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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-13 and 15-24 are pending; claim 1 was amended; claims 14 and 25-47 are canceled. Claims 1-13 and 15-24 are examined below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of the present application as a proper National Stage (371) entry of PCT Application No. PCT/US20/58664, filed 11/03/2020, which claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) to provisional application No. 62/934,197, filed 11/12/2019.
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
The previous rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The previous rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s remarks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-13, 15-19 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Connolly et al., WO2018/119367A1 (IDS entered 06/07/2022).
Connolly et al. teach a bead system for bead-based analyte detection (abstract and para [0006]) comprising (a) a plurality of functionalized superparamagnetic beads functionalized to include a first moiety that associates with an analyte under suitable conditions in a sample solution (para [0006], [0008], [0083]) and (b) a plurality of functionalized ferromagnetic beads functionalized to include a second moiety that associates with the analyte under suitable conditions in the sample solution (para [0006] and [0083]). Conolly et al. teach the first beads having a diameter dA and a volume magnetic susceptibility XA (see at paras [0006], [0053], [0083], [0089]), and the second beads having a diameter dB and a magnetic dipole moment pB, as ferromagnetic materials necessarily have a dipole moment (see also para [0091], [0098], [0124]).
See as cited above, Connolly is teaching a system wherein contact between a sample solution containing analyte and the beads results in formation of complexes, analyte detectable by co-localization of the functionalized beads (citations above e.g., para [0006], including the abstract and para [0007], and also para [00116]).
Although Connolly et al. does not state that upon a sample not containing the analyte in a sample solution, the beads result in a magnetic interaction energy Uint between the functionalized superparamagnetic beads and the functionalized ferromagnetic beads that is less than or equal to 5KBT, where KB is the Boltzmann constant and T is the temperature of the sample solution, it is the case that Connolly is teaching a system comprising the same combination of functionalized superparamagnetic and functionalized ferromagnetic beads as claimed. T is a variable that depends on the use of the claimed system (a variable involved in the intended use, i.e., a method of using the claimed system). As a result, because the system is structurally indistinct from that presently claimed, it would be expected to achieve the same result (the resultant magnetic interaction energy) as claimed when a sample does not contain analyte. The recited limitation (that no analyte in the sample results in a magnetic interaction energy Uint between the functionalized superparamagnetic beads and the functionalized ferromagnetic beads that is less than or equal to 5KBT, where KB is the Boltzmann constant and T is the temperature of the sample solution) does not appear to result in a structural difference between the claimed invention (which is a product invention) and the prior art, this indicated limitation does not clearly further limit the claimed system in terms of any additional structure/structural element/component.
Regarding the limitations directed to the magnetic dipole moment of the second bead type (claims 1, 15 and 16), Connolly et al. is considered to anticipate second type magnetic beads as claimed because Connolly’s second bead structurally appears to be indistinct from those presently claimed (same type of particle (ferromagnetic), same size in terms of diameter). As a result, it would naturally be expected that they (particles of Connolly, comprising the same material, namely ferromagnetic material, and having the same diameter, and as such volume, would be expected to intrinsically exhibit magnetic dipole moments as claimed). The limitations do not appear to add any further physical limitation to the structure of the system (the two beads) as presently claimed that structurally distinguish the claimed system from the system of the prior art. In particular, regarding bead B of Connolly, see the reference teach magnetization (dipole moment) of 2x10-15 (i.e., 2 mAµm2, which is considered to read on the claimed “about 1 mAµm2” as claimed).
As a result, Connolly’s system anticipates the claimed bead system.
Regarding claims 2-5, see Conolly at for example para [0083] teaching a first superparamagnetic bead having a diameter of 1 µm (a value that lies inside of, and as such anticipates, the ranges of claims 2-5).
Regarding claim 6-9, the claims recite limitations specific to the volume magnetic susceptibility, which see at para [0031] represents a dimensionless value that can be calculated as shown at para [0031]. As discussed above, Connolly is teaching first and second beads consistent structurally with the limitations as presently claimed. Volume of magnetic susceptibility is a measure dependent on magnetization to an applied magnetic field, and is based on the properties of the particle, and since the particles as taught by the prior art appear to be structurally indistinguishable from those presently claimed, it is expected that the particle system of Connolly achieves the same volume of magnetic susceptibility as claimed, to an applied magnetic field.
Regarding claims 10-13, see Connolly teach, for example, embodiments wherein the diameter of the first bead is different from the second type of bead by at least 50% so that the two beads may be distinguished by spatial distribution of their magnetic field signals (para [0053]). Connolly et al. at for example para [0083], the second bead composed of ferromagnetic cobalt ferrite nanoparticles (30 nm in size) dispersed over the surface of a polymer having 1 µm in diameter adhere to the surface with an additional polymer layer. As discussed in detail above, Connolly teach first bead types of 1µm, and as such, a second type, that is a ferromagnetic material coated on a 1 µm polymer would be a second bead that is at least 1.5 µm, which anticipates the claimed ranges of between about 0.1 to about 10 µm, .3 to about 3 µm, .5 to about 2 µm and about 1.8 (as 1.5 is considered about 1.8).
Regarding claim 17, see as cited above Connolly et al. teach a first bead type that is consistent with the bead first bead as claimed.
Regarding claim 18, Connolly et al. teach the first (superparamagnetic beads) include a nonmagnetic core and superparamagnetic material distributed substantially uniformly around the nonmagnetic core (see e.g., para [0006], the magnetic beads may be composed of magnetic nanoparticles disposed on the surface of a polymer substrate, see also for example, paras [0056], [0092]-[0093], [0148], [0187] and claims 1 and 13.
Regarding claim 19, see Connolly also teach wherein the superparamagnetic beads included material distributed uniformly throughout a volume of the functionalized superparamagnetic bead (see also para [0092]).
Regarding claim 21, see Connolly at para [0092], either of the beads may be composed of the magnetic nanoparticle material uniformly disposed within or on the surface.
Regarding claim 22, Connolly et al. teach second type (ferromagnetic beads) comprising ferromagnetic material distributed over the surface of the bead (para [0083]).
Regarding claim 23, Connolly teach the bead system wherein the beads include a nonmagnetic buffer layer around the surface of the bead (paras [0006], [0145], [0153], [0155], claims 10, 18, 20.
Regarding claim 24, see Connolly et al. teach the first and second moiety comprising Applicant’s elected species (protein, receptor, antibody, see paras [0006], [0048], [0058], [0143], and claim 8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connolly et al. in view of Bajjuri et al., US PG Pub No. 2013/0281623A1.
Connolly et al. teach a system substantially as claimed. Regarding claim 20, Connolly et al. teach (encompassed within their invention) that for either of the magnetic material of bead A or B, the magnetic material may be composed of nanoparticles disposed within or on the surface of a polymer or other non-magnetic material (para [0092]).
However, although Connolly et al. teach it may be within, Connolly et al. fails to teach the magnetic (in the case of the second bead, ferromagnetic) material concentrated at the core.
However, see Bajjuri et al., Bajjuri et al. teach a common disadvantage of ferromagnetic particles is they are typically subject to strong magnetic attractive interactions between the nanoparticles, which results in aggregation (para [0002]). Bajjuri et al. teach their particles as overcoming shortcomings specific to prior art (particles) in that theirs comprise a polymer complex comprising a magnetic nanoparticle and a water soluble block copolymer, such that in the absence of a magnetic field, the particles as a non-zero net magnetic moment at ambient temperature (paras [0006]-[0007], para [0019]). Para [0035] Bajjuri et al. teach embodiments wherein the water soluble block copolymer material stabilizes the ferromagnetic particles in aqueous solution and prevents their magnetically induced aggregation, Bajjuri further teaching advantages of their technique include (with PAA) blocking binding through multiple anchoring points providing more robust surface adhesion, and that the strong binding prevents desorption of ligands from the particle surface, improving long-term stability of particles. See at Figure 1 for example, the ferromagnetic material is concentrated at the core of the particle.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Connolly et al., in order to specifically provide the particles of Bajjuri (comprising the ferromagnetic material concentrated at the core of the particle), as the particles having magnetic material disposed within of Connolly as an obvious matter of use of a known particle structure for its intended purpose because Bajjuri’s particles are similarly comprising ligand and usable for the purpose of magnetic resonance imaging, one motivated to rely on Bajjuri’s particles because of the advantages such as multi-point blocking to provide a more stable particle with more robust surface adhesion and further because the strong binding exhibited at their particles results in prevention of desorption of ligand, improving particle stability. One having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because Connolly already teach the ferromagnetic material of their second type of particle can be included within or on the surface (Bajjuri’s material is within, which is within the limitations required of Connolly’s particle).
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 1-9, 14-17, 23 and 24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,513,115 B2 (IDS entered 06/18/2025).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘115 similarly recites a bead system for bead-based analyte detection as claimed, the first and second pluralities of beads structurally indistinguishable from the present claims. See ‘115 teaching their system comprising a plurality of functionalized superparamagnetic beads having a diameter dA, including a first moiety that associates with an analyte under suitable conditions in a sample solution (claims 1, 6, 8, 11, 12), and a plurality of functionalized ferromagnetic bead having a diameter dB, the plurality functionalized to include a second moiety that binds analyte under suitable conditions in the sample solution (claims 1, 2, 3, 13).
For the reasons as indicated in detail previously above, structurally the beads are structurally indistinguishable from those presently claimed, and as such would be expected to exhibit the same volume of magnetic susceptibility XA (for the first plurality), and same magnetic dipole moment pB (for the second plurality).
‘115 results information of complex when sample is present, analyte detectable by colocalization of the first and second pluralities (claim 1), and further since the bead system is structurally indistinct from that claimed, it would be expected to similarly result in magnetic interaction energy Uint as claimed when no sample is present in the sample solution.
Regarding the limitations directed to the magnetic dipole moment of the second bead type (claims 1, 15 and 26, ‘115 is considered to anticipate second type magnetic beads as claimed because ‘115 teaches second bead that structurally appear to be indistinct from those presently claimed (same type of particle (ferromagnetic), same size in terms of diameter). As a result, it would naturally be expected that they intrinsically exhibit magnetic dipole moments as claimed. The limitations of claims 1, 15 and 16 do not appear to add any further physical limitation to the structure of the system (the two beads) as presently claimed that structurally distinguish the claimed system from the system of the prior art. In particular, regarding bead B of Connolly, see the reference teach magnetization (dipole moment) of 2x10-15 (i.e., 2 mAµm2, which is considered to read on the claimed “about 1 mAµm2” as claimed).
Regarding claims 2-4, see claims 11 and 12.
Regarding claim 5, see claim 12, the ranges disclosed are values that address “about 1µm”.
Regarding claim 6-9, the claims recite limitations specific to the volume magnetic susceptibility, which see at para [0031] represents a dimensionless value that can be calculated as shown at para [0031]. As discussed above, ‘115 is teaching first and second beads consistent structurally with the limitations as presently claimed. Volume of magnetic susceptibility is a measure dependent on magnetization to an applied magnetic field, and is based on the properties of the particle, and since the particles as taught by ‘115 appear to be structurally indistinguishable from those presently claimed, it is expected that the particle system of ‘115 achieves the same volume of magnetic susceptibility as claimed, to an applied magnetic field.
Regarding claim 17, see as cited above ‘115 teach a first bead type that is consistent with the bead first bead as claimed.
Regarding claim 23, see claims 3 and 7.
Regarding claim 24, see claim 9.
Claims 10-13, 18-19 and 21-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,513,115 B2 in view of Connolly et al., WO2018/119367.
‘115 et al. is silent as to some the details specific to their bead system, and as such fails to teach the limitations of claims 10-13 (range of the diameter for the second plurality bead), 18 (superparamagnetic beads include non-magnetic core and superparamagnetic material distributed substantially uniformly around the non-magnetic core), 19 (material distributed uniformly throughout), 21 (ferromagnetic material distributed substantially uniformly throughout a volume), and 22 (material distributed over a surface).
Regarding claims 10-13, see ‘115 (which is a proper National Stage (371) entry of PCT Application No. PCT/US20/58664, PCT Pub No. WO2018/119367, referred to herein as Connolly et al.). Connolly et al. teach, for example, embodiments wherein the diameter of the first bead is different from the second type of bead by at least 50% so that the two beads may be distinguished by spatial distribution of their magnetic field signals (para [0053]). Connolly et al. at for example para [0083], teach the second bead composed of ferromagnetic cobalt ferrite nanoparticles (30 nm in size) dispersed over the surface of a polymer having 1 µm in diameter adhere to the surface with an additional polymer layer. As discussed in detail above, Connolly teach first bead types of 1µm, and as such, a second type, that is a ferromagnetic material coated on a 1 µm polymer would be a second bead that is at least 1.5 µm, which anticipates the claimed ranges of between about 0.1 to about 10 µm, .3 to about 3 µm, .5 to about 2 µm and about 1.8 (as 1.5 is considered about 1.8).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ‘115 with the disclosure of Connolly et al. as an obvious matter to try, as well as an obvious matter of applying known parameters to a known system, namely selecting from diameters recognized suitable for the system as taught by ‘115 (considering Connolly is related to ‘115, as noted above). One having ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success modifying to use diameters known suitable to meet the functional requirements of the two bead system taught by ‘115.
Regarding claim 18, Connolly et al. teach the first (superparamagnetic beads) include a nonmagnetic core and superparamagnetic material distributed substantially uniformly around the nonmagnetic core (see e.g., para [0006], the magnetic beads may be composed of magnetic nanoparticles disposed on the surface of a polymer substrate, see also for example, paras [0056], [0092]-[0093], [0148], [0187] and claims 1 and 13. Regarding claim 19, see Connolly also teach wherein the superparamagnetic beads included material distributed uniformly throughout a volume of the functionalized superparamagnetic bead (see also para [0092]). Further see para [0092] (regarding either bead, material can be dispersed within or on the surface of the substrate.
Regarding claims 18-19 and 21-22, similarly as above, it would have been prima facie obvious to have modified ‘115 with the structure of Connolly (distribution of the magnetic material as in Connolly, see as cited above, and particularly at para [0092]), as an obvious matter of applying known parameters to a known system (see the reasons discussed immediately above, as the same reasons apply presently).
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,513,115 B2 in view of Connolly et al., WO2018/119367 and Bajjuri et al. US PG Pub No. 2013/0281623A1.
‘115 in view of Connolly et al. teach magnetic material within the substrate, however ‘115 and Connolly et al. fails to teach the magnetic (in the case of the second bead, ferromagnetic) material concentrated at the core.
See Bajjuri et al., Bajjuri et al. teach a common disadvantage of ferromagnetic particles is they are typically subject to strong magnetic attractive interactions between the nanoparticles, which results in aggregation (para [0002]). Bajjuri et al. teach their particles as overcoming shortcomings specific to prior art (particles) in that theirs comprise a polymer complex comprising a magnetic nanoparticle and a water soluble block copolymer, such that in the absence of a magnetic field, the particles as a non-zero net magnetic moment at ambient temperature (paras [0006]-[0007], para [0019]). Para [0035] Bajjuri et al. teach embodiments wherein the water soluble block copolymer material stabilizes the ferromagnetic particles in aqueous solution and prevents their magnetically induced aggregation, Bajjuri further teaching advantages of their technique include (with PAA) blocking binding through multiple anchoring points providing more robust surface adhesion, and that the strong binding prevents desorption of ligands from the particle surface, improving long-term stability of particles. See at Figure 1 for example, the ferromagnetic material is concentrated at the core of the particle.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ‘115 and Connolly et al., in order to specifically provide the particles of Bajjuri (comprising the ferromagnetic material concentrated at the core of the particle), as the particles having magnetic material disposed “within” (as taught by ‘115 and Connolly) as an obvious matter of use of a known particle structure for its intended purpose because Bajjuri’s particles are similarly comprising ligand and usable for the purpose of magnetic resonance imaging, one motivated to rely on Bajjuri’s particles because of the advantages such as multi-point blocking to provide a more stable particle with more robust surface adhesion and further because the strong binding exhibited at their particles results in prevention of desorption of ligand, improving particle stability. One having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success further because ‘115 and Connolly already teach the ferromagnetic material of their second type of particle can be included within or on the surface (Bajjuri’s material is within, which is within the limitations required of Connolly’s particle).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons.
Regarding the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 112(d) (remarks pages 6-7), the previous grounds of rejection are withdrawn as indicated in detail previously above.
Regarding the cited prior art, at remarks pages 7-8 Applicant remarks that as amended to include the limitations of previous claim 14, the independent claim is no longer addressed by the citation of Connolly et al. Applicant argues that Connolly does not anticipate the claims because, even if the magnetic beads is of the same or similar size, the magnetic bead of Connolly is not taught as having the same magnetic dipole moment. Applicant argues that size of a magnetic bead is not the sole determinant of its magnetic dipole moment, Applicant remarks that dipole moment depends strongly on the amount and composition of magnetic material contained within the bead, that the amount and the composition of material within a bead of a given size can vary dramatically (remarks page 8). Applicant cites Fonnum et al., submitted as Exhibit A, to support their position argued above (see remarks pages 8-9). Applicant specifically argues that with the support of Fonnun, the size range of Connolly does not inherently fall within the range claimed by claim 1 (remarks pages 8-10).
However, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, for example, see Connolly at the cited paragraph (end of para [0083], refers to magnetization of the ferromagnetic bead as approximately 2 x 10-15 A m2, i.e., 2 mA µm2, as recited at claim 16 (claim 16 depends from 15, which depends from 1). Approximately 2 mA µm2 is considered “about 1 mA µm2”, as claimed. Conolly’s example, ferromagnetic cobalt ferrite nanoparticles having 30 nm in size dispersed over the surface of a polymer that is approximately 1 µm in diameter, does appear to be a bead that meets the limitations of claim 1 (as well as claims 15 and 16). Even further, page 3, para [0006], Connolly’s invention may further use beads of this material at smaller diameters, thereby resulting in dipole moment that is less than approximately 2 mA µm2 as in the example. Therefore, the argument that Connolly’s ferromagnetic bead does not have a dipole moment as in the claimed range is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues the rejection of claims on the ground of non-statutory double patenting (remarks pages 10-11), specifically referring to the arguments detailed above. However, see the response to these remarks as detailed previously above, this argument is not persuasive for the reasons as indicated in detail above.
For these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the claims are rejected as indicated above.
Conclusion
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLEN J MARCSISIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6001. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Bao-Thuy Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-0824. 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.
/ELLEN J MARCSISIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1677