claims 10 and 11: Cao teaches that the second of the first oligonucleotide that is bound by the first sequence of the second oligonucleotide is located at the 3’ end of the first oligonucleotide and that the first sequence of the second oligonucleotide is complementary to the 3’ poly-A tail of the first oligonucleotide (the 3’ poly-A tail of mRNA is bound by the poly-T sequence of the second oligonucleotide; Fig 1A).
Regarding claim 12: Cao teaches that the first reaction compartment comprises permeabilized cells (“Cells are fixed and permeabilized with methanol…then distributed across 96- or 384-well plates”, Overview of sci-RNA-seq).
Regarding claim 14: Cao teaches that the second reaction compartment comprises lysed cells (Overview of sci-RNA-seq).
Regarding claim 16: Cao teaches that the second reaction compartment is a well on a microtiter plate (Fig 1A).
Regarding claim 18: Cao teaches that the second oligonucleotide further comprises a UMI (Overview of sci-RNA-seq and Fig 1A).
Regarding claims 19 and 20: Cao teaches that the cells are obtained from in vitro cultures of cell lines (“During the first round of indexing, half of 384 wells contained pure populations of either human [human embryonic kidney 293T (HEK293T) and/or HeLa S3] or mouse (NIH/3T3) cells”, Scalability of sci-RNA-seq).
Regarding claims 8 and 21: As mentioned in the claim interpretation section above, claims 8 and 21 are further limitations of an optional step of DNA ligation in claim 1. Because this pertains to option (d)(ii), and Cao teaches option (d)(i), these claims are automatically rejected.
Claims 2-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (Cao et al., Science 2017; cited on IDS of 8/11/2023) in view of Regev (Regev et al., WO 2016040476 A1) as applied to claims 1, 6-8, 10-12, 14, 16, and 18-21 above, and further in view of Salathia (Salathia et al., WO 2017040306 A1) and Ramsköld (Ramsköld et al., Nature Biotechnology 2012).
The teachings of Cao in view of Regev as they apply to claims 1, 6-8, 10-12, 14, 16, and 18-21 are detailed above. Relevant to the instantly rejected claims, Cao in view of Regev teaches a method of combinatorial indexing of cells via contacting with barcoded oligonucleotides in sequential reaction compartments. Cao in view of Regev teaches annealing a DNA oligonucleotide onto an RNA oligonucleotide and performing reverse transcription to obtain an elongated DNA oligonucleotide. Cao in view of Regev then teach performing second strand synthesis to generate double-stranded cDNA.
Cao in view of Regev do not teach adding untemplated nucleotides to the 3’ end of the second oligonucleotide during reverse transcription or linear extension of the second strand DNA with randomer primers.
However, adding untemplated nucleotides to an elongated oligonucleotide during reverse transcription for second strand synthesis is known in the art, as taught by Salathia and Ramsköld.
Salathia teaches a method of multiplexed single cell gene expression analysis which entails preparing target RNA for sequencing through the use of reverse transcription and second strand synthesis via template switching (Abstract and paragraphs [007 and 009]). Salathia teaches annealing an oligo dT primer to an mRNA and performing first strand synthesis in which “the first strand synthesis primer is extended beyond the mRNA template” (reads on untemplated nucleotides are added to the 3’ end of the second oligonucleotide in claim 2; paragraph [009 and 0058]). Salathia teaches adding a primer comprising RNA nucleotides complementary to the added untemplated nucleotides for extension (claim 4; “the first strand synthesis primer is extended beyond the mRNA template and further copies the TSO primer strand”, paragraph [009 and 0058] and Fig 1). Salathia teaches that second strand synthesis can be accomplished via the use of a primer comprising a sequence complementary to the added untemplated nucleotides (“the second strand of cDNA is synthesized using the TSO primer”, paragraph [009 and 0058]). Salathia teaches using primers comprising random nucleotides (“randomers”) for priming linear extension (paragraph [009, 0073, and 0076]).
Salathia doesn’t explicitly teach that the primer complementary to the added untemplated nucleotides comprises RNA nucleotides, however Salathia teaches that this method of template switching based on the commonly used SMART-SEQ method, in which a template-switch oligo base pairs with the non-templated nucleotide stretch and creates an extended template. The SMART-SEQ technology, taught by Ramsköld, utilizes a TSO primer in which the three nucleotides complementary to the untemplated nucleotides are ribonucleotides (Ramsköld: “The carefully designed SMARTer II A oligo (5′-AAGCAGTGGTATCAACGCAGAGTACATrGrGrG-3′, where r indicate ribonucleotide bases)”, Methods - Generation and amplification of Smart-Seq cDNA).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to have modified the method of Cao in view of Regev with that of Salathia and Ramsköld. One would be motivated to use the template switching version of second strand synthesis taught by Salathia and Ramsköld given the assertion by Salathia that this is the “most commonly used method for single cell RNA-Seq”, therefore it would yield predictably successful generation of second strand DNA from mRNA templates (paragraph [0058]). One would be motivated to perform linear extension using primers comprising random nucleotides given the assertion by Salathia that randomers “expand the window of sequencable fragments to anywhere along the length of the transcript where a randomer can hybridize” (paragraph [0073]). One would have a reasonable expectation of success given that Salathia successfully uses primers that contain random sequences of nucleotides.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (Cao et al., Science 2017; cited on IDS of 8/11/2023) in view of Regev (Regev et al., WO 2016040476 A1) as applied to claims 1, 6-8, 10-12, 14, 16, and 18-21 above, and further in view of Fu (Fu et al., US 20160312276 A1).
The teachings of Cao in view of Regev as they apply to claims 1, 6-8, 10-12, 14, 16, and 18-21 are detailed above. Relevant to the instantly rejected claims, Cao in view of Regev teaches a method of combinatorial indexing of cells via contacting with barcoded oligonucleotides in sequential reaction compartments. Cao in view of Regev teaches annealing a DNA oligonucleotide onto an RNA oligonucleotide and performing reverse transcription to obtain an elongated DNA oligonucleotide. Cao in view of Regev then teach performing second strand synthesis to generate double-stranded cDNA.
Cao in view of Regev do not teach that second strand synthesis comprises introducing nicks into the first oligonucleotide, extending the nicked oligonucleotides, and ligating the extended oligonucleotides. However, this method of second strand synthesis is known in the art, as taught by Fu.
Fu teaches a method of whole transcriptome amplification with barcoding (Abstract). Fu teaches hybridizing oligo dT molecules with stochastic barcodes to target mRNAs and then extending said oligos with reverse transcription to generate a first extended polynucleotide (paragraph [0004 and 0204]). Fu teaches synthesizing the second strand of polynucleotide by nicking the mRNA with an RNase to generate mRNA primers which are then extended by a polymerase (paragraph [0004 and 0204]). Fu then teaches ligating the extended segments with a ligase to generate the second strand polynucleotide (paragraph [0004 and 0204]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to have modified the method of Cao in view of Regev with that of Fu. One would be motivated to perform this method of seconds strand synthesis given the teaching of Fu that this method allows for seconds strand synthesis without the addition of another primer and “can amplify the signal amplification by generating several second strand cDNAs for every first strand” (paragraph [0204 and 0329]). One would have a reasonable expectation of success given that Fu successfully utilizes this method of second strand synthesis in working example 3 (paragraphs [0329-0331]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (Cao et al., Science 2017; cited on IDS of 8/11/2023) in view of Regev (Regev et al., WO 2016040476 A1) as applied to claims 1, 6-8, 10-12, 14, 16, and 18-21 above, and further in view of Hindson (Hindson et al., US 20150376609 A1).
The teachings of Cao in view of Regev as they apply to claims 1, 6-8, 10-12, 14, 16, and 18-21 are detailed above. Relevant to the instantly rejected claims, Cao in view of Regev teaches a method of combinatorial indexing of cells via contacting with barcoded oligonucleotides in sequential reaction compartments. Cao in view of Regev teaches annealing a DNA oligonucleotide onto an RNA oligonucleotide and performing reverse transcription to obtain an elongated DNA oligonucleotide. Cao in view of Regev then teach performing second strand synthesis to generate double-stranded cDNA. Regev teaches the benefits of using microfluidic droplets as reaction compartments for partition-specific barcoding, indicating that droplet microfluidics “offers significant a advantages for performing high-throughput screens and sensitive assays” through reduction in sample volume and increase in assay sensitivity (paragraph [0008]).
While Regev teaches attachment of barcoded oligonucleotides to microbeads for isolation into microfluid droplets with cells (paragraphs [00186, 00192, and 00197]), Cao in view of Regev does not teach release of the oligonucleotides from the beads upon formation of the droplet partitions. However, release of barcoded oligonucleotides from microbeads upon droplet formation with a target cell(s) is known in the art, as taught by Hindson.
Hindson teaches a method of partitioned analysis of cell populations and assessing cellular contents by generating partition-specific barcoded nucleic acids from the cells in each partition (paragraph [0006]). Hindson teaches that the oligonucleotides are reversibly attached to the beads and that upon co-partitioning into a droplet, the barcoded oligonucleotides are released (paragraphs [0007, 0008, 0079, 0082, 0085, 0090]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to have modified the method of Cao in view of Regev with that of Hindson. One would be motivated to do so given that Hindson asserts that once released from the beads, the oligonucleotides can anneal to the complementary target region of the target nucleic acids released from the cells within the droplet (paragraphs [0091 and 0114]). One would have a reasonable expectation of success given that Hindson provides a working example in which barcoded oligonucleotides attached to beads are successfully co-partitioned with target cells and then the barcoded oligos are released from said bead to enable reverse transcription in the droplet. (Example 1, paragraph [0159]).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAILEY E CASH whose telephone number is (571)272-0971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6pm ET.
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, Anne Gussow can be reached at (571)272-6047. 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.
/KAILEY ELIZABETH CASH/Examiner, Art Unit 1683
/STEPHEN T KAPUSHOC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1683