Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s amendment
Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed 10/27/2022 has been received and entered. Claims 1-46, 65-69 have been cancelled.
Claims 47-64 are pending.
Priority
This application filed 4/19/2022 is a continuation of 15/724476 filed 10/4/2017, now US Patent 11,335436, which is a continuation of PCT/US2017/019067 filed 4/22/2016, which claims benefit to US Provisional application 62/152782 filed 4/24/2015.
Information Disclosure Statement
The three information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/19/2022 through 10/24/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
It is noted that the IDS contain office actions related to foreign applications, but do not provide a context or specific claims or references that are discussed in the actions (see for example for PCT/US2016/029067 in IDS of 10/24/2023). These have been reviewed for what is provided within them, but the relevant application material such as specification, claims and cited references have not been used for the review.
Additionally, it is noted that the listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. While an IDS has been filed, comparison of the references listed and those in the specification has not been performed, see for example [0044]. 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 47-64 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,335436 (the present application is a continuation of 15/724476 filed 10/4/2017). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each are directed to determining the presence or absences of a taxa, where steps of analysis requiring identifying or having informative sequences for specific taxa, and comparing sequence read data with the informative taxa sequence information. The sequence information can be of any size, and dependent claims indicate it is k-mers derived from a reference, and can be amino acid sequences derived from reverse translating the polynucleotide reference sequences. Dependent claims provide for how the comparison is performed and provides guidance when a specific sequence does not exist in a reference (claim 51), based on knowledge of the sample/data source that taxa may represent contamination (claim 53), and interpretation of matches of taxa as being indicative of infection and correlative possible treatments if known (claims 55-61) and a specific focus on 16S rRNA sequences as being informative of the possible taxa.
The allowed independent claim 1 of ‘436 is provided for completeness and clarity of the record.
A method of identifying a presence or an absence of taxa in a sample from a sample source, the method comprising:
(a) obtaining, for each respective k-mer in a plurality of k-mers, for each respective reference polynucleotide sequence (refi) in a set of reference polynucleotide sequences, a corresponding k-mer weight for the respective k-mer for the respective reference polynucleotide sequence that is a measure of how likely it is that the corresponding k-mer originates from the respective reference polynucleotide sequence, thereby forming a plurality of k-mer weights, wherein each k-mer in the plurality of k-mers has the same length of k nucleotides and wherein k is in a range of 3 to 30;
(b) providing a set of sample sequencing reads for a plurality of polynucleotides from the sample, wherein the set of sample sequencing reads comprises at least 500,000 sample sequencing reads, and wherein each sample sequencing read in the set of sample sequencing reads has a length of 30 nucleotides or more, and for each respective sample sequencing read:
(i) performing, with a computer system, a sequence comparison between the respective sample sequencing read and the set of reference polynucleotide sequences, wherein the processing comparison comprises determining, for each respective reference polynucleotide sequence in the set of reference polynucleotide sequences, quantitative measures of a respective set of k-mers within the sequence respective sample sequencing read that are also found in the respective reference polynucleotide sequence by comparison of each k-mer in the respective sample sequencing read of length k to each respective k-mer in the plurality k-mers; and
(ii) calculating a respective probability that the respective sample sequencing read corresponds to a particular reference polynucleotide sequence in the set of reference polynucleotide sequences based on the k-mer weights, in the plurality of k-mer weights, for the respective set of k-mers within the sample sequencing read that are also found in the particular reference polynucleotide sequence, thereby generating a respective sequence probability that the respective sample sequencing read matches the particular reference polynucleotide sequence;
(c) calculating one or more scores for the presence or absence of one or more taxa in the sample based on the respective sequence probabilities of each sequencing read in the set of sample sequencing reads; and
(d) identifying a presence or an absence of the taxa based at least in part on the one or more scores.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 47-64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim analysis
Claim 47 is generally directed to a method of detecting the presence or absence of a taxa in a sample. More specifically, the claims recite and require receiving sequence reads/data, assigning the reads to a taxa based on homology to a reference sequence to identify the presence/absence of the bacteria in the sample based on the presence/absence of a read representing the taxa. Dependent claims set forth more details on the comparison and how identification is made, where the difference is in 16S rRNA and may be only a single base or called a bio-signature representing the bacteria, or how the comparison is performed, and indication of the source of the sample and reference sequences. Based on the identification of a bacteria one can further select a medical condition or treatment action based on a condition that may be associated with the bacteria detected and that the process can be repeated for a sample source.
Claim 47 in the preamble indicates that the method comprises “providing sequence reads”, which is separate from the detection steps specifically set forth. With respect to the method steps, in review of the specification at [0053] it teaches:
“The terms "determining", "measuring", "evaluating", "assessing," "assaying," and "analyzing" can be used interchangeably herein to refer to any form of measurement, and include determining if an element is present or not (for example, detection). These terms can include both quantitative and/or qualitative determinations. Assessing may be relative or absolute. "Detecting the presence of' can include determining the amount of something present, as well as determining whether it is present or absent.”
and appears to provide for a step further evaluation of the sequences that are provided.
For step 1 of the 101 analysis, the claims are found to be directed to a statutory category of a method.
For step 2A of the 101 analysis, the judicial exception of the claims are the steps of accessing sequence data for the presence or absence of bacterial sequences representing a taxa; and further where the bacteria if associated with a condition providing a selection of treatment options which can be monitored. In light of the specification and art relied upon, the use of k-mers for comparing sample sequence read data and reference sequence data relies on the step of aligning and comparing sequence to arrive at the identification of sequences and are considered are instructional steps. The judicial exception is a set of instructions for analysis of sequence data and appear to fall into the category of Mental Processes, that is concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The claims require no specific sample and even provide that the sequence analyzed is not present in the sample (for the determination of absence recited in the claim) and provide for the indication of comparing a k-mer which is a fragment of data, for example as provided in [0063] which teaches:
“In general, "k-mer" refers to the subsequences of a given length k that make up a sequencing read. For example, a the sequence "AGCTCT" can be divided into the 3-nt subsequences "AGC," "GCT," "CTC," and "TCT." In this example, each of these subsequences is a k-mer, wherein k=3.”
which is clearly small and uncomplicated sequences which appear to be capable of being analyzed in one’s mind or on paper for comparing a sample and reference sequence.
Recent guidance from the office requires that the judicial exception be evaluated under a second prong to determine whether the judicial exception is practically applied. In the instant case, the claims do not have an additional element. It is noted that the claims set forth ‘selecting’ a treatment, but this does not appear to be a physical step for treatment and drawn to the correlation of an identified bacteria and possible known treatments in particular conditions (if such exist for any given sequence within the breadth of the claims). To the embodiment that the method is performed on a computer, this judicial exception requires steps recited at high level of generality and are only stored on a non-transitory, and is not found to be a practical application of the judicial exception as broadly set forth.
For step 2B of the 101 analysis, each of the independent claims recites additional elements and are found to be the steps of obtaining sequence data. As such, the claims do not provide for any additional element to consider under step 2B. it is noted that in explaining the Alice framework, the Court wrote that "[i]n cases involving software innovations, [the step one] inquiry often turns on whether the claims focus on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an abstract idea for which computers are invoked merely as a tool." The Court further noted that "[s]ince Alice, we have found software inventions to be patent-eligible where they have made non-abstract improvements to existing technological processes and computer technology." Moreover, these improvements must be specific -- "[a]n improved result, without more stated in the claim, is not enough to confer eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea . . . [t]o be patent-eligible, the claims must recite a specific means or method that solves a problem in an existing technological process."
To the extent that obtaining sequence reads can be implemented and requires a physical step, it is noted that in review of the specification at [0043] it teaches that
“However, equivalent conventional procedures can, of course, also be used. Such conventional techniques and descriptions can be found in standard laboratory manuals such as Green, et al., Eds., Genome Analysis: A Laboratory Manual Series (Vols. I-IV) (1999); Weiner, et al., Eds., Genetic Variation: A Laboratory Manual (2007); Dieffenbach, Dveksler, Eds., PCR Primer: A Laboratory Manual (2003); Bowtell and Sambrook, DNA Microarrays: A Molecular Cloning Manual (2003); Mount, Bioinformatics: Sequence and Genome Analysis (2004); Sambrook and Russell, Condensed Protocols from Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual (2006); and Sambrook and Russell, Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual (2002) (all from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press); Stryer, L., Biochemistry (4th Ed.) W.H. Freeman, N.Y. (1995); Gait, "Oligonucleotide Synthesis: A Practical Approach" IRL Press, London (1984); Nelson and Cox, Lehninger, Principles of Biochemistry, 3rd Ed., W.H. Freeman Pub., New York (2000); and Berg et al., Biochemistry, SthEd., W.H. Freeman Pub., New York (2002), all of which are herein incorporated by reference in their entirety for all purposes. Before the present compositions, research tools and systems and methods are described, it is to be understood that this disclosure is not limited to the specific systems and methods, compositions, targets and uses described, as such may, of course, vary.”
and the claims appear to rely on known methodology to obtain sequence reads.
As indicated in the summary of the judicial exception above and in view of the teachings of the specification, the steps are drawn to analysis of sequence data. While the instruction could be stored on a medium and could be implemented on a computer, together the steps do not appear to result in significantly more than a means to compare sequences. The judicial exception of the method as claimed can be performed by hand and in light of the previous claims to a computer medium and in light of the teaching of the specification on a computer. In review of the instant specification the methods do not appear to require a special type of processor and can be performed on a general purpose computer. For step 2B of the 101 analysis, initially it is noted that he claims do not recite or require any details on implementation and are interpreted to not comprise any additional elements to evaluate under step 2B. However, for compact prosecution to the extent that the method could be performed with the aid of a computer, each of the independent claims recites additional elements and are found to be the steps of receiving/obtaining sequence data, and are almost independent and separate from the analysis steps. In view of the guidance of the specification, it does not appear that the how the data is received affects the analysis required of the claim. As such, the claims do not provide for any additional element to consider under step 2B, nor provide for significantly more. Claims 47-64 are directed towards a method of receiving sequence data and comparing the data to identify possible sequences present in a sample as compared to a reference sequence wherein the sequences represent sequences specific for a taxa of bacteria. Dependent claims set forth additional steps which are more specifically define the considerations and steps of calculating, and comparing, and do not add additional elements which result in significantly more to the claimed method for the analysis.
One way to overcome a rejection for non-patent-eligible subject matter is to persuasively argue that the claimed subject matter is not directed to a judicial exception. Another way for the applicants to overcome the rejection is to persuasively argue that the claims contain elements in addition to the judicial exception that either individually or as an ordered combination are not well understood, routine, or conventional. Another way for the applicants to overcome the rejection is to persuasively argue that the claims as a whole result in an improvement to a technology. Persuasive evidence for an improvement to a technology could be a comparison of results of the claimed subject matter with results of the prior art, or arguments based on scientific reasoning that the claimed subject matter inherently results an improvement over the prior art. The applicants should show why the claims require the improvement in all embodiments.
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 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.
Claim 47-64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colwell et al. in US 2012/0004111 A1 and Beer et al. in US 2014/0129152 (both of record).
Claim 47 is directed to a method of detecting the presence or absence broadly of any taxa in a sample, and recites steps for receiving sequence reads/data, assigning the reads to a taxa based on homology to a reference sequence to identify the presence/absence of the bacteria in the sample based on the presence/absence of a read representing the taxa. The determination is based on homology which is determined using ‘k-mers’ as set forth in dependent claims, and the amount of the sequence is quantified by their presence or absence in the read data. Additional steps for associating identified taxa, such as bacteria, virus or fungus with medical conditions or as contamination to a sample are set forth in dependent claims.
The identification of taxa, for example specific bacteria present in a sample, was well known. With respect to the required steps of the claims, Colwell teaches a method of identifying one or more taxa in a sample from a sample source, the method comprising (a) providing sequencing reads for a plurality of polynucleotides from the sample (para [0038]), and for each sequencing read: (i) performing with a computer system a sequence comparison between the sequencing read and a plurality of reference polynucleotide sequences (para [0042]), wherein the comparison comprises calculating k-mer weights as a measure of how likely it is that kmers within the sequencing read are derived from a reference sequence within the plurality of reference polynucleotide sequences (para [0189], [0188]; para [0041]- for example the teaching of "determine the identities of organisms contained in the sample at least to the species level using the probabilistic results"); and (ii) calculating a probability that the sequencing read corresponds to a particular reference sequence in a database of reference sequences based on the k-mers (para [0041], [0189], [0188]), thereby generating a sequence probability (para [0040]; "The identified matches may be exact matches. The identified matches may comprise inexact matches").
It is noted that Colwell does not teach use of k-mer quantity. However, calculating k-mer quantity as a basis of comparison was well known in the art, for example, as taught by Beer (para [0066]). An artisan of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the value of using k-mer because it would have enabled a method of increasing the likelihood that the sequence read is a strong match or high probability match to a reference sequence. Concerning calculating a score for the presence or absence of one or more taxa based on the sequence probabilities corresponding to sequences representative of said one or more taxa, Colwell further teaches (para [0154]; "The probabilistic comparisons of step S1301 produces probabilistic results, which in some embodiments may be in the form of a probability map of probabilities that species and/or strains of microorganisms within a reference genomic database are present in the sample The probability map may enable correlation of the probabilities of the probability map with relative populations and/or concentrations of microorganisms contained within the sample").
Colwell does not specifically teach providing a means of associating an unknown or undefined taxa in read data of a sample by association with closely related known taxa, although Colwell does teach the use of probabilistic likelihoods. In addition, Beer specifically teaches computing a score (para [0066]; "For example, in a method the weights file output by the Train SVM step may list all k-mers and their corresponding scores. The SVM weight is a continuous valued quantity, and large absolute value is a direct measure of significance. It is the scores with large absolute values that will be of particular value to the biologist").
An artisan of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the value of specifically presenting a score based on k-mer weights as a means of determining if one of more taxa were present, and would have used this convenient tool. Colwell further teaches identifying the one or more taxa as present or absent in the sample based on the corresponding scores (para [0154]; para [0044]-" generating sequence information from the nucleic acid molecule(s) and probabilistic-based comparing the sequence information to nucleic acid sequences in a database. Identifying a biological material includes, but not limited to, detecting and/or determining the genomes present in the sample, nucleic acid sequence information contained within the sample, ability to determine the species of the biological material, ability to detect variations between strains"; para [0163]; "In steps S1301 and S1302, instrument 1100 may perform primary filtering to determine what species and strains from one or more reference databases may be present in the metagenomic sample. Then, in steps S1303 and S1304, instrument 1100 may perform secondary and tertiary filtering to eliminate both false negatives and false positives and to identify at the strain level what is present in the sample"). Consequently, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine claim limitations (a), (b). (c). with the exception of k-mer weight and k-mer weigh score, as taught by Colwell, with the concept of k-mer weight and k-mer weigh score, as taught by Beer, because it would have enabled identifying one or more taxa in a sample.
Dependent claims set forth more details on the comparison and how identification is made, for example where the difference is only a single base or a specific s16 RNA signature representing the bacteria, or how the comparison is performed, and indication of the source of the sample and reference sequences. Based on the identification of a bacteria one can further ‘select’ a medical treatment based on a condition that may be associated with the bacteria detected and that the process can be repeated for a sample source. Given the guidance of the specification, assessing the presence or absences of anything in the data may be relative or absolute. "Detecting the presence of' can include determining the amount of something present, as well as determining whether it is present or absent.”. Cowell et al provide a specific overview of the usefulness of 16S rRNA at [0205] which provides “One of the standard methods for identifying bacteria is by using the robustness of 16S rDNA for taxonomic placement. The 16S population assessment targets the 16S-23S rRNA gene intergenic transcribed spacer (ITS) region. However, 16S rDNA is limited to genus level resolution. In other words, 16S rDNA identifies bacteria only to the genus, family and order level. - 101 -Each genus, family and order constitutes a large number of species representing both commensals and pathogens. Plus, 16S rDNA is only specific typically at the family-level and may even underperform for genus level identification.”; and provides that some bacteria are associated with human disease or conditions, for example at [0206]-[0027] which ‘illustrate the relative population measurements of 16S rDNA compared to the direct DNA sequencing with genomic identification of the present invention. FIG. 17A shows population measurements using 16S rDNA, and FIGS. 17B-17E show populations measurements using the direct DNA sequencing with genomic identification of the present invention. FIGS. 17C- 17E show species and strains of the Clostridium genus, Bacteroides genus, and Escherichia/Shigella genus, respectively, identified by the direct DNA sequencing with genomic identification of the present invention, along with their relative concentrations. As shown in FIGS. 17A-17E, the direct DNA sequencing with metagenomic identification of the present invention further classified each genus identified by 16S to the species and/or strain levels. For example, the Clostridium genus includes commensal species but also includes four main species responsible for disease in humans: Clostridium difficile, Clostridium botulinum, Clostridium perfringens and Clostridium tetani. While 16S identified that the sample contained bacteria. - 102 -
Given the teaching of Cowell and Beer, it is clear that the use of 16S rRNA is useful target to distinguish taxa in bacteria. Colwell further teaches that the one or more taxa comprise a first bacterial strain identified as present and a second bacterial strain identified as absent based on one or more nucleotide differences in sequence (para [0149]; "In some embodiments, the metagenomic analysis process run in step S1204 may characterize the microbial community of the sample by identifying the microbial community of the sample at the species and/or sub-species and/or strain level with their relative concentrations or abundance. In particular, the genomes of organisms contained within the sample may be identified based on the metagenomic fragment reads by performing probabilistic comparisons for each of the plurality of metagenomic fragment reads against genomic sequence information contained in one or more reference genomic databases"). Colwell further teaches that the first bacterial strain is identified as present and the second bacterial strain is identified as absent based on a single nucleotide difference m sequence (para [0096]; "Genome sequence data of target pathogens are compared with those of genomes of non-pathogens including human and metagenome to identify nucleotide sequences and single nucleotide polymorphic (SNP) sites, which only occur in target organisms"), and means of analyzing the presence or absence with respect to each reference sequence in the database of reference sequences is associated with, prior to the comparison, a reference k-mer weight as a measure of how likely it is that a k-mer within the reference sequence originates from the reference sequence, the claim is obvious based on the teaching of Beer that the reference would be assigned a k-mer weight (para [0066]; The output of SVM [i.e. support vector machine] training may be a list of k-mer weights, and it is the weighted sum of normalized k-mer counts in a sequence that determines the predicted class"). Colwell further teaches that the database of reference sequences comprises sequences from a plurality of taxa (para [0163]; "primary filtering to determine what species and strains from one or more reference databases may be present"; para [0116]; Taxonomy Database: The database will hold multiple internal databases: taxonomy tree, indexed pre-processed tree, user input and rules para [0033]; "In one embodiment of the invention, the probabilistic results may be in the form of a probability map o( probabilities that species and/or sub-species and/or strains of organisms contained within the reference database are present within the sample", para [0030]; “a plurality of genome reads from a reference database"). Furthermore, it would have been obvious based on the teaching of Colwell, in view of Beer that and each reference sequence in the database of reference sequences is associated with a reference k-mer weight (Beer; para [0066]) as a measure of how likely it is that a k-mer within the reference sequence originates from a taxon within the plurality of taxa. Given the detailed guidance of Cowell for the method to identify taxa of bactria and evidence and teaching of Beer for analysis, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use probabilistic analysis of informative k-mers present. The claims require analysis of sequence reads from a sample and comparison to a database and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the simple steps required to practice the steps as claimed.
Thus, the claimed invention as a whole was clearly prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph T Woitach whose telephone number is (571)272-0739. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8:00-4:00.
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, Karlheinz R Skowronek can be reached at 571 272-9047. 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.
/Joseph Woitach/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1687
Prosecution Insights