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 .
Applicant Response
Applicant's response, filed 09/26/2025, has been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous Office Actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Status
Claims 13-14, 18-23 and 26-66 are canceled.
Claims 1-12, 15-17, 24-25 and 67-71 are pending and under examination herein.
Claims 1-12, 15-17, 24-25 and 67-71 are rejected.
Declaration submitted under 37 CFR 1.130(a)
The applicants have filed a Declaration under 37 CFR 1.130 filed 08/16/2024, declaring that all joint inventors were employees of the assignee, Illumina, Inc. where they participated in the DRAGEN Bio-IT platform development, and the joint inventors developed the unique molecular identifier (UMI) features described in the UMI section on pages 230-238 of the Illumina Dragen Bio-IT Platform v3.8 User Guide (Document # 1000000158551 v01, ILLUMINA, INC., 2021), and that the information pertaining to the UMI section was either made by the joint inventors at the time of the invention or by another Illumina employee who obtained the disclosed subject matter directly or indirectly from the joint inventors of the instant application.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), to US Provisional Application 63/190716 , filed 05/19/2021, is acknowledged. As such the effective filing date of claims 1-12, 15-17, 24-25 and 67-71 is 05/19/2021, in view of claim amendments filed 02/11/2025.
Drawings
The drawings were accepted in the office action mailed 01/16/2024.
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 3-12,16 and 24 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. This rejection is newly recited and necessitated by claim amendments filed 09/26/2025.
Claims 3 (and all claims dependent thereon), 8-12, recites the limitation "wherein performing probability-based merging comprises”, claim 16 recites the limitation “before probability-based merging is performed”, and claim 24 recites “subsequent to performing probability-based merging “, but there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims, as claim 1 on which they depend no longer recites performing probability-based merging.
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 1-12, 15-17, 24-25 and 67-71 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea/law of nature/natural phenomenon without significantly more. Newly recited portions are necessitated by claim amendments.
In accordance with MPEP § 2106, claims found to recite statutory subject matter (Step 1: YES) are then analyzed to determine if the claims recite any concepts that equate to an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon (Step 2A, Prong 1). In the instant application, the claims recite the following limitations that equate to an abstract idea and a law of nature or natural phenomenon:
Claim 1 recites aligning the plurality of sequence reads to a reference sequence using the fragment sequences; grouping the plurality of sequence reads into a plurality of families of sequence reads based on the UMI sequences and aligned positions within a fuzzy window; performing UMI statistic estimation on a subset of the plurality of families to estimate UMI jumping rate, fragment insert-size distribution, and UMI frequency, and applying the estimated statistics when evaluating all families; for probability-based merging, computing, for candidate pairs of families, a relative likelihood score that the two families are derived from the same original nucleic acid molecule, the relative likelihood score comprising a product of (i) a likelihood ratio given fragment positions and insert-size distribution and (ii) a likelihood ratio of UMI transition given the estimated UMI jumping rate and UMI frequency; and merging, in an iterative manner, the two families having the highest relative likelihood score when the score exceeds a dynamically adjusted merging likelihood threshold, updating families, and repeating until no additional pairs exceed the merging likelihood threshold; determining a consensus fragment sequence for each resulting family of sequence reads, wherein the consensus sequence determination incorporates error-correction informed by the UMI statistic estimation and probability-based merging to enhance low-frequency variant detection; and determining the sequence of the original nucleic acid molecule based on the consensus fragment sequences.
Claim 24 recites further comprising: subsequent to performing probability-based merging, for one, one or more, or each of the plurality of families, a position of the consensus fragment sequence aligned to the reference sequence, and/or a consensus UMI sequence of the family, optionally wherein the method further comprises: aligning the consensus fragment sequence to the reference sequence.
Claim 70 recites further comprising: identifying one or more variants in the determined sequence of the nucleic acid molecule.
These recitations equate to steps of collecting information, analyzing data and making observations, evaluations and judgements that can be carried out in the human mind. Specifically, aligning sequence reads to a reference sequence, grouping sequence reads, performing UMI statistic estimation on a subset of families by determining a UMI jumping rate based on fragment and UMI frequency and sequencing coverage distribution, the step for probability-based merging of families, determining a consensus fragment sequence for each of the pluralities of families of sequence reads, determining the sequence of the original nucleic acid molecule based on the consensus fragment sequences, determining a relative likelihood, determining the relative likelihood score is above a merging likelihood threshold, merging based on the relative likelihood score and merging likelihood threshold, determining a likelihood ratio, aligning the consensus sequence to a reference sequence, a position of the consensus fragment sequence aligned to the reference sequence and/or a consensus UMI sequence of the family, and identifying one or more variants in the determined sequence of the nucleic acid molecule can be practically performing the human mind as claimed and are similar to the concepts of collecting and comparing known information in Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011) and collecting information, analyzing it, and reporting certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) that the courts have identified as concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind. Therefore, each of the above recited limitations fall under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Furthermore, the steps as claimed for performing UMI statistic estimation, probability-based merging, and determining likelihood ratios equate to organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations and reciting a mathematical equation, similar to the concepts of taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form in Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Therefore, these limitations fall under the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Claims 2-3, 5-10, and 12, 15-17 further qualify the judicial exceptions. As such, claims 1-12, 15-17, 24-25 and 67-71 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES).
Claims found to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong 1 are then further analyzed to determine if the claims as a whole integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or not (Step 2A, Prong 2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite an additional element that reflects an improvement to technology or applies or uses the recited judicial exception to affect a particular treatment for a condition. Rather, the instant claims recite additional elements that amount to mere data-gathering and mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a generic computing environment:
Claim 1 recites preparing a nucleic acid sequencing library comprising a plurality of fragment sequences, the preparing comprising tagging one or more of the plurality of fragment sequences with one or more unique molecular identifier (UMI) sequences; sequencing the plurality of fragment sequences using a high-throughput sequencing platform to generate a plurality of sequence reads, each sequence read comprising a fragment sequence and a UMI sequence; under control of a hardware processor: receiving a plurality of sequence reads.
Claim 25 recites further comprising: creating a file or a report and/or generating a user interface (UI) comprising a UI element representing or comprising, for one, one or more, or each of the plurality of families, (i) the family, (ii) sequence reads of the family, fragment sequences of the family, and/or UMI sequences of the family, and/or (iii) a consensus fragment sequence of the family, a position of the consensus fragment sequence aligned to the reference sequence, and/or a consensus UMI sequence of the family.
Claim 67 recites wherein one, one or more, or each of the plurality of sequence reads comprises a second UMI sequence.
Claim 68 recites wherein the UMI sequence is 5' to the fragment sequence, and wherein the second UMI sequence is 3' to the fragment sequence.
Claim 69 recites wherein the UMI sequence is 3' to the fragment sequence, and wherein the second UMI sequence is 5' to the fragment sequence.
Claim 70 recites wherein the UMI sequence and/or the second UMI sequence is 4-20 bases in length.
Claim 1 recites further limitations of how data is obtained and claims 67-70 recites further limitations on that data. These limitations equate to mere data gathering activity to obtain the data necessary for the mental evaluations and judgements (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claims 25 recites limitations for outputting data that the courts consider to be an insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). There is no indication that any of these additional elements provide a practical application of the recited judicial exception outside of the judicial exception itself. Claims 1 merely recites using a generic computing systems and computer program products to carry out instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. The computer system and computer program product as claimed fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished and only recites the idea of a solution or outcome. There are no limitations that indicate that the claimed steps require anything other than generic computing systems. As such, these limitations equate to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer that the courts have stated does not render an abstract idea eligible in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. Furthermore, the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). As such, claims 1-12, 15-17, 24-25 and 67-71 are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO).
Claims found to be directed to a judicial exception are then further evaluated to determine if the claims recite an inventive concept that provides significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B). Further analyzing the additional elements under step 2B, the additional elements as described above do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. As directed in the Berkheimer memorandum of 19 April 2018 and set forth in the MPEP, determinations of whether or not additional elements (or a combination of additional elements) may provide significantly more and/or an inventive concept rests in whether or not the additional elements (or combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Said assessment is made by a factual determination stemming from a conclusion that an element (or combination of elements) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry, which is determined by either a citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates a well-understood, routine or conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to one or more of the court decisions as discussed in MPEP 2106(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); and/or a statement that the examiner is taking official notice with respect to the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
With respect to the instant claims under the 2B analysis, the prior art to Illumina Dragen Bio-IT Platform v3.5 User Guide (Document # 1000000111887 v00, ILLUMINA, INC., 2020; previously cited; hereafter referred to as Dragen v3.5 user guide) and Peng et al. (Sci Rep 2019, 9, 4810; previously cited; hereafter referred to as Peng), discloses that obtaining duplex UMI sequencing data with complementary UMI sequences that are 4-20 bases in length in which UMIs are swapped from Read 1 and 2, and outputting results is a data gathering element that is routine, well-understood and conventional in the art (Dragen v3.5 user guide: p 106, para 5; p107, para 2- p 108 para 3; Peng: fig 1). The prior art to Peng and Xu (Computational and structural biotechnology journal 2018, 16, pp.15-24; previously cited) further disclose preparing a nucleic acid library comprising a plurality of fragment sequences comprising tagging with UMI sequences and NGS sequencing the plurality of fragment sequences (Peng, abstract and p 3, para 2-3; Xu, p 16, col 1, para 1 and p 19, col 2, para 3-4). As such, activities such as data gathering do not improve the functioning of a computer, or comprise an improvement to any other technical field; they do not require or set forth a particular machine; they do not effect a transformation of matter; nor do they provide a non-conventional or unconventional step. Rather, the data gathering and outputting steps as recited in the instant claims constitute a general link to a technological environment which is insufficient to constitute an inventive concept which would render the claims significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP2106.05(g)&(h)).
Furthermore, the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Therefore, the additional elements do not comprise an inventive concept when considered individually or as an ordered combination that transforms the claimed judicial exception into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, and the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO). As such, claims1-12, 15-17, 24-25 and 67-71 are not patent eligible.
Response to applicant’s arguments
Applicant states the claim as a whole is not abstract because it is directed to a specific technological solution for improving sequencing accuracy in high-throughput genomic workflows, which cannot be performing the human mind and human cognition cannot replicate the biochemical sequencing step nor process the resulting volume of data as it is a machine-driven statistical computation over millions of reads and the structured probability models and deterministic looks are inherently algorithmic and machine-implements and reflect algorithmic improvements akin to McRo v. Bandai, 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and the generation of new consensus sequences are new biological outputs, comparable to the new file generated in Finjan v. Blue Coat, 879 F.3d (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Applicant’s Arguments, p 9, para 5-p 11, para 5). Applicant further states the claims as a whole are not directed to disembodied mathematical formulas, and while the claims recite statistical and probability-based computation, there are applied in a particular technological context to sole sequencing-specific problems that mathematical alone cannot solve, as demonstrated by the sequencing of molecules, domain specific estimation of UMI statistics, probability-based merging parameterized by sequencing attributes, iterative threshold-gated merging loop, and creation of new biological outputs that provide an improvement to sequencing pipelines and are in service of a technological improvement in sequencing accuracy, and integrate the concepts into a practical application into the operation of sequencing machine and pipelines , and therefore the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step A, Prong 1 (Applicant’s Arguments, p 11, para -p 13, para 6).
It is respectfully submitted that this is not persuasive. The examiner agrees that the steps for library preparation and sequencing are physical steps that cannot be performed mentally. However, the subsequent steps for analyzing the results of sequencing, (i.e. performing UMI statistic estimation, probability-based merging of UMI families, etc.) are not physical steps, nor are they steps that improve the accuracy of the actual sequencing process, but rather are steps that improve the accuracy of the data analysis steps. It is not clear from the claims that the steps of the instant claims have resulted in an improvement to computer technology, as in McRO or Finjan.
Furthermore, as discussed in MPEP 2106.04(I)(A), Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 simply evaluates whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions, and the absence or presence of additional elements which are not judicial exceptions do not influence the evaluation. If any judicial exceptions are found to be recited by the claim under the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1, the analysis then moves to Step 2A, Prong 2. And, as discussed above, the claims were found to recite judicial exceptions under Step 2A, Prong 1.
There is no indication in the claim of the size or number the fragments sequences that are sequenced or analyzed that would prevent the data from being analyzed mentally. And as discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)((III)(C), limitations that merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept is considered to recite a mental process. Furthermore, even if the claims do not recite any mental processes, the claims still recite mathematical concepts such as statistical and probability-based computation. Therefore, the claims recite judicial exceptions under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Applicant further states the instant claims provide an improvement in the technological field of high-throughput nucleic acid sequencing through the integrated workflow that improves accuracy of sequencing outputs and materially alter sequencing outputs by generating new, corrected consensus reads, which materially improve downstream variant detection, and that the claim steps require a specialized laboratory instrument and recite machine-executed computation steps that tie the abstract idea to a particular implementation than to a generic computing environment and provide a meaningful limitation beyond a field of use, and that the data gathering is inseparable from and necessary to the claimed refinement steps that materially improve sequencing outputs (Applicant’s Arguments, p14, para 1-p 17, para 3).
It is respectfully submitted that this is not persuasive. As discussed above, while the sequencing steps are not considered to be abstract ideas, the subsequent steps for analyzing the data are considered to recite judicial exceptions. With respect to the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 2, as discussed above, the recited judicial exceptions are not integrated into practical application because the additional elements equate to mere data gathering and mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a generic computing environment. There is no evidence that the steps uses or require anything more than a generic computer to perform the analysis steps. And. as the applicant notes, the improvement stems from the refinements of probability-based merging and consensus determination using the raw sequencing data, which is not an improvement to sequencing technology itself. Furthermore, the results of the analysis and the determination of the consensus reads do not directly affect the high-throughput sequencing or the output of the sequencing itself, but represent the results of analysis of the data. The raw data gathered from the sequencing amounts to mere data gathering, as the data gathering steps are not affected by the downstream analysis steps and are simply used by the analysis. The improvement appear to be solely to and solely provided by the analysis steps, which were determined to be abstract ideas. As discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a), the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement and the improvement cannot be to the judicial exception itself. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant further states that the claimed elements of probability-based merging adjusted per family based on estimated UMI statistics are not disclosed by the prior art and are not conventional error-correction techniques, and that the examiner has produced no evidence that they are well-known, routine or conventional, and the present claims recite specific statistical rules tailored to sequencing workflows analogous to McRO v. Bandai, 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and Visual Memory v. NVIDIA, 867 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017), where tailored improvements to a technical field were found patent-eligible, and requests withdrawal of the rejection (Applicant’s Arguments, p 17, para 4-p 18, para 4).
It is respectfully submitted that this is not persuasive. With respect to analysis under Step 2B, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05, an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and an inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself. Therefore, only the additional elements of the claims are evaluated both individual and in combination to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept under step 2B, and steps that recite abstract idea, like the data analysis steps involving probability-based merging, are not considered under Step 2B. With respect to the additional elements of the instant claims, as discussed above, the prior art to Dragen v3.5 user guide, Peng, and Xu discloses the steps for library preparation, performing high-throughput sequencing and acquiring sequencing data are routine, well-understood and conventional in the art. Also, the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Unlike in McRO v. Bandai, 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and Visual Memory v. NVIDIA, 867 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the instant claims do not demonstrate an improvement in computer technology. Therefore, the additional elements do not comprise an inventive concept when considered individually or as an ordered combination that transforms the claimed judicial exception into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, and the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself, and the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejection of claims 1-3, 6-11, 17-18, 24-25 and 67-70 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Illumina Dragen Bio-IT Platform v3.5 User Guide (Document # 1000000111887 v00, ILLUMINA, INC., 2020; previously cited;, hereinafter referred to as the Dragen Bio-IT Platform v3.5 user guide) is withdrawn in view of claim amendments filed 09/26/2025, as the Dragen Bio-IT Platform v3.5 user guide does not appear to teach or suggest the specifics for probability-based merging and computing relative likelihood scores as recited in the amended claims.
Prior Art
Claims 1-12, 15-17, 24-25 and 67-71 appear free of the prior art, as the prior art does not teach or fairly teach the mathematical relationships for determining the relative likelihood score that the two families are derived from the same original nucleic acid molecules, or performing the probability-based merging until the relative likelihood of the families in the pair with the highest relative likelihood score is not above the merging likelihood threshold. The closest prior art is the Illumina Dragen Bio-IT Platform v3.5 User Guide (Document # 1000000111887 v00, ILLUMINA, INC., 2020; previously cited), which discloses determining the relative likelihood that the two families are derived from the same original nucleic acid molecules, performing probability-based merging on the families if the relative-likelihood is below the merging threshold and implicitly discloses performing UMI statistic estimation on a subset of families. However, the Illumina Dragen Bio-IT Platform v3.5 User Guide appears to be silent on the mathematical relationships for determining the relative likelihood that the two families are derived from the same original nucleic acid molecules, or performing the probability-based merging until the relative likelihood of the families in the pair with the highest relative likelihood is not above the merging threshold.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIDHI DHARITHREESAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5486. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Larry D Riggs II can be reached on (571) 270-3062. 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.
/N.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 1686
/Karlheinz R. Skowronek/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1687