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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 6th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed January 6th, 2026 is acknowledged. Regarding the Office Action mailed November 7th, 2025:
Maintained or modified rejections are set forth below, as necessitated by the amendments. Responses to arguments follow their respective rejection sections.
Claim Summary
Claims 6 and 7 have been amended. Claims 1-5 and 8-12 have been canceled. Claims 6-7 and 13-15 are pending. Claims 6-7 and 13-15 are under examination and discussed in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) – Modified – Necessitated by Amendment
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 6-7 and 13-15 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “[a] method for synchronously sequencing a sense strand and an antisense strand of an insert DNA, comprising: performing a first round of rolling circle amplification using a circular DNA molecule of the insert DNA to be sequenced as an amplification template, to generate a first partial template strand; hybridizing the first partial template strand with blocked amplification primers, and performing a second round of rolling circle amplification using the circular DNA molecule as an amplification template to generate a second partial template strand; selecting the second partial template strand as a read1 strand sequencing template, and generating a read2 strand sequencing template by performing multiple displacement amplification using the first partial template strand as an amplification template; and hybridizing the read1 strand sequencing template with read1 strand sequencing primers, hybridizing the read2 strand sequencing template with read2 strand sequencing primers, and simultaneously performing read1 strand sequencing and read2 strand sequencing to obtain sequences of the sense strand and the antisense strand of the insert DNA, wherein a copy number of the read1 strand sequencing template and a copy number of the read2 strand sequencing template are controlled by controlling time of the rolling circle amplification and time of the multiple displacement amplification; wherein the copy number of the read1 strand sequencing template and the copy number of the read2 strand sequencing template have a difference in folds, and strands of the sequencing bases are positioned by using a signal difference caused by the difference in folds during the sequencing.” There are many issues of clarity identified for this claim, as follows:
It is unclear from this recitation how RCA is being carried out in two different rounds, wherein one round is paused to allow hybridization of primers before apparently restarting for another round of amplification. This could mean that there’s an undescribed heat-inactivation step, an undescribed separation of amplification products, or some other undescribed step. Furthermore, it is unclear how the recited amplification primers would not bind to the template created by the second round of RCA without an intermediate step to remove the primers, like a wash step, between rounds of amplification. Finally, it is unclear how MDA can be carried out without also activating RCA when, as the claim appears to indicate, both forms of amplification are occurring simultaneously in the same reaction mixture. RCA and MDA generally use the same polymerase for amplification. As taught by Nunez (Application of Circular Ligase to Provide Template for Rolling Circle Amplification of Low Amounts of Fragmented DNA, Promega, 2008, 1-7), RCA and MDA both use phi29 polymerase (Page 1, paragraph 4). As evidenced by ThermoFisher (phi29 DNA Polymerase [online]. ThermoFisher, [2024] [retrieved on February 5th, 2026]. Retrieved from: https://documents.thermofisher.com/TFS-Assets/LSG/manuals/MAN0030290-phi29-DNA-pol-UG.pdf), reaction conditions for RCA and MDA using phi29 polymerase are essentially the same, aside from the template being linear or circular (Pages 4 and 5). Assuming the Applicant is using standard protocols such as those cited for RCA and MDA, it isn’t clear how to carry out MDA without further producing more template by RCA when the components of both forms of amplification are in the same reaction mixture.
It is unclear from this recitation how the blocked amplification primers are being used because there is no step of unblocking the primers included in the claim. If they remain blocked, no amplification can be started using these primers. Furthermore, there is no clear nexus between the introduction of these blocked amplification primers and what their purpose is. While a step of MDA appears after the blocked amplification primers, there is no indication that MDA is meant to be carried out using the blocked amplification primers. Even if this was indeed the case, as has already been noted, MDA would not proceed without first unblocking the blocked amplification primers.
It is unclear from this recitation how the times of these amplification methods can be controlled when, as it appears to be claimed, RCA and MDA are occurring simultaneously in the same reaction mixture. RCA and MDA generally use the same polymerase for amplification. As taught by Nunez (Application of Circular Ligase to Provide Template for Rolling Circle Amplification of Low Amounts of Fragmented DNA, Promega, 2008, 1-7), RCA and MDA both use phi29 polymerase (Page 1, paragraph 4). As evidenced by ThermoFisher (phi29 DNA Polymerase [online]. ThermoFisher, [2024] [retrieved on February 5th, 2026]. Retrieved from: https://documents.thermofisher.com/TFS-Assets/LSG/manuals/MAN0030290-phi29-DNA-pol-UG.pdf), reaction conditions for RCA and MDA using phi29 polymerase are essentially the same, aside from the template being linear or circular (Pages 4 and 5). Assuming the Applicant is using standard protocols such as those cited for RCA and MDA, it is unclear how any sort of independent control of time could be enacted for each amplification method when both forms of amplification take place in the same reaction mixture. Furthermore, given the lack of clarity regarding control of time of RCA and MDA, it is unclear how the copy numbers of the read templates can be controlled through timing of RCA and MDA.
It is unclear from this recitation how it is possible to use a “signal difference” produced from a difference in folds of copy numbers of templates to position sequencing bases. Looking to the specification, the only defined signals are those that are read from recognizing bases in the sequence (Page 5, paragraph [0016]). This does not immediately relate to a signal difference caused by a difference in folds of copy numbers. Furthermore, it is unclear what is meant by “a difference in folds”. This could mean the more generally used “fold difference”, which is related to the change between an original measurement and a subsequent measurement, or it could mean something else that has not been adequately defined. Without knowing the meaning behind “a difference in folds”, it is unclear how this can be applied as a means for positioning sequencing bases.
Finally, claim 6 recites the limitation "strands of the sequencing bases". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The recitation of “the sequencing bases” lacks antecedent basis because the phrase was not earlier introduced in the claim. Therefore, the presence of strands of the sequencing bases is unclear.
Given the above noted issues, claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for lack of clarity. Claims 7 and 13-15 suffer from the same lack of clarity as claim 6 since they claim the same general method without further clarifying the issues presented here.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 6th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant first provides a summary of the intended function of the method as claimed in claimed 6 (Pages 4-5 of the Remarks filed January 6th, 2026). The Applicant argues that by use of blocked primers and their subsequent depletion, this results in separation of the first and second rounds of RCA and there is no need for any other step to distinguish the two rounds of RCA (Page 5 of the Remarks filed January 6th, 2026). The Applicant further argues that because the blocked amplification primers are depleted in the first round RCA, there is no need to remove primers between rounds of amplification (Page 5 of the Remarks filed January 6th, 2026). The Applicant further states that given the blocked nature of these primers, they will not interfere with the second round of RCA because they cannot be extended (Page 5 of the Remarks filed January 6th, 2026). The Applicant further argues that the number of primers determines the length of reaction time for the first and second rounds of RCA (Page 5 of the Remarks filed January 6th, 2026).
In response to the Applicant's argument, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claims, or even in the instant disclosure at all. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, any explanation provided by the Applicant that does not have support in the instant disclosure, either in the claims or specification, cannot be considered a sufficient argument. In the instant case, the arguments related to the number and depletion of primers resulting in the separation of rounds RCA are not sufficient because there is never a step of number of primers or depletion of primers described in the instant disclosure, nor is this step claimed. This cannot be considered an aspect of the method without sufficient description and amounts to an opinion of counsel. The Applicant is advised that MPEP 716.01(c) makes clear that “[t]he arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record” (In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965)). Regarding the blocked primers not interfering with second round of RCA, given that there is no actual step of depletion of primers described in the instant disclosure or included in the claims, the issue still remains of how the primers will not bind to the template produced by the second round of RCA. Therefore, given these considerations, the arguments cited above cannot serve to clarify the claims.
The Applicant further argues that while RCA and MDA are generally carried out under similar reaction conditions, this does not affect the execution of these reactions because the templates are different (Page 5 of the Remarks filed January 6th, 2026). The Applicant states that the first partial template for the MDA reaction has already been hybridized with the blocked primers, which can be unblocked and used to carry out MDA (Page 5 of the Remarks filed January 6th, 2026). The Applicant also states that the second partial template strand without blocked primers is directed for use as a read1 strand sequencing template (Pages 5-6 of the Remarks filed January 6th, 2026). Because of these differences, the Applicant argues that MDA is carried out after RCA, without activating RCA (Page 6 of the Remarks filed January 6th, 2026). The Applicant argues that the claimed method utilizes the amount and properties of primers and the mechanisms of RCA and MDA such that there is smooth progression and the reactions will not affect each other (Page 6 of the Remarks filed January 6th, 2026). The blocked primers and their subsequent deblocking is configured such that RCA and MDA occur sequentially, allowing real-time control of the amplification reactions (Page 6 of the Remarks filed January 6th, 2026).
This argument does not provide adequate explanation of how MDA can be carried out without also activating RCA. The reactions having two different templates does not mean that they cannot happen at the same time. Furthermore, while blocked primers may stop MDA from occurring until unblocked, this does not stop RCA from continuously occurring when MDA is supposedly sequentially activated before another round of RCA. As has already been stated in the 112(b) rejection, the art teaches that RCA and MDA generally use the same polymerase for amplification, as well as the same reaction conditions. Assuming the Applicant is using standard protocols such as those cited for RCA and MDA, it isn’t clear how to carry out MDA without further producing more template by RCA when the components of both forms of amplification are in the same reaction mixture. It is therefore still unclear how MDA can be carried out without also activating RCA.
The Applicant then argues that given the duration of RCA and MDA can be controlled, the copy numbers of read 2 and read 1 are fully controllable (Page 6 of the Remarks filed January 6th, 2026). The Applicant states that with different copy numbers, there is a signal difference between read 1 and 2 (Page 6 of the Remarks filed January 6th, 2026). The Applicant argues that based on this, the templates can be distinguished and positioned by collecting base signals caused by differences in copy numbers of the reads, thus realizing simultaneous sequencing of sense and antisense DNA strands (Page 6 of the Remarks filed January 6th, 2026). The Applicant states the signals can be distinguished by using different antibodies with different fluorescence during sequencing (Page 6 of the Remarks filed January 6th, 2026).
This argument is not adequate to resolve how copy number is controllable because the explanation the Applicant is relying on for controlling time of the reactions is only directed to RCA, and is not recited anywhere in the instant disclosure. As described above, the Applicant is relying on depletion of blocked primers to control the separation of rounds of RCA, and also to control the time of the reactions. However, this step of the method is not described anywhere in the claims or specification, meaning that it cannot be considered sufficient to clarify the claim. Furthermore, there is no indication that there is control over the reaction time for MDA, so it cannot be said that there is control of both RCA and MDA which can further control the copy number of the read1 and read2 strands. Consequently, it does not appear possible to use a “signal difference” produced from a difference in folds of copy numbers of templates to position sequencing bases, even given the addition of different antibodies with different fluorescence.
The Applicant further argues that those skilled in the art can determine that “sequencing bases are positioned by using a signal difference caused by the difference in folds during sequencing” does not mean “alignment of the sequencing data with a reference to determine where the reads fall in the reference sequence”, and instead refers to the position of the strands of the sequencing bases (i.e. distinguishing whether the sequencing base comes from the sense strand or the antisense strand) (Page 6 of the Remarks filed January 6th, 2026). The Applicant argues based on the specification, fold difference means the different in copy number, and given a difference in copy number between strands, the signal difference caused by the difference in folds can be used to determine if a base comes from the sense or antisense strand (Pages 6-7 of the Remarks filed January 6th, 2026). The Applicant finally argues that different antibodies with different fluorescence added during sequencing recognize different bases to acquire base signals and the source of the sequence bases are determined by using a signal difference caused by the difference in folds during the sequencing (Page 7 of the Remarks filed January 6th, 2026).
In response to the Applicant's argument, it is noted that the features upon which the Applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). While the instant specification may have description related to both positioning of the strands of the sequencing bases (see paragraphs [0014], [0026], and [0034]-[0037]), and also that sequencing of both the sense and antisense strand will be accomplished (see paragraphs [0026]-[0027] and [0034]-[0036]), there is no indication that positioning of the sequencing bases is at all related to distinguishing whether the sequencing base comes from the sense or antisense strand. The only indication that they are related is in that determining copy number is a part of synchronously sequencing the strands. Even given the addition of different antibodies with different fluorescence, this does not resolve how positioning of sequencing bases then relates to the sense and antisense strands.
Overall, the Applicant’s arguments are not considered persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is modified as necessitated by amendment and maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) – Modified – Necessitated by Amendment
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6-7 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regards to the issues related to possession of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, it is necessary to understand what Applicant is claiming and what Applicant has possession of. To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V, v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116. Possession may be shown in a variety of ways including description of an actual reduction to practice, or by showing that the invention was “ready for patenting” such as by the disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete, or by describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the applicant was in possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Pfaff v. Wells Eiees., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 68, 119 S.Ct. 304, 312, 48 USPQ2d 1641,1647 (1998); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406; Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm., 927 F. 2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See MPEP § 2163.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “[a] method for synchronously sequencing a sense strand and an antisense strand of an insert DNA, comprising: performing a first round of rolling circle amplification using a circular DNA molecule of the insert DNA to be sequenced as an amplification template, to generate a first partial template strand; hybridizing the first partial template strand with blocked amplification primers, and performing a second round of rolling circle amplification using the circular DNA molecule as an amplification template to generate a second partial template strand; selecting the second partial template strand as a read1 strand sequencing template, and generating a read2 strand sequencing template by performing multiple displacement amplification using the first partial template strand as an amplification template; and hybridizing the read1 strand sequencing template with read1 strand sequencing primers, hybridizing the read2 strand sequencing template with read2 strand sequencing primers, and simultaneously performing read1 strand sequencing and read2 strand sequencing to obtain sequences of the sense strand and the antisense strand of the insert DNA, wherein a copy number of the read1 strand sequencing template and a copy number of the read2 strand sequencing template are controlled by controlling time of the rolling circle amplification and time of the multiple displacement amplification; wherein the copy number of the read1 strand sequencing template and the copy number of the read2 strand sequencing template have a difference in folds, and strands of the sequencing bases are positioned by using a signal difference caused by the difference in folds during the sequencing.” The claim as written embraces a method wherein RCA and MDA are used simultaneously to produce nucleic acid strands for sequencing, followed by synchronously sequencing the produced strands, wherein the copy numbers of the reads are controlled by controlling time of the RCA and MDA and the copy numbers have a difference in folds that can be used as a signal difference to position the sequencing bases. However, there are many gaps in the claimed method that indicate the Applicant does not have full possession of the claimed method. Turning to the specification, there is no description of the following noted aspects of the method:
There is no description in the specification of how to perform a first and second round of RCA. Generally, this would require a step to stop the RCA reaction, like heat inactivation of the polymerase enzyme being used to amplify the sequences of interest. The provided drawings seem to indicate that RCA arbitrarily stops after amplifying the circle template once, and similarly after amplifying the circle template a second time (Figures 1-3). Without further description of steps to stop and start RCA, it cannot be said that the Applicants possessed the method as claimed.
There is no description of a step wherein the amplification primers are removed from the reaction, which would mean that these primers are available to hybridize with any target sequence further produced by subsequent rounds of RCA. This would make the partial template intended for read1 unavailable to sequencing primers. Without further description of steps to control the hybridization of the blocked or unblocked amplification primers, it cannot be said that the Applicants possessed the method as claimed.
There is no description of how MDA can be carried out without also activating RCA. As indicated in the specification, Phi29 polymerase appears to be used for both amplification methods (Page 8, paragraph [0028] for RCA and Page 11, paragraph [0036] for MDA). As evidenced by ThermoFisher (phi29 DNA Polymerase [online]. ThermoFisher, [2024] [retrieved on February 5th, 2026]. Retrieved from: https://documents.thermofisher.com/TFS-Assets/LSG/manuals/MAN0030290-phi29-DNA-pol-UG.pdf), reaction conditions for RCA and MDA using phi29 polymerase are essentially the same, aside from the template being linear or circular (Pages 4 and 5). If this polymerase is contained in a reaction where RCA and MDA can happen simultaneously, as the claimed method appears to be indicating, then there would need to be some description of how to carry out MDA without further producing more template by RCA. The only apparent description of this part of the methods is in the provided drawings, which do not describe how MDA can be carried out without also activating RCA (Figures 1-3). Without further description of steps to control RCA and MDA, it cannot be said that the Applicant possessed the method as claimed.
When turning to the specification regarding copy number control via controlling the time of RCA and MDA, the specification does not provide any method by which the time of RCA and MDA are controlled, whether simultaneously or sequentially. There are several mentions of the same idea as claimed, “a copy number of the read1 strand sequencing template and a copy number of the read2 strand sequencing template are controlled by controlling time of the rolling circle amplification and time of the multiple displacement amplification.” (Page 5, paragraph [0013]; Page 7, paragraph [0026]; Page 8, paragraph [0028], among others), but there is no further description or working examples directed towards actually enacting control over the timing of RCA and MDA, which would subsequently control the copy number of the read1 strand and the read2 strand. This does not supply adequate description as to actually possessing the ability to control timing of the amplification reactions and control the copy number of the reads. Based on the specification, the Applicant does not have possession of the method as claimed.
When turning to the specification regarding the read copy numbers having a difference in folds and positioning based on a signal difference caused by the difference in folds, the specification does not provide any description of how to relate these differences to positioning of bases. There is a mention of the same idea as claimed, “the copy number of the read1 strand sequencing template and the copy number of the read2 strand sequencing template have a difference in folds, and sequencing bases are positioned by using a signal difference caused by the difference in folds during the sequencing” (Page 5, paragraph [0014]), but there is no further description or working examples directed towards actually determining position based on a signal difference coming from a difference in folds of read copy numbers. This does not supply adequate description as to actually possessing the ability to determine position based on a signal difference coming from a difference in folds of read copy numbers. Based on the specification, the Applicant does not have possession of the method as claimed.
Claims 7 and 13-15 do not further present possession of the method as claimed in claim 6 and are also rejected here. Therefore, claims 6-7 and 13-15 are rejected for lacking written description.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 6th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant states that based on the instant specification, including the description and figures, those skilled in the art will understand the methods claimed and that the inventors were in possession of the invention (Page 7 of the Remarks filed January 6th, 2026). The Applicant argues that there is sufficient disclosure to support the limitations of claim 6 (Page 7 of the Remarks filed January 6th, 2026). The Applicant argues that those skilled in the art could deduce from common general knowledge that reaction time of RCA or MDA can be controlled by adjusting the amount of primers used (Page 7 of the Remarks filed January 6th, 2026). The Applicant argues that even if the limitations are not expressly recited in the specification, those skilled in the art can determine and reasonably expect that these limitations are part of the instant application in combination with common general knowledge on the filing date (Pages 7-8 of the Remarks filed January 6th, 2026). The Applicant concludes that the inventor possessed the complete invention at the time of the filing date (Page 8 of the Remarks filed January 6th, 2026).
In response to these arguments, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claims, or even in the instant disclosure at all. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, any explanation provided by the Applicant that does not have support in the instant disclosure, either in the claims or specification, cannot be considered a sufficient argument. The Applicant is further advised that MPEP 716.01(c) makes clear that “[t]he arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record” (In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965)). As has been noted in the 112(b) response above, there is no description at all of using amount of primers to control the time of the reactions. This has solely been argued by the Applicant. While controlling reaction time via the amount of primers added to a reaction may be common knowledge, the Applicant does not possess the use of this method because it does not appear anywhere in the instant disclosure with sufficient description of how it is being used in the context of the invention, and the argument amounts to an opinion of counsel. The Applicant has not further addressed the other noted aspects of the 112(a) rejection. Thus, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is modified as necessitated by amendment and maintained.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Allison E Schloop whose telephone number is (703)756-4597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5 ET.
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, Anne Gussow can be reached at (571) 272-6047. 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.
/ALLISON E SCHLOOP/ Examiner, Art Unit 1683
/Robert T. Crow/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1683