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 .
Detailed Action
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 (claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 14, 18-19, 26, 29, 34-37, 45 and 53) in the reply filed on 07/31/2025 is acknowledged.
Election of the following species on the reply filed on 07/31/2025 is acknowledged:
1) a ligation site at the end of a stem structure (claim 1),
2) a ligating enzyme t4 RNA Ligase 2,
3) a ligation site at least 2 bp from loop and 3 bp from bulge,
4) a combination of gRNA structural features: upper stem, lower stem and bulge.
Priority
The present application is a 35 U.S.C. 371 national stage filing of International Application No. PCT/US20/63084, filed 12/03/2020.
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed parent provisional application 62/943,158, filed on 12/03/2019, 63/031,262 filed 05/28/2020 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Thus, the earliest possible priority for the instant application is 12/03/2019.
Claims Status
Claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-11, 13-17, 20-25, 27-28, 30-33, 36, 38-44, 46, 48-52, 54-124 are canceled, claim 125 is newly added and is considered part of elected group 1, and claims 1, 4, 8, 12, 18, 19, 26, 29, 34, 35, 37, 45, 47, 53 and 125 have been considered on the merits. All arguments have been considered.
Withdrawn Objections & Rejections
Applicant's response filed 01/20/2026 has been considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from the previous Office action mailed 10/21/2025 are hereby withdrawn.
The objections and rejections presented herein represent the full set of objections and rejections currently pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (New)
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.
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.
Claims 1, 8, 18-19, 26, 29, 34, 37, 45, 53 and 125 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang et al (Nature Protocols (2008)3:9;1-10; cited previously), Kelley et al (Journal of Biotechnology(2016)233;1-10; cited previously) and Jinek et al (Science (2010)337:1-6; cited previously).
The instant rejection relies upon previous art of record and previous rejections, however for clarity the instant rejection is divided based on the art relied upon for the rejection.
Regarding claims 1 and 8: Claim 1 recites “wherein the ligating… does not comprise an oligonucleotide splint”. The instant specification defines the term “splint” as “A single stranded RNA or DNA or other polymer that is capable of hybridizing with at least two, three or more single stranded RNA nucleotides” (p28 ln 25-30).
Claim 1 recites “wherein the ligation produces a linear guide RNA (gRNA)”. MPEP 2111.04 states “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.”
The “wherein” clause is preceded by the active steps “contacting” and “ligating”. Thus any method that comprises the active steps utilizing RNA molecules with the claimed structures will necessarily generate the claimed product (gRNA).
Lang teach contacting a first RNA with a second RNA (Figure 1a; Termini of an RNA donor and RNA acceptor are brought into entropically favorable position by pairing with each other). Lang teach the first and second RNA comprise more than five RNA nucleotides that are complementary (Fig 1a shows 8 complementary nucleotides). Lang teach the contacting form a stem structure and a step loop (Figure 1a).
Regarding the newly added limitation in claim 1, Lang teach ligating the first RNA and the second RNA with a ligating enzyme (T4 RNA ligase) which does not comprise an oligonucleotide splint (Figure 1a).
While Lang do not explicitly teach the ligation produces a linear guide RNA (gRNA), Lang do teach the required active steps required by the claimed method.
However, it would have been obvious based on the teachings in the art at the time of filing to apply the RNA ligation method as taught by Lang to ligation of a first and second RNA to produce an RNA with gRNA function, as discussed below.
Kelley teach CRISPR-Cas9 can function with two types of guide RNAs: a dual crRNA and tracrRNA or a chimeric single guide RNA (abstract). Kelley teach synthetic guide RNAs are suited to genome-scale high throughput arrayed screening (abstract). Kelley further teach synthesis of long chimeric sgRNAs (~100 nucleotides) is generally achieved at a lower throughput compared to the dual RNA approach because synthesis of long RNAs requires longer synthesis times and results in lower yields compared to shorter RNA synthesis, and typically requires additional purification (p2 col1). Thus Kelley teach a limitation in the field of gRNA synthesis is low efficiency for generation of large gRNA molecules.
Jinek teach CRISPR systems in which the dual-tracrRNA:crRNA is engineered as a single RNA chimera and directs sequence-specific Cas9 dsDNA cleavage (abstract).
Jinek teach tracrRNA can pair with the repeat sequence of crRNA to trigger Cas9 cleavage of target DNA (p1 col3 para3).
Figure 5a top discloses the structure of a dual-tracrRNA:crRNA, which reads on a first RNA and a second RNA wherein at least 5 nucleotides are complementary and where in the contacting forms a stem structure. This reads on contacting a first RNA with a second RNA.
Figure 5a bottom discloses the structure of a chimeric RNA which is generated by fusing the 3’ end of the crRNA to the 5’ end of tracrRNA to produce a linear guide RNA (Fig 5a). This is interpreted as fusing a first RNA and a second RNA at the end of the stem structure where in the fusion produces a linear guide RNA.
Jinek also teach the single gRNA system is efficient, versatile, and programmable (p5 col2/3 para 2/1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the methods of Lang, drawn to ligating a first and second RNA, with the teachings of the teachings of Jinek, drawn to a sgRNA produced by fusion of a first and second RNA.
One would have been motivated to modify the method of Lang, drawn by modifying the first RNA such that it is a crRNA and the modifying the second RNA such that it is a tracrRNA as taught by Jinek because Jinek teach a single gRNA system is efficient, versatile and programmable. Furthermore, one would have been motivated to modify the method of Lang with the teachings of Jinek, to produce a gRNA using enzymatic ligation, because Kelley teach a limitation to generating long gRNAs by chemical synthesis in inefficient, while generating shorter gRNAs is more efficient.
Lang teach two RNA molecules can be joined together when the first and second single stranded RNA molecule comprise complimentary nucleotides that form a stem structure. The structure for ligation of a first and second RNA molecule as taught by Lang reads on the structure of the crRNA:tracrRNA chimera as taught by Jinek (Fig 1a bottom).
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the method of Lang, drawn to ligation of two RNAs to produce a single RNA with the teachings of Kelley and Jinek, drawn to a sgRNA that is a fusion of the crRNA and tracrRNA by generating the first and second RNA individually for more efficient RNA synthesis, as taught by Kelley, and fusing the first and second RNAs using enzymatic ligation as taught by Lang.
One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the disclosures all rely on specific RNA secondary structures (stem loops) and Lang ligation at the RNA termini that protrude from a helical region and result in a hairpin loop mimic the natural substrate of t4 RNA ligase and are most effective (p2 col2 ¶1). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the teaching of Lang could be modified to ligate RNA structures that comprise the required secondary structure (hairpin loop) such as the gRNAs taught by Kelley and Jinek.
Regarding claim 26: The teachings of Lang and Jinek are discussed supra. Lang do not teach the stem loop has a length of between about 2-50 nucleotides.
Jinek teach chimera A in which the tracrRNA (second RNA; yellow/orange) is fused with a crRNA (first RNA, blue) with a GAAA tetra loop (figure5b). Jinek, therefore teach the terminal loop has a length of 4 nucleotides (Figure 5b).
This reads on a stem loop has a length of between about 2-50 nucleotides.
MPEP 2131.03 reads “"[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”
In the case of the instant claim, the value of 4 nucleotides disclosed by the prior art clearly overlaps with the claimed range. In the in the absence of new or unexpected results for values outside the claimed range, the range disclosed by the cited art is considered to disclose the claimed range with sufficient specificity to anticipate the claimed range of 2-50 nucleotides.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to combine the method of Lang, drawn to ligation of two RNAs to produce a single RNA with the teachings of Jinek, drawn to a sgRNA with a loop of at least 4 nucleotides because it would have been obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Combining the method of Lang with the teaching of Jinek would have led to predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success because the RNA structures taught by both Lang and Jinek share the structural RNA features that are required for the ligation of the two RNAs as taught by Lang.
Regarding claim 18: The teachings of Lang are discussed supra. Lang do not teach the first RNA and the second RNA comprise at least five consecutive RNA nucleotides that are complimentary at a lower stem formed by the first RNA and the second RNA.
Jinek teach the first RNA and the second RNA comprise at least five consecutive RNA nucleotides that are complimentary at a lower stem formed by the first RNA and the second RNA (Figure 5b, chimera A).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to combine the method of Lang, drawn to ligation of two RNAs to produce a single RNA, with the teachings of Jinek, drawn to a sgRNA comprising a first and second RNA with lower stem because it would have been obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Combining the method of Lang with the teaching of Jinek would have led to predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success because the RNA structures taught by both Lang and Jinek share the structural RNA features that are required for the method.
Regarding claim 19: The teachings of Lang are discussed supra. Lang do not teach a tracrRNA:crRNA duplex that comprises 14 complimentary nucleotides which would comprise the upper stem upon ligation of the first and second RNAs to produce an sgRNA.
Jinek teach a tracrRNA:crRNA duplex that comprises 14 complimentary nucleotides which would comprise the upper stem upon ligation of the first and second RNAs to produce an sgRNA (fig 3c).
Furthermore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the number of consecutive RNA nucleotides that are complementary at the upper stem is a matter of routine optimization and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the length of the upper stem loop can vary and that the specific length of the upper stem loop should be optimized for a specific CRISPR system.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to combine the method of Lang, drawn to ligation of two RNAs to produce a single RNA, with the teachings of Jinek, drawn to a sgRNA comprising a duplex that comprises 14 complimentary nucleotides which would comprise the upper stem upon ligation of the first and second RNAs to produce an sgRNA because it would have been obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Combining the method of Lang with the teaching of Jinek would have led to predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success because the RNA structures taught by both Lang and Jinek share the structural RNA features that are required for the method.
Regarding claim 29: The teachings of Lang are discussed supra. Lang do not teach fusing the first RNA with the second RNA using a GAAA tetraloop.
Jinek teach fusing the first RNA with the second RNA using a GAAA tetraloop (Fig 5B). Fusion or ligation of the crRNA and tracrRNA via the linker loop would require a ligation site that is at least 3 base pairs from the bulge because the linker itself starts four bases from the bulge, therefore any ligation site fusing the first RNA and the second RNA via the linker would necessarily require a ligation site at least 3 base pairs from the bulge.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to combine the method of Lang, drawn to ligation of two RNAs to produce a single RNA, with the teachings of Jinek, drawn to fusing the first RNA with the second RNA using a GAAA tetraloop because it would have been obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Combining the method of Lang with the teaching of Jinek would have led to predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success because the RNA structures taught by both Lang and Jinek share the structural RNA features that are required for the method.
Regarding claim 34: The claim recites “a 3’ sequence”. The instant specification is silent on an explicit definition of “a 3’ sequence” or a specific structure that the sequence is 3’ relative to. Thus the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a 3’ sequence” is any sequence on the 3’ end of any structural component of the sequence.
The teachings of Lang are discussed supra. Lang do not teach the crRNA (first RNA) comprises a sequence 3’ of a bulge that is capable of base pairing with a portion of the tracrRNA (second sequence).
Jinek teach the crRNA (first RNA) comprises a sequence 3’ of a bulge that is capable of base pairing with a portion of the tracrRNA (second sequence) (Fig 5b).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to combine the method of Lang, drawn to ligation of two RNAs to produce a single RNA, with the teachings of Jinek, drawn to the crRNA (first RNA) comprising a sequence 3’ of a bulge that is capable of base pairing with a portion of the tracrRNA (second sequence) because it would have been obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Combining the method of Lang with the teaching of Jinek would have led to predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success because the RNA structures taught by both Lang and Jinek share the structural RNA features that are required for the method.
Regarding claim 37: The teachings of Lang and Jinek are discussed supra. Jinek also teach the crRNA comprises a protospacer region (Fig 1. E)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to combine the method of Lang, drawn to ligation of two RNAs to produce a single RNA, with the teachings of Jinek, drawn to a crRNA comprising a protospacer region because it would have been obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Combining the method of Lang with the teaching of Jinek would have led to predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success because the RNA structures taught by both Lang and Jinek share the structural RNA features that are required for the method.
Regarding claim 45: The teachings of Lang and Jinek are discussed supra. Jinek also teach the tracrRNA comprises 85 nucleotides and the crRNA-sp4 comprises 22-30 nucleotides (Fig5B Chimera A and B).
Jinek do not disclose the specific range “from about 20-100 nucleotides” or “from about 20-70 nucleotides”.
MPEP 2131.03 reads “"[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ’”
MPEP 2131.03 also states “In order to anticipate the claims, the claimed subject matter must be disclosed in the reference with "sufficient specificity to constitute an anticipation under the statute." What constitutes a "sufficient specificity" is fact dependent. If the claims are directed to a narrow range, and the reference teaches a broader range, other facts of the case, must be considered when determining whether the narrow range is disclosed with "sufficient specificity" to constitute an anticipation of the claims.”
In the case of the instant claim, the values disclosed by the prior art clearly overlap with the claimed ranges. In the in the absence of new or unexpected results for values outside the claimed range, the values disclosed by the cited Art is considered to disclose the claimed range with “sufficient specificity” to anticipate the claimed range.
Regarding claim 53: The teachings of Lang and Jinek are discussed supra. Jinek also teach the gRNA comprise an upper stem, lower stem and bulge (Fig 5b).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to combine the method of Lang, drawn to ligation of two RNAs to produce a single RNA, with the teachings of Jinek, drawn to a gRNA comprising an upper stem, lower stem and bulge because it would have been obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Combining the method of Lang with the teaching of Jinek would have led to predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success because the RNA structures taught by both Lang and Jinek share the structural RNA features that are required for the method.
Regarding claim 125: The claim recites the wherein clause “the linear guide RNA is produced with a yield of at least 60%”. The claim does not recite any active steps, the required product (linear guide RNA) is generated by the method steps required by the parent claim (claim 1) and the instant claim 125 does not recite additional active steps. Thus the limitation of claim 125 are considered to be met by art that reads on the limitations of claim 1.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang, Jinek and Kelley as applied to claims 1, 8, 14, 18-19, 26, 29, 34, 37, 45, 53 and 125 above, and further in view of Cheng et al (The Royal Society of Chemistry(2019)9;1-8; cited previously).
The instant rejection relies upon previous art of record and previous rejections, however for clarity the instant rejection is divided based on the art relied upon for the rejection.
Regarding claim 4 and 12:
The teachings of Lang are described supra. Lang also teach T4 RNA ligase is most effective at ligation sites that mimic the natural substrate of T4 RNA ligase, the anticodon stem-loop region (p2 col2 para1). Lang do not teach T4 RNA ligase is T4 RNA ligase 2.
Cheng teach T4 RNA 2 ligase is widely used in vitro and typically has more than 10 fold activity compared to T4 RNA ligase 1 (p1 col1/2 para1/1). Cheng also teach T4 RNA ligase connects two RNA strands (a first and second RNA strand) through a phosphodiester linkage (p1 col1 para1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the methods of Lang drawn to enzymatically ligating a first and second RNA by using T4 RNA ligase 2 as taught by Cheng because Cheng discloses T4 RNA Ligase 2 is widely used in vitro and typically has more than 10 fold activity compared to T4 RNA ligase 1.
One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Cheng also discloses T4 RNA Ligase 2 is widely used.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang, Jinek and Kelley as applied to claims 1, 8, 14, 18-19, 26, 29, 34, 37, 45, 53 and 125 above, and further in view of Haugner III et al (Chem Commun (Camb).(2013)49:66;1-9; cited previously) and as evidenced by NEB (Minding your caps and Poly A Tails. NEB [retrieved on 10/16/2025]. Retrieved: https://www.neb.com/en-us/tools-and-resources/feature-articles/mind-your-caps-and-poly-a-tails-strategies-for-synthesizing-in-vitrotranscribed- ivt-mrna?srsltid=AfmBOoqRTzncoDs27jTkqV00_VcWbIDTfLfrc2UD9S5M99EDKxgDz5gg; cited previously).
The instant rejection relies upon previous art of record and previous rejections, however for clarity the instant rejection is divided based on the art relied upon for the rejection. Regarding claim 35: The teachings of Lang are discussed supra. Lang do not teach the 5’ base is adenosine or that the first RNA comprises a phosphate at the 5’ terminus, wherein the phosphate is an adenosine triphosphate.
Jinek teach that the 5’ base is adenosine, but are silent on if the first RNA comprises a phosphate at the 5’ terminus, wherein the phosphate is an adenosine triphosphate.
Haugner teach all known natural ligase enzymes require a 5’-monophosphate for the ligation reaction to occur (p1 para1). Haugner also teach primary transcripts have a 5’-triphosphate (p1 para1).
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the method of Lang, drawn to ligating a first and second RNA, with the teachings of Jinek and Haugner by using adenosine triphosphate at the 5’ of the molecule to for the purposes of blocking ligation reactions by contaminating ligases during RNA synthesis and thus reducing contaminates in the final product.
One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that standard in vitro RNA synthesis methods using T7 polymerase produce 5’ triphosphorylated RNA (as evidenced by NEB).
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang, Jinek and Kelley as applied to claims 1, 8, 14, 18-19, 26, 29, 34, 37, 45, 53 and 125 above, and further in view of Brinder (Molecular Cell (2014)56; 333-339; cited previously).
The instant rejection relies upon previous art of record and previous rejections, however for clarity the instant rejection is divided based on the art relied upon for the rejection.
Regarding claim 47: The instant claim recites “a lower stem or in an upper stem”. The instant specification is silent on an explicit definition for these terms.
Brinder teach functional modules of an sgRNA include an upper stem and a lower stem that are separated by a bulge (Fig 1 A).
The teachings of Lang and Jinek are discussed supra. Jinek also teach the base paring occurs in a lower stem and in an upper stem (Fig 5b).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to combine the method of Lang, drawn to ligation of two RNAs to produce a single RNA, with the teachings of Jinek, drawn to a sgRNA where base paring occurs in a lower stem and in an upper stem because it would have been obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Combining the method of Lang with the teaching of Jinek would have led to predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success because the RNA structures taught by both Lang and Jinek share the structural RNA features that are required for the method.
Response to Arguments
The responses are directed to the Arguments filed 01/20/2026.
Regarding Arguments directed to 35 USC § 112(a):
The amendments to the claims filed 01/20/2026 overcome the rejection as written. Specifically, claim 124 has been cancelled and the claims no longer recite “a circular guide RNA”. The rejection is withdrawn.
Regarding Arguments directed to 35 USC § 112(b):
The amendments to the claims filed 01/20/2026 overcome the rejection as written. Specifically, claim 14 has been cancelled and the claims no longer recite “the stem loop has a length”. The rejection is withdrawn.
Regarding Arguments directed to 35 USC § 103:
The amendments to the claims filed 01/20/2026 overcome the change claim 1 to recite “the ligating enzyme does not comprise an oligonucleotide splint”.
Applicant argues that Lang is relied upon for basic requirements of enzymatic ligation of RNA strands in the rejection in the action filed 10/21/2025 and that Lang require an oligonucleotide splint. Applicant also argues that Lang teach away from ligation without an oligonucleotide split; (p1460 col 1 ¶2). The RNA ligation condition which Lang teach is inefficient in the absence of an oligonucleotide splint is the ligation of specific RNA oligonucleotides to form a specific structure shown in Fig 2c and 3a. The method as claimed is broad and the structure taught by Fig 2c and 3a of Lang is not required by the instant method nor is Lang required upon for the teachings of the ligation of the RNA components as recited in Figures 2c and 3a. Therefore Lang is not considered to teach away from the method as claimed.
This argument is unpersuasive because the rejection relies on figure 1a of Lang which shows the 5’ and 3’ termini ligated by t4 RNA ligase without use of a splint. Lang teach increasing ligation efficiency by bringing the acceptor and donor RNA into close proximity (p2 col2 ¶1; Fig 1a).
Applicant submits Kelley and Jinek do not mention ligation. The teachings of Kelley and Jinek are relied upon for the modification of Lang, and thus arguments against Kelley and Jinek which do not address Lang are unpersuasive.
However claim 125 introduces a new claim limitation that has not been addressed in the previous action and therefore the previous rejection is withdrawn.
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 ANDREA LYNNE MORRIS SPENCER whose telephone number is (571)272-3328. 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, James (Doug) Schultz can be reached at 571-272-0763. 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.
/ANDREA LYNNE MORRIS SPENCER/Examiner, Art Unit 1631
/TAEYOON KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1631
Prosecution Insights