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’s Response
Applicant’s response, filed 03/16/2026, 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 Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous Office Actions are hereby withdrawn.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.
Claims Status
Claim 4 is canceled.
Claims 19-21 are new.
Claims 1-3, and 5-21 are pending.
Claims 1-3, and 5-21 are examined.
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
The objection to the Specification is withdrawn in view of the amendments submitted.
The rejection of the claims under 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn in view of the amendments submitted.
The rejection of claims 16-18 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) over Umbarger et al. is withdrawn in view of the amendments submitted
The rejection of claims 1-3, 8, and 12 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Umbarger et al. is withdrawn in view of the amendments submitted
The rejection of claims 4, 5, 9, 10, and 13 under 35 USC 103 over Umbarger et al. in view of Jun et la. is withdrawn in view of the amendments submitted.
The rejection of claim 11 under 35 USC 103 over Umbarger et al. in view of Jun et al. and further in view of Jensen et al. is withdrawn in view of the amendments submitted.
The rejection of claims 6 and 7 under 35 USC 103 over Umbarger et al. in view of Sakarya et al. is withdrawn in view of the amendments submitted.
The rejection of claims 14 and 15 under 35 USC 103 over Umbarger et al. in view of Jensen et al. is withdrawn in view of the amendments submitted.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1 and 18, “frequencies rom the genetic variants” should read “frequencies from the genetic variants”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. This is a new grounds of rejection as necessitated by claim amendments.
With respect to claims 1 and 18, the claims recite the limitation of “the probabilistic cluster model trained from molecular sequencing data”. The claims are indefinite because it is unclear if there is an active step of training the probabilistic cluster model, and thus if the training of the model is a limitation of the claims.
With respect to claim 16, the claim recites the limitation of “treat a condition or disease identified from the genetic variants”. The claims are indefinite because it is unclear if there is an active step of identifying a disease based on the genetic variants. The claims recite a condition or disease identified from the genetic variants, however there is no step to identify the condition or disease.
The remaining claims are rejected because they are dependent upon the indefinite claims and do not remedy the indefiniteness.
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 1-3 and 5-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to an abstract idea of mental steps, mathematic concepts, or a natural law without significantly more. Any newly recited portion is necessitated by claim amendments.
The MPEP at MPEP 2106.03 sets forth steps for identifying eligible subject matter:
(1) Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of
matter?
(2A)(1) Are the claims directed to a judicially recognized exception, i.e. a law of nature,
a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
(2A)(2) If the claims are directed to a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the
judicial exception integrated into a practical application?
(2B) If the claims are directed to a judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial
exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept?
With respect to step (1): Yes, the claims are directed to processes, a non-transitory computer readable medium, and a system.
With respect to step (2A)(1): The claims are directed to abstract ideas of mental processes and mathematical concepts, and dependent claim 13 is directed to a law of nature.
“Claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection” (MPEP 2106.04). Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts (mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes (procedures for observing, evaluating, analyzing/judging and organizing information (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Laws of nature or natural phenomena include naturally occurring principles/relations that are naturally occurring or that do not have markedly different characteristics compared to what occurs in nature (MPEP 2106(b)).
Mental processes recited in claim 1:
identifying genetic variants from a molecularly sequenced sample from a subject
based on the identified genetic variants, identifying a set of alternative allele frequencies from the genetic variants that fall within a predetermined frequency range
generating a report identifying the determination of whether the sample is contaminated
Mathematical concepts recited in claim 1:
determining whether the sample is contaminated based on applying a probabilistic cluster model to the identified set of alternative allele frequencies, the probabilistic cluster model trained from molecular sequencing data representing contaminated and uncontaminated samples from subjects having the genetic variants
Mental processes recited in claim 16:
identifying genetic variants from a molecularly sequenced sample from a subject
based on the identified genetic variants, identifying a set of alternative allele frequencies from the genetic variants that fall within a predetermined frequency range
based on determining that the same is not contaminated, selecting a particular therapeutic agent
Mathematical concepts recited in claim 16:
--determining whether the sample is contaminated based on applying a probabilistic cluster model analysis of the set of alternative allele frequencies
Mental processes recited in claim 18:
analyze the obtained molecular sequence to identify one or more genetic variants of the sample
based on the identified genetic variants, identify a set of alternative allele frequencies from the genetic variants and that fall within a predetermined frequency range
generate a report identifying the determination of whether the sample is contaminated
Mathematical concepts recited in claim 18:
determine whether the sample is contaminated based on applying a probabilistic cluster model to the identified set of alternative allele frequencies, the probabilistic cluster model trained from molecular sequencing data representing contaminated and uncontaminated samples from subjects having the genetic variants
Dependent claims 2, 3, 5-12, and 19-21 recite additional steps that either are directed to abstract ideas or further limit the judicial exceptions in independent claims 1 and 18, and as such, are further directed to abstract ideas. Dependent claim 13 recites a limitation that is directed to a law of nature. Hence, the claims explicitly recite numerous elements that individually and in combination constitute abstract ideas and judicial exceptions. The relevant recitations are:
Claim 2: “the frequency range is between 0 and 0.25”
Claim 3: “the frequency range is between 0 and about 0.01”
Claim 5: “wherein the probabilistic cluster model comprises a probabilistic mixture model”
Claim 6: “determining whether any of the alternative allele frequencies is an outlier, and removing any outliers from the set of alternative allele frequencies before the analysis of the alternative allele frequencies”
Claim 7: “determining whether any of the alternative allele frequencies is an outlier comprises a local outlier factor calculation”
Claim 8: “determining a level of contamination from the analysis of the alternative allele frequencies”
Claim 9: “determining the level of contamination comprises fitting the alternative allele frequencies to a mixture model”
Claim 10: “determining a confidence level around the level of contamination”
Claim 11: “determining a confidence level comprises bootstrapping the variants and the corresponding allele frequencies”
Claim 12: “identified genetic variants comprise particular genetic variants identifying a cancer and the therapeutic agent comprises a cancer drug selected […] to treat the cancer identified from the particular genetic variants”
Claim 13: “wherein the cancer drug performs better on a patient having a particular variant that on a patient without the particular variant”
Claim 19: “based on determining that the sample is not contaminated and based on the identified genetic variants, selecting and reporting the selection of a particular therapeutic agent designed to treat a condition or disease identified from the genetic variants”
Claim 20: “wherein the identified genetic variants comprise particular genetic variants associated with a cancer and the therapeutic agent comprises a cancer drug selected to treat the cancer associated with the particular genetic variants”
Claim 21: “based on determining that the sample is not contaminated and based on the identified genetic variants, selecting […] a particular therapeutic agent designed to treat a condition or disease identified from the genetic variants”
The abstract ideas in the claims are evaluated under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) and determined herein to each cover mental processes and mathematic concepts because the claims recite no more than using abstract ideas to determine if sample is contaminated based on an analysis of allele frequencies.
With respect to step (2A)(2): The claims must therefore be examined further to determine whether they integrate that abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). The claimed additional elements are analyzed alone or in combination to determine if the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).I.; MPEP 2106.05(a-h)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the judicial exception, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).III).
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements that are not abstract ideas:
computer-implemented
Claim 16 recites the following additional elements that are not abstract ideas:
administering to the subject a particular therapeutic agent designed to treat a condition or disease identified from the genetic variants
Claim 18 recites the following additional elements that are not abstract ideas:
a molecular sequencer configured to generate a molecular sequence from the sample of a subject
one or more processors
obtain a molecular sequence of the sample of the subject generated by the molecular sequencer
The steps of sequencing are directed to data gathering as it gathers the data on which the judicial exceptions are performed. Data gathering does not impose any meaningful limitation on the abstract idea, or how the abstract idea is performed. Data gathering steps are not sufficient to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, the elements of a processor and a computer-implemented method are directed to a generic computer. The courts have weighed in and consistently maintained that when, for example, a memory, display, processor, machine, etc. ... are recited so generically (i.e., no details are provided) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer, and these limitations may be viewed as nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The step of administering “a particular therapeutic agent” is not a specific treatment and thus this limitation does not recite a particular treatment step that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)).
Dependent claims 14 and 15 are directed to further steps of data gathering as the limit the sequencing performed. Dependent claims 17 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium and thus elements of a generic computer. Hence, these are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a computer, and therefore the claim does not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent claims 12 and 21 relate to generic treatments that do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
None of these dependent claims recite additional elements, alone or in combination, which would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Lastly, the claims have been evaluated with respect to step (2B): Because the claims recite an abstract idea, and do not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application, the claims lack a specific inventive concept. Under said analysis, Applicant is reminded that the judicial exception alone cannot provide that inventive concept or practical application (MPEP 2106.05). Identifying whether the additional elements beyond the abstract idea amount to such an inventive concept requires considering the additional elements individually and in combination to determine if they provide significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.A i-vi).
With respect to the instant claims, the additional elements described above do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. As set forth in the MPEP at 2106.05(d)(I), 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 claim 1: The additional element of a computer-implemented method do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. As exemplified in the MPEP at 2106.05(f) with reference to Alice Corp. 573 US at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983 “claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible”. Therefore, the device constitutes no more than a general link to a technological environment, which is insufficient to constitute an inventive concept that would render the claims significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2105(b)I-III). As such, it is recognized that these additional limitations are routine, well understood, and conventional in the art. These limitations 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 affect a transformation of matter, nor do they provide a non-conventional or unconventional step. As such, these limitations fail to rise to the level of significantly more.
With respect to claim 12: The additional element of the therapeutic agent comprises a cancer drug administered to the subject to treat the cancer identified form the particular genetic variants does not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. The prior art to Umbarger et al. (US 2014/0127688 A1, IDS reference) discloses that genetic testing is relied upon to a great extent for clinical pre-clinical diagnosis and the importance of detecting contamination so that a patient can be placed on the proper chemotherapeutic (paragraph [0048]). As such, it is recognized that these additional limitations are routine, well understood, and conventional in the art. These limitations 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 affect a transformation of matter, nor do they provide a non-conventional or unconventional step. As such, these limitations fail to rise to the level of significantly more.
With respect to claim 14: The additional element of the sample is sequenced to a mean sequencing depth of at least 1000x does not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. As exemplified in the MPEP at 2106.05(d) with reference to Genetic Techs. Ltd., 818 F.3d at 1377; 118 USPQ2d at 1546, analyzing DNA to provide sequence information or detect allelic variants is a routine and conventional activity. As such, it is recognized that these additional limitations are routine, well understood, and conventional in the art. These limitations 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 affect a transformation of matter, nor do they provide a non-conventional or unconventional step. As such, these limitations fail to rise to the level of significantly more.
With respect to claim 15: The additional element of the sample is sequenced to a mean sequencing depth of at least 2000x does not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. As exemplified in the MPEP at 2106.05(d) with reference to Genetic Techs. Ltd., 818 F.3d at 1377; 118 USPQ2d at 1546, analyzing DNA to provide sequence information or detect allelic variants is a routine and conventional activity. As such, it is recognized that these additional limitations are routine, well understood, and conventional in the art. These limitations 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 affect a transformation of matter, nor do they provide a non-conventional or unconventional step. As such, these limitations fail to rise to the level of significantly more.
With respect to claim 16: The additional element of administering to the subject a particular therapeutic agent designed to treat a condition or disease identified from the genetic variants does not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. The prior art to Umbarger et al. discloses that genetic testing is relied upon to a great extent for clinical pre-clinical diagnosis and the importance of detecting contamination so that a patient can be placed on the proper chemotherapeutic (paragraph [0048]). As such, it is recognized that these additional limitations are routine, well understood, and conventional in the art. These limitations 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 affect a transformation of matter, nor do they provide a non-conventional or unconventional step. As such, these limitations fail to rise to the level of significantly more.
With respect to claim 17: The additional element of a computer product comprising a computer readable medium storing a plurality of instructions for controlling a computer system to perform an operation does not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. As exemplified in the MPEP at 2106.05(f) with reference to Alice Corp. 573 US at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983 “claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible”. Therefore, the device constitutes no more than a general link to a technological environment, which is insufficient to constitute an inventive concept that would render the claims significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2105(b)I-III). As such, it is recognized that these additional limitations are routine, well understood, and conventional in the art. These limitations 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 affect a transformation of matter, nor do they provide a non-conventional or unconventional step. As such, these limitations fail to rise to the level of significantly more.
With respect to claim 18: The additional element of a molecular sequencer configured to generate a molecular sequence from the sample of a subject, one or more processors, and obtain a molecular sequence of the sample of the subject generated by the molecular sequencer does not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. As exemplified in the MPEP at 2106.05(f) with reference to Alice Corp. 573 US at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983 “claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible”. Therefore, the device constitutes no more than a general link to a technological environment, which is insufficient to constitute an inventive concept that would render the claims significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2105(b)I-III). Furthermore, with respect to sequencing, as exemplified in the MPEP at 2106.05(d) with reference to Genetic Techs. Ltd., 818 F.3d at 1377; 118 USPQ2d at 1546, analyzing DNA to provide sequence information or detect allelic variants is a routine and conventional activity. As such, it is recognized that these additional limitations are routine, well understood, and conventional in the art. These limitations 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 affect a transformation of matter, nor do they provide a non-conventional or unconventional step. As such, these limitations fail to rise to the level of significantly more.
With respect to claim 21: The additional element of administering to the subject a particular therapeutic agent designed to treat a condition or disease identified from the genetic variants does not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. The prior art to Umbarger et al. discloses that genetic testing is relied upon to a great extent for clinical pre-clinical diagnosis and the importance of detecting contamination so that a patient can be placed on the proper chemotherapeutic (paragraph [0048]). As such, it is recognized that these additional limitations are routine, well understood, and conventional in the art. These limitations 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 affect a transformation of matter, nor do they provide a non-conventional or unconventional step. As such, these limitations fail to rise to the level of significantly more.
In combination, the collection or generation of the data, acted upon by the judicial exception, fail to rise to the level of significantly more. The data gathering steps provide the data for the judicial exception. No non-routine step or element has clearly been identified.
The claims have all been examined to identify the presence of one or more judicial exceptions. Each additional limitation in the claims has been addressed, alone and in combination, to determine whether the additional limitations integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Each additional limitation in the claims has been addressed, alone and in combination, to determine whether those additional limitations provide an inventive concept which provides significantly more than those exceptions. Individually, the limitations of the claims and the claims as a whole have been found lacking.
Response to Arguments
Applicant states that “There is no practical manner molecular sequences and alternate allele frequencies from the samples (e.g., containing millions of molecular bases) could be analyzed with mere ‘mental steps,’ or that a probabilistic mixture model trained and applied as claimed could be implemented in a practically timely way such as to benefit a patient and avoid (mis)treatment using contaminated tests. Accordingly, the claims are not abstract.” Furthermore, Applicant states that “The claims are not directed to the judicial exception of "mathematical concepts" either, but recite implementation of certain calculations in order to achieve the concrete and non- abstract outcome of identifying contaminated samples using molecular sequencing technology. Current law and the MPEP set forth that claimed technologies which may utilize mathematical concepts and raw data to produce concrete outcomes or results are not abstract. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), "determining that the claims to a particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors in order to more accurately calculate the position and orientation of an object on a moving platform did not merely recite "the abstract idea of using 'mathematical equations for determining the relative position of a moving object to a moving reference frame"'), citing Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1348-49, 121 USPQ2d 1898, 1902-03 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Accordingly, the transformation of raw sequencing data into concrete outcomes and recitation of certain calculations used to achieve the outcomes does not place the pending claims within the judicial exception of ‘mathematical equations.’”
It is respectfully submitted that this is not persuasive. The claims do not recite a transformation into a concrete outcome. The claims recite the application of mathematical concepts in the form of a model and using this to perform abstract steps of determining that the sample is contaminated (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).I). This result is then simply used to generate a report, which is a broad limitation that can also be interpreted as a mental process using a pencil and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III). The claims do not provide any limitations of how many variants are identified or how long the sequence data is, and thus it is reasonable to assume that a person can identify the variants as a mental process. Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
Furthermore, Applicant states that “the combination of recited features represent significantly more than a judicial exception and are integrated into a practical application. […] The present claims are directed to improvements in diagnostic sequencing and sample contamination detection technologies that direct clinicians to better assess patients, and to properly select and execute treatment options.” Applicant also states, “the combination of elements of the present claims do not represent conventional or routine features, as would be required to establish with specific facts and evidence under Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). As reflected below, the Office Action does not even establish a lack of novelty or nonobviousness of the claims under U.S.C. § 102 or 103.”
It is respectfully submitted that this is not persuasive. It is the additional elements of the claims that are analyzed to determine whether the claims are integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).I; MPEP 2106.05(a-h)), and it is the additional elements that are examined to determine if there is an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05.A i-vi). The improvement and better outcome from the claims must be implemented within some additional element that improves the technology beyond simply improving the abstract ideas. Selecting a treatment option is still a mental process and thus would not integrate the claims into a practical application. Furthermore, limitations directed to administering a drug “to treat the cancer” or “a particular therapeutic agent” do not recite a specific treatment and thus these limitations do not recite a particular treatment step that integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)). With respect to Step 2B, as exemplified in the MPEP at 2106.05(f) with reference to Alice Corp. 573 US at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983 “claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible”. Therefore, the device constitutes no more than a general link to a technological environment, which is insufficient to constitute an inventive concept that would render the claims significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2105(b)I-III). Furthermore, with respect to sequencing, as exemplified in the MPEP at 2106.05(d) with reference to Genetic Techs. Ltd., 818 F.3d at 1377; 118 USPQ2d at 1546, analyzing DNA to provide sequence information or detect allelic variants is a routine and conventional activity. As such, it is recognized that these additional limitations are routine, well understood, and conventional in the art. Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emilie A Smith whose telephone number is (571)272-7543. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm.
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 can be reached at (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.
/E.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1686
/OLIVIA M. WISE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1685
Prosecution Insights