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 .
Please note: The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/26/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 21-32 and 47-60 are pending and being examined on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claims 22 and 51 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 22 reads “a clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic (CRISPR) RNA molecule” and should read “a clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR) RNA molecule”.
Claim 51 reads “the nucleic acid molecule comprises an additional nucleic barcode sequence” and should read “the nucleic acid molecule comprises an additional nucleic acid barcode sequence”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112b - Indefiniteness
The rejection of claim 56 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to the claim to depend from claim 55.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection of claims 21-22, 24, 25-32, 47-49, 51, and 55-57 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoeckius et al. (US 20180251825 A1; cited on IDS submitted on 3/15/2023) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims 23, 50, 52, and 54 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoeckius et al. (US 20180251825 A1; cited on IDS submitted on 3/15/2023) as applied to claims 21-22, 24, 25-32, 47-49, 51, and 57 above, and further in view of Brown et al. (WO 2012/112804 A1; cited on IDS submitted on 3/15/2023) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claim 53 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoeckius et al. (US 20180251825 A1; cited on IDS submitted on 3/15/2023) as applied to claims 21-22, 24, 25-32, 47-49, 51, and 57 above, and further in view of Keefe et al. (Current Opinion in Chemical Biology, 2015) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
New Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Necessitated by Amendments
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-22, 24-32, 52, 54-56, and 58-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gartner (Gartner et al., US 2021/0388447 A1, EFD of May 8, 2019; cited on PTO-892 of 10/29/2025).
Regarding claims 21 and 58: Gartner teaches a method of processing a cell in which a labelled cell is provided which comprises a nucleic acid molecule coupled to a surface of the labelled cell and a nucleic acid analyte within said cell (Abstract and paragraph [0258]). Gartner teaches that the nucleic acid molecule is coupled to a surface of the labelled cell via a cell coupling agent (a lipophilic molecule) and that the connection between the nucleic acid molecule and the lipophilic molecule can comprise a disulfide bond (which is listed as a type of labile bond in paragraph [0128] of the instant specification; paragraph [0206]). Gartner teaches providing a nucleic acid barcode sequence and a capture sequence, wherein the capture sequence is configured to capture the nucleic acid analyte, and then attaching the barcode sequence and capture sequence to the nucleic acid molecule attached to the surface of the labelled cell to generate a composite nucleic acid molecule comprising the nucleic acid barcode sequence and the capture sequence on the surface of the labeled cell (paragraphs [0288-0290] and Figure 8A-B).
Regarding claim 22: Gartner teaches that the nucleic acid analyte is mRNA (paragraphs [0288-0290]).
Regarding claim 24: Gartner teaches that the capture sequence is a poly-T sequence (paragraphs [0184 and 0288-0290]).
Regarding claim 25 and 26: Gartner teaches single cell RNA sequencing in microfluidic droplets in which the cells were previously surface-labelled/barcoded in wells. In the method of Gartner, the labeling of cells with barcodes and appropriate capture sequences occurs prior to encapsulating the cells in droplets (paragraphs [0259, 0288-0290] and Figure 8A-B)
With respect to the order of steps, it is reiterated 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.
MPEP 716.01(c) makes clear that “[t]he arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record” (In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965)). Thus, counsel’s mere arguments cannot take the place of evidence in the record.
Regarding claim 27: Gartner teaches providing multiple barcoded oligonucleotides with capture sequences (paragraphs [0172 and 0288-0290] and Figure 8B).
Regarding claims 28-31: Gartner teaches that the nucleic acid molecule is attached to the surface of the cell through a cell coupling agent (claim 28; Abstract and paragraph [0109 and 0147]). Gartner teaches that the nucleic acid molecule can be directly attached or indirectly attached to the cell coupling agent (claims 29 and 30; paragraph [0205]). Gartner teaches that the cell coupling agent is a lipophilic molecule (claim 31; Abstract and paragraph [0109]).
Regarding claim 32: Gartner teaches that the nucleic acid molecule may also comprise a priming site (reads on a primer binding sequence; paragraph [0177]).
Regarding claim 52: Gartner teaches that the attaching comprises enzymatic ligation (paragraphs [0142 and 0290]).
Regarding claim 54: Gartner teaches that the attaching comprises hybridization (Abstract, paragraphs [0288-0290] and Figure 8A)
Regarding claim 55: Gartner teaches generating a barcoded nucleic acid molecule using the nucleic acid molecule and the nucleic acid analyte, wherein the barcoded nucleic acid molecule comprises a first sequence corresponding to the nucleic acid analyte and a second sequence corresponding to the barcode sequence (paragraphs [0288-0290]).
Regarding claim 56: Gartner teaches that generating the barcoded nucleic acid molecule comprises hybridizing the capture sequence to the nucleic acid analyte and performing a nucleic acid extension reaction (poly-T sequence designed to capture poly-A mRNA, and use of an RT enzyme; paragraphs [0288-0290]).
Regarding claim 59 and 60: Gartner teaches that the bond between the lipophilic cell coupling agent and the nucleic acid molecule is a disulfide bond (a type of labile bond). This type of bond is inherently reversible, which in turn makes it a releasable bond (as in, it releases the nucleic acid molecule).
New Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Necessitated by Amendments
Claims 23, 47-51, and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gartner (Gartner et al., US 2021/0388447 A1, EFD of May 8, 2019; cited on PTO-892 of 10/29/2025) as applied to claims 21-22, 24-32, 52, 54-56, and 58-60 above, and further in view of Brown (Brown et al., WO 2012/112804 A1; cited on IDS submitted on 3/15/2023).
The teachings of Gartner as they apply to claim 21 (from which claims 23, 47-51, and 57 depend) are detailed above. Relevant to the instantly rejected claims, Gartner teaches labeling a cell with a composite nucleic acid molecule comprising a barcode sequence and a capture sequence for a target analyte. Gartner teaches adding additional barcodes to the nucleic acid molecules that contain a barcode and capture sequence (relevant to claim 51; paragraph [0288]).
Gartner does not teach that the target analyte may be genomic DNA (claim 23), modularly/sequentially attaching the barcode sequence and the capture sequence to the nucleic acid molecule separately (claims 47-49), or that an additional nucleic acid barcode may be attached to the composite nucleic acid molecule (claim 50). However, these limitations were known in the art, as taught by Brown.
Brown teaches a method of barcoding cell libraries (page 59 and Figures 27 and 29). Brown teaches that target analytes within a cell consist of genomic DNA (claim 23; page 5, paragraph 1). Brown teaches that the barcodes attached to the cells can comprise a functional N-mer, which in turn can bind the construct to a target (such as nucleic acids; reads on capture sequence; pg 37). Brown teaches that the barcode is attached to the functional N-mer so that it's at the 5’ end or so that it’s at the 3’ end (claim 47 and 49; pg 37). Brown teaches attaching additional nucleic acid barcode sequences to nucleic acid molecules coupled to cells (claim 50; Figure 29 and pg 37). Brown teaches modularly combining, one at a time, different sequences to the same construct (pg 37-38). Brown demonstrates the modular additions of various parts to the cell surface of various end types in Figures 29A-B, wherein a barcode is added to a nucleic acid molecule on a cell surface, and upon attachment has a sticky end, that can function as a functional N-mer (or capture sequence; claim 48).
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 Gartner with the method of Brown. One would be motivated to modify the method of Gartner by modularly adding additional barcode sequences to the composite nucleic acid molecule given the assertion by Brown that linking multiple barcodes together to create composite barcodes increases multiplex capacity of the assay (pages 42-43). One would have a reasonable expectation of success given that Brown successfully joins multiple barcodes together, and multiple different types of sequences together, employing a combination of ligation and hybridization techniques.
Regarding claim 57: Gartner teaches exposing cells to a lipid-modified oligonucleotide and allowing time for it to embed into the cell surface, then adding a labeling oligonucleotide (with the barcode and capture sequence) and allowing it to hybridize to the embedded labelled nucleic acid (paragraphs [0216-0217]).
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gartner (Gartner et al., US 2021/0388447 A1, EFD of May 8, 2019; cited on PTO-892 of 10/29/2025) as applied to claims 21-22, 24-32, 52, 54-56, and 58-60 above, and further in view of Keefe (Keefe et al., Current Opinion in Chemical Biology, 2015; cited on PTO-892 of 6/17/2025).
The teachings of Gartner as they apply to claim 21 (from which claim 53 depends) are detailed above. Relevant to the instantly rejected claims, Gartner teaches labeling a cell with a composite nucleic acid molecule comprising a barcode sequence and a capture sequence for a target analyte.
Gartner does not teach joining the nucleic acid barcode sequence and the capture sequence together with the nucleic acid molecule using chemical ligation.
However, the use of chemical ligation to join oligonucleotides together was known in the art, as taught by Keefe.
Keefe teaches a method of chemically ligating sequences of oligonucleotides together (Abstract).
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 Gartner with the method of Keefe. One would be motivated to employ chemical ligation for the joining of oligonucleotide sequences given the assertion by Keefe that chemical ligation offers a more robust method of joining oligonucleotides together as compared to methods such as enzymatic ligation because it subverts the need for buffer exchanges, which are challenging with low volume reactions (Introduction, paragraph 2). One would have a reasonable expectation of success given that Keefe demonstrates successful chemical ligation between oligonucleotide strands (Figures 1 and 2).
Response to Remarks
Applicant has traversed the rejections of claims 21-32 and 47-57 over Stoeckius, Brown, and Keefe (pg 6-8 of Remarks of 3/26/2026). Applicant's arguments filed 3/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not deemed persuasive for the following reasons.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections as detailed in the previous Office Action of 10/29/2025 are moot in light of the newly added claim amendments and the subsequent withdrawal of these rejections in the instant Office Action. New rejections addressing these added limitations have been made above.
Applicant argues that Gartner teaches LMOs that are “stably incorporate[d] into the plasma membrane of live cells” and does not teach anywhere that that the nucleic acid molecule is coupled to the surface of the cell by a labile bond. However, as noted in the new claim rejections above, Gartner teaches that the nucleic acid molecule can be “linked” to the lipid molecule via a linker that contains a disulfide bond, which is inherently a labile bond (paragraph [0206]).
Double Patenting
Note: All previous Double Patenting rejections as made in the Office Action of 10/29/2025 are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims. New double patenting rejections have been made below based on the new rejections made above and necessitated by the claim amendments. Any double patenting rejections not reiterated below have been withdrawn.
U.S. Patent No. 10,858,702
Claims 21-22, 24-32, 52, 54-56, and 58-60 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 10-14, and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 10,858,702 in view of Gartner (Gartner et al., US 2021/0388447 A1, EFD of May 8, 2019).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are drawn to the same limitations. Any additional limitations of ‘702 claims are encompassed by the open claim language “comprising” found in the instant claims.
Regarding claims 21 and 24: Claim 1 of ‘702 teaches a plurality of labelled cells which have a nucleic acid barcode sequence and a plurality of analytes.
Claim 1 of ‘702 does not teach that the nucleic acid barcode sequence coupled to the labelled cell also comprises a capture sequence, or that the nucleic acid barcode sequence and the nucleic acid capture sequence are added to a nucleic acid molecule coupled to the surface of the cell. However, these limitations are known in the art, as taught by Gartner.
The teachings of Gartner in relation to claims 21 and 24 are further detailed above. Briefly, Gartner teaches labeling a cell with a composite nucleic acid which consists of a barcode sequence and an anchor sequence, such as a poly-T sequence.
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 ‘702 with the method of Gartner. One would be motivated to include a capture sequence on the surface of the cell, as Gartner teaches that poly-T sequences can hybridize with analytes such as mRNA, which contain a poly-A tail and obviates the need for including a capture bead for barcoding nucleic acid analytes (paragraph [0289]). One would have a reasonable expectation of success given that Gartner successfully demonstrate labeling of a cell with a lipid-moiety coupled via a disulfide bond to an oligonucleotide that is then attached to another oligonucleotide containing a barcode and a capture sequence.
Regarding claims 29 and 30: Claim 12 of ‘702 teaches that the labelling molecules contain a cell binding moiety which is “coupled” to a cell barcode molecule. Claim 12 does not explicitly teach that this coupling is a direct attachment or indirect attachment.
However, Gartner teaches that a barcode molecule can be coupled to a cell binding moiety via a direct or indirect attachment (as detailed above).
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 ‘702 with the method of Gartner. One would have a reasonable expectation of success with either direct or indirect attachment to a cell binding moiety given that this is a known technique in the art.
Regarding claim 32: Claim 1 of ‘702 teaches that there is a nucleic acid barcode molecule attached to a cell.
Claim 1 of ‘702 does not teach that there is an additional functional sequence attached to this nucleic acid molecule.
However, attaching an additional functional sequence to a cell surface in addition to a barcode sequence and in variable orders was known in the art, as taught by Gartner.
Gartner teaches that the nucleic acid molecule may also comprise a priming site (reads on a primer binding sequence; paragraph [0177]).
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 ‘702 with the method of Gartner. One would be motivated to make this modification given the assertion by Gartner that the inclusion of a priming site or other functional sequence would “facilitate further processing and analysis” (paragraph [0177]). One would have a reasonable expectation of success given that Gartner demonstrate examples in which a PCR handle is incorporated along with a barcode and a capture sequence.
Regarding claims 52 and 54: Claim 1 of ‘702 teaches that there is a nucleic acid barcode molecule attached to a cell.
Claim 1 of ‘702 does not teach that attachment of the labelling molecules to the cells comprises enzymatic ligation or hybridization.
However, Gartner teaches that attachment of the barcode sequence and capture sequence can occur through hybridization (to the nucleic acid attached to the lipid moiety embedded in the cell surface) and ligation to the existing nucleic acid molecule (paragraphs [0288-0290]).
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 ‘702 with the method of Gartner. One would be motivated to do so given that Gartner demonstrates effective attachment of barcoding sequences to cells with such methodology and hybridization and ligation are common techniques of the art.
Claims 23, 47-51, 53, and 57 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 10-14, and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 10,858,702 in view of Gartner (Gartner et al., US 2021/0388447 A1, EFD of May 8, 2019) as applied to claims 21-22, 24-32, 52, 54-56, and 58-60 above and further in view of Brown (Brown et al., WO 2012/112804 A1; cited on IDS submitted on 3/15/2023) and Keefe (Keefe et al., Current Opinion in Chemical Biology, 2015) based on the citations and rationales provided above.
Copending Application No. 18/786,209
Claims 21-22, 24-32, 52-56, and 58-60 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 31, 34, 38-39, 41, 43, 47-49, and 50 of copending Application No. 18/786,209 in view of Gartner (Gartner et al., US 2021/0388447 A1, EFD of May 8, 2019) based on the citations and rationales provided above.
Regarding claim 27: Claim 31 of ‘209 teaches attaching a cell surface labeling molecule with a first cell nucleic acid barcode molecule with a corresponding nucleic acid barcode sequence. Claim 31 does not teach attaching multiple nucleic acid barcode molecules to the cell.
Gartner teaches providing multiple barcoded oligonucleotides with capture sequences (paragraphs [0172, 0181, and 0288-0290] and Figure 8B).
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 ‘209 with the method of Gartner given the assertion by Gartner that this allows for generation of unique cellular barcodes through a split-pool approach to labeling (paragraph [0290]).
Claims 23, 47-51, and 57 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 31, 34, 38-39, 41, 43, 47-49, and 50 of copending Application No. 18/786,209 in view of Gartner (Gartner et al., US 2021/0388447 A1, EFD of May 8, 2019), as applied to claims 21-22, 24-32, 52-56, and 58-60 above, and further in view of Brown (Brown et al., WO 2012/112804 A1; cited on IDS submitted on 3/15/2023) based on the citations and rationales provided above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
U.S. Patent No. 10,550,429
Claims 21-22, 24-32, 52, 54-56, and 58-60 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 28 and 29 of U.S. Patent No. 10,550,429 in view of Gartner (Gartner et al., US 2021/0388447 A1, EFD of May 8, 2019) based on the citations and rationales provided above.
Claims 23, 47-51, 52, and 57 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 10-14, and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 10,550,429 in view of Gartner (Gartner et al., US 2021/0388447 A1, EFD of May 8, 2019) as applied to claims 21-22, 24-32, 52, 54-56, and 58-60 above, and further in view of Brown (Brown et al., WO 2012/112804 A1; cited on IDS submitted on 3/15/2023) and Keefe (Keefe et al., Current Opinion in Chemical Biology, 2015) based on the citations and rationales provided above.
U.S. Patent No. 10,725,027
Claims 21-22, 24-32, 52, 54-56, and 58-60 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10-11, and 14-15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,725,027 in view of Gartner (Gartner et al., US 2021/0388447 A1, EFD of May 8, 2019) based on the citations and rationales provided above.
Claims 23, 47-51, 52, and 57 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10-11, and 14-15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,725,027 in view of Gartner (Gartner et al., US 2021/0388447 A1, EFD of May 8, 2019) as applied to claims 21-22, 24-32, 52, 54-56, and 58-60 above, and further in view of Brown (Brown et al., WO 2012/112804 A1; cited on IDS submitted on 3/15/2023) and Keefe (Keefe et al., Current Opinion in Chemical Biology, 2015) based on the citations and rationales provided above.
U.S. Patent No. 11,248,267
Claims 21-22, 24-32, 52, 54-56, and 58-60 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 11-12, 16, and 25-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,248,267 in view of Gartner (Gartner et al., US 2021/0388447 A1, EFD of May 8, 2019) based on the citations and rationales provided above.
Claims 23, 47-51, 52, and 57 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 11-12, 16, and 25-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,248,267 in view of Gartner (Gartner et al., US 2021/0388447 A1, EFD of May 8, 2019) as applied to claims 21-22, 24-32, 52, 54-56, and 58-60 above and further in view of Brown (Brown et al., WO 2012/112804 A1; cited on IDS submitted on 3/15/2023) and Keefe (Keefe et al., Current Opinion in Chemical Biology, 2015) based on the citations and rationales provided above.
Copending Application No. 18/236,616
Claims 21-22, 24-32, 52, 54-56, and 58-60 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 7, 19, 20, and 28 of copending Application No. 18/236,616 in view of Gartner (Gartner et al., US 2021/0388447 A1, EFD of May 8, 2019) based on the citations and rationales provided above.
Claims 23, 47-51, 52, and 57 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 7, 19, 20, and 28 of copending Application No. 18/236,616 in view of Gartner (Gartner et al., US 2021/0388447 A1, EFD of May 8, 2019) as applied to claims 21-22, 24-32, 52, 54-56, and 58-60 above and further in view of Brown (Brown et al., WO 2012/112804 A1; cited on IDS submitted on 3/15/2023) and Keefe (Keefe et al., Current Opinion in Chemical Biology, 2015) based on the citations and rationales provided above.
Copending Application No. 18/742,590
Claims 21-22, 24-32, 52, 54-56, and 58-60 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 31, 34-35, 42-43, and 49-50 of copending Application No. 18/742,590 in view of Gartner (Gartner et al., US 2021/0388447 A1, EFD of May 8, 2019) based on the citations and rationales provided above.
Claims 23, 47-51, 52, and 57 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 31, 34-35, 42-43, and 49-50 of copending Application No. 18/742,590 in view of Gartner (Gartner et al., US 2021/0388447 A1, EFD of May 8, 2019) as applied to claims 21-22, 24-32, 52, 54-56, and 58-60 above and further in view of Brown (Brown et al., WO 2012/112804 A1; cited on IDS submitted on 3/15/2023) and Keefe (Keefe et al., Current Opinion in Chemical Biology, 2015) based on the citations and rationales provided above.
Response to Remarks
For all double patenting rejections above, Applicant has request that they be “held in abeyance until the claims have been found otherwise allowable” (page 8 of Remarks). The claims remain unallowable as described by the new art rejections made above, necessitated by amendments. Therefore, the double patenting rejections have been amended to reflect this and remain in effect.
The double patenting rejections in view of copending applications 19/016,998 and 17/716,134 have been withdrawn given that these copending applications have been abandoned.
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
Prosecution Insights