DETAILED ACTION
CONTINUED EXAMINATION UNDER 37 CFR 1.114 AFTER FINAL REJECTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 of RCE and amendment filed on January 22, 2026 have been entered. The claims pending in this application are claims 1-4 and 8-15 wherein claims 10 and 11 have been withdrawn in the non-final office action mailed on June 3, 2025. The objections and rejections not reiterated from the previous office action are hereby withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment filed on January 26, 2026. Claims 1-4, 8, 9, and 12-15 will be examined.
Specification
The substituted specification submitted on January 22, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informality: “the fluorophore-labeled TNA sense strand has one of the group of sequences” should be “the fluorophore-labeled TNA sense strand is selected from the group”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meserve et al., (The Analyst, 133, 1013-1019, 2008) in view of Culbertson et al., (Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry Letters, 26, 2418-2421, 2016).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 8, and 14, since the target miRNA is not a structural limitation of claim 1, Meserve et al., teach a fluorophore-labeled DNA sense strand; and a quencher-labeled DNA recognition strand, wherein the quencher-labeled DNA recognition strand is antisense to the target miRNA (eg., an antisense to an artificially synthesized miRNA with one or two base mismatches transformed or transfected into a living cell) via base pairing wherein the fluorophore-labeled DNA sense strand and the quencher-labeled DNA recognition strand are partially hybridized before recognizing the target miRNA, wherein fluorophore of the fluorophore-labeled DNA sense strand and quencher of the quencher-labeled DNA recognition strand are disposed in close proximity for quenching the fluorescence by the quencher such that the fluorophore is near undetectable when the target miRNA is absent; and wherein the fluorophore-labeled DNA sense strand starts emitting fluorescence when the target miRNA (ie., an artificially synthesized miRNA with one or two base mismatches transformed or transfected into a living cell) is present, the quencher-labeled DNA recognition strand hybridizes with the target miRNA and displaces the fluorophore-labeled DNA sense strand by the target miRNA. resulting in a discrete “turn-on” of the fluorescence as recited in claim 1, wherein the DNA sense strand and the DNA recognition strand are hybridized in a molar ratio of 1:1 as recited in claim 4, the intensity of the emitted fluorescence quantifiably relates to the target miRNA expression level (ie., the intensity of the emitted fluorescence is related to the target miRNA expression level if the DNA probe recited in claim 1 is used for detecting the target miRNA expression) as recited in claim 8, and the quencher-labeled DNA recognition strand (eg., QNQO1-1 in Table 1) has a sequence (ie., ACA) of 5’-ATCGAATAGTCTGACTACAACT-BHQ1- 3’ as recited in claim 14 (see pages 1014-1017, Figures 1 and 3, and Table 1).
Meserve et al., do not disclose a threose nucleic acid (TNA) probe as recited in claim 1, 4, 8, and 14.
Culbertson et al., teach a TNA probe and its advantages such as “[W]e show that TNA remains undigested after 7 days of incubation in the presence of either 50% human serum or human liver microsomes and is stable against snake venom phosphordiesterase (a highly active 3’ exonuclease). We further show that TNA will protect internal DNA residues from nuclease
digestion and shield complementary RNA strands from RNA degrading enzymes. Together, these results demonstrate that TNA is an RNA analogue with high biological stability” and “we
have demonstrated that TNA exhibits strong nuclease stability under biologically relevant conditions. In particular, we show that TNA oligonucleotides are stable against 50% human serum and 0.5 mg/mL human liver microsomes and resistant to snake venom phosphodiesterase. Additionally, we also show that TNA will protect limited numbers of internal DNA residues from nuclease digestion and shield complementary RNA from RNA cleaving enzymes. Together, these observations warrant further analysis of TNA as a biologically stable analogue for RNA-based therapeutics” (see abstract and Figure 1 in page 2418 and right column in page 2420).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the threose nucleic acid (TNA) probes recited in claims 1, 4, 8, and 14 based on the nucleotide sequences of the fluorophore-labeled sense DNA probe and the quencher-labeled antisense DNA probe taught by Meserve et al., in view of the prior arts of Meserve et al., and Culbertson et al.. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Culbertson et al., teach a TNA probe and its advantages such as “[W]e show that TNA remains undigested after 7 days of incubation in the presence of either 50% human serum or human liver microsomes and is stable against snake venom
phosphordiesterase (a highly active 3’ exonuclease). We further show that TNA will protect internal DNA residues from nuclease digestion and shield complementary RNA strands from RNA degrading enzymes. Together, these results demonstrate that TNA is an RNA analogue with high biological stability” and “we have demonstrated that TNA exhibits strong nuclease stability under biologically relevant conditions. In particular, we show that TNA oligonucleotides are stable against 50% human serum and 0.5 mg/mL human liver microsomes and resistant to snake venom phosphodiesterase. Additionally, we also show that TNA will protect limited numbers of internal DNA residues from nuclease digestion and shield
complementary RNA from RNA cleaving enzymes. Together, these observations warrant further analysis of TNA as a biologically stable analogue for RNA-based therapeutics” (see abstract and Figure 1 in page 2418 and right column in page 2420). One having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have a reasonable expectation of success to make the threose nucleic acid (TNA) probe recited in claims 1, 4, 8, and 14 based on the nucleotide sequences of the fluorophore-labeled sense DNA probe and the quencher-labeled antisense DNA probe taught by Meserve et al., in view of the prior arts of Meserve et al., and Culbertson et al., in order to increase nuclease stability and storage stability of the double-stranded molecular probe taught by Meserve et al..
Response to Arguments
In page 6, seventh paragraph bridging to page 8, last paragraph of applicant’s remarks, applicant argues that “[T]he present invention is directed to the use of TNA as a novel biomaterial for the intracellular detection and imaging of miRNA. While the general sensing architecture may appear conceptually similar to DNA-based systems such as those disclosed in Meserve, the substitution of the recognition element with TNA is far more than a ‘simple substitution of parts.’ Rather, it represents a fundamental and non-obvious departure from the prior art. TNA is a xeno-nucleic acid (XNA) featuring a 4-carbon threose sugar with 3’→2’ linkages, whereas DNA utilizes a 5-carbon deoxyribose sugar with 3’→5’ linkages. This structural divergence is not a predictable modification. Because the TNA backbone is shorter, the helical geometry of a TNA-RNA duplex differs significantly from that of a DNA-RNA heteroduplex. This difference gives rise to two critical and non-obvious technical effects: biological orthogonality and unique hybridization kinetics. Specifically, the 3’→2’ linkage renders TNA effectively ‘invisible’ to natural nucleases. While Meserve's DNA probes are known to degrade within hours in a cellular environment, the TNA probes of the present invention enable long-term dynamic monitoring. In addition, the ability of TNA to cross-pair with RNA while remaining orthogonal to degrading enzymes enables high-fidelity sensing in living systems-capabilities that DNA-based probes cannot achieve. Culbertson does not cure these deficiencies. Although Culbertson establishes that TNA exhibits nuclease stability in human serum and microsomes, it is strictly a stability and biophysical characterization study. Culbertson does not teach or suggest that TNA can be engineered as a functional, signal-transducing probe. It contains no disclosure of fluorophore-quencher systems, strand displacement mechanisms, or signal activation strategies. The studies in Meserve rely on DNA because it is the conventional material, but DNA fails in living systems due to rapid degradation. Culbertson demonstrates stability but provides no teaching of functionality. The present invention uniquely solves the long-standing stability-versus- functionality trade-off by providing a probe that is both biologically stable and functionally responsive-an advance not recognized or suggested by the prior art. Furthermore, Culbertson does not disclose or suggest that TNA can be internalized by cells with negligible toxicity while remaining functional. The studies in Culbertson demonstrate protection of RNA from digestion using TNA-DNA hybrids, but they do not provide any roadmap for developing a dynamic, programmable sensor. Culbertson also does not teach or suggest any recognition or hybridization capability of TNA toward miRNA targets, nor does it describe any fluorescence-based signal generation or molecular imaging application. It provides no data or conceptual guidance regarding sequence-specific discrimination, cellular uptake, fluorescent reporting, or diagnostic use. In other words, Culbertson characterizes TNA as a biostable molecule, but does not teach or suggest employing TNA as a miRNA-detecting XNA probe. The present invention further achieves unexpected technical results, including a limit of detection (LOD) of 2.582 nM and the ability to distinguish single-base mismatches in the complex intracellular environment. Such performance is not suggested by the general stability findings in Culbertson and would not have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine Meserve and Culbertson. Meserve fails to suggest using TNA, and Culbertson fails to suggest using TNA for miRNA detection, imaging, or signal transduction. Therefore, a skilled artisan would have no motivation or reasonable expectation of success in modifying the DNA-based probe system of Meserve with the synthetic nucleic acid polymer described in Culbertson to arrive at the claimed invention. To further clarify and distinguish the invention, Claim 1 is amended to incorporate the structural and functional interactions among the TNA sense strand, the TNA recognition strand, and the target miRNA (wherein the TNA sense strand and the TNA recognition strand are partially hybridized before recognizing the target miRNA; wherein fluorophore of the fluorophore-labeled TNA sense strand and quencher of the quencher-labeled TNA recognition strand are disposed in close proximity for quenching the fluorescence by the quencher such that the fluorophore is near undetectable when the target miRNA is absent; and wherein the fluorophore-labeled TNA sense strand starts emitting fluorescence when the target miRNA is present, the quencher-labeled TNA recognition strand hybridizes with the target miRNA and displaces the fluorophore-labeled TNA sense strand by the target miRNA, resulting in a discrete ‘turn-on’ of the fluorescence). Culbertson does not disclose or suggest any such recognition, hybridization, strand displacement, or signal activation mechanisms involving TNA. In view of the foregoing, none of the references-alone or in combination-has disclosed, taught or suggested the present invention's use of a fully synthetic TNA-based probe for intracellular miRNA detection and imaging. As these technical features are now clearly defined in Claim 1, the Applicant respectfully submits that none of the cited references and combinations thereof has disclosed, taught, or suggested the claimed inventions in the amended claims”.
These arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive toward the withdrawal of the rejection.
First, the target miRNA is not a structural limitation of claims 1, 4, and 14.
Second, although applicant argues that “[T]he present invention further achieves unexpected technical results, including a limit of detection (LOD) of 2.582 nM and the ability to distinguish single-base mismatches in the complex intracellular environment. Such performance is not suggested by the general stability findings in Culbertson and would not have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art”, since Culbertson et al., teach a TNA probe and its advantages such as “[W]e show that TNA remains undigested after 7 days of incubation in the presence of either 50% human serum or human liver microsomes and is stable against snake venom phosphordiesterase (a highly active 3’ exonuclease). We further show that TNA will protect internal DNA residues from nuclease digestion and shield complementary RNA strands from RNA degrading enzymes. Together, these results demonstrate that TNA is an RNA analogue with high biological stability” and “we have demonstrated that TNA exhibits strong nuclease stability under biologically relevant conditions. In particular, we show that TNA oligonucleotides are stable against 50% human serum and 0.5 mg/mL human liver microsomes and resistant to snake venom phosphodiesterase. Additionally, we also show that TNA will protect limited numbers of internal DNA residues from nuclease digestion and shield complementary RNA from RNA cleaving enzymes. Together, these observations warrant further analysis of TNA as a biologically stable analogue for RNA-based therapeutics” (see abstract and Figure 1 in page 2418 and right column in page 2420), above technical results argued by applicant is expected. Furthermore, applicant has no evidence to show that above technical results cannot be reached using the fluorophore-labeled sense TNA probe and the quencher-labeled antisense TNA probe.
Third, although applicant argues that “[M]eserve fails to suggest using TNA, and Culbertson fails to suggest using TNA for miRNA detection, imaging, or signal transduction. Therefore, a skilled artisan would have no motivation or reasonable expectation of success in modifying the DNA-based probe system of Meserve with the synthetic nucleic acid polymer described in Culbertson to arrive at the claimed invention” and “none of the references - alone or in combination - has disclosed, taught or suggested the present invention’s use of a fully synthetic TNA-based probe for intracellular miRNA detection and imaging”, the rejection is based on a combination of Meserve et al., and Culbertson et al., and is not dependent on either Meserve et al., or Culbertson et al., alone. Furthermore, there is a motivation to combine Meserve et al., and Culbertson et al., together. Since Culbertson et al., teach a TNA probe and its advantages such as “[W]e show that TNA remains undigested after 7 days of incubation in the presence of either 50% human serum or human liver microsomes and is stable against snake venom phosphordiesterase (a highly active 3’ exonuclease). We further show that TNA will protect internal DNA residues from nuclease digestion and shield complementary RNA strands from RNA degrading enzymes. Together, these results demonstrate that TNA is an RNA analogue with high biological stability” and “we have demonstrated that TNA exhibits strong nuclease stability under biologically relevant conditions. In particular, we show that TNA oligonucleotides are stable against 50% human serum and 0.5 mg/mL human liver microsomes and resistant to snake venom phosphodiesterase. Additionally, we also show that TNA will protect limited numbers of internal DNA residues from nuclease digestion and shield
complementary RNA from RNA cleaving enzymes. Together, these observations warrant further analysis of TNA as a biologically stable analogue for RNA-based therapeutics” (see abstract and Figure 1 in page 2418 and right column in page 2420), one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have a reasonable expectation of success to make the threose nucleic acid (TNA) probe recited in claims 1, 4, 8, and 14 based on the nucleotide sequences of the fluorophore-labeled sense DNA probe and the quencher-labeled antisense DNA probe taught by Meserve et al., in view of the prior arts of Meserve et al., and Culbertson et al., in order to increase nuclease stability and storage stability of the double-stranded molecular probe taught by Meserve et al..
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meserve et al., in view of Culbertson et al., as applied to claims 1, 4, 8, and 14 above, and further in view of Shafer (US 2009/0209434 A1, published on August 20, 2009).
The teaching of Meserve et al., and Culbertson et al., have been summarized previously, supra.
Meserve et al., and Culbertson et al., do not disclose that the fluorophore-labeled TNA sensor strand is a 3’-Cy3 labeled TNA sense strand as recited in claim 2 and the quencher-labeled recognition TNA strand is a 2’- black hole quencher 1 (BHQ1) labeled TNA recognition strand. However, Culbertson et al., teach that TNA has a backbone periodicity of five atoms with phosphodiester linkages occurring at the 2’ and 3’ positions of the furanose ring (see page 2418).
Shafer teaches that a fluorophore FAM or Cy3 is labeled to either 5’ end or 3’ end of a probe and a quencher Iowa black or BHQ1 is labeled to either 5’ end or 3’ end of an antiprobe (see paragraph [0147]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the threose nucleic acid (TNA) probes recited in claims 2 and 3 based on the nucleotide sequences of the fluorophore-labeled sense DNA probe and the quencher-labeled antisense DNA probe taught by Meserve et al., in view of the prior arts of Meserve et al., Culbertson et al., and Shafer. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Shafer teaches that a fluorophore FAM or Cy3 has been successfully labeled to either 5’ end or 3’ end of a probe and a quencher Iowa black or BHQ1 has been successfully labeled to either 5’ end or 3’ end of an antiprobe (see paragraph [0147]). One having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have a reasonable expectation of success to make the threose nucleic acid (TNA) probe recited in claims 2 and 3 based on the nucleotide sequences of the fluorophore-labeled sense DNA probe and the quencher-labeled antisense DNA probe taught by Meserve et al., in view of the prior arts of Meserve et al., Culbertson et al., and Shafer.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meserve et al., in view of Culbertson et al., as applied to claims 1, 4, 8, and 14 above, and further in view of Roush et al., (Trends in Cell Biology, 18, 505-516, 2008) and Arroyo et al., (Nucleic Acids Research, 42, 6064-6077, 2014).
The teaching of Meserve et al., and Culbertson et al., have been summarized previously, supra.
Meserve et al., and Culbertson et al., do not disclose that the target miRNA is a cancer-related miRNA, comprising Let-7, miR-7, miR-16, miR-18a, miR-21, miR-31, miR-143, miR- 145, mir-155, and miR-191 as recited in claim 9.
Roush et al., teach the nucleotide sequences of Let-7 (see Figures 1 and 2 in pages 506 and 507).
Arroyo et al., teach to design and artificially synthesize miRNAs (see pages 6065 and 6066).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made a threose nucleic acid (TNA) probe based on the nucleotide sequences of Let-7 such that the fluorophore-labeled TNA sense strand of the TNA probe is sense to Let-7 and the quencher-labeled TNA recognition strand of the TNA probe is antisense to Let-7 as recited in claim 9 in view of the prior arts of Meserve et al., Culbertson et al., Roush et al., and Arroyo et al.. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Roush et al., have shown the nucleotide sequences of Let-7 (see Figures 1 and 2 in pages 506 and 507) while Arroyo et al., have successfully designed and artificially synthesized miRNAs (see pages 6065 and 6066). One having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have a reasonable expectation of success to make a threose nucleic acid (TNA) probe based on the nucleotide sequences of Let-7 in view of the prior arts of Meserve et al., Culbertson et al., Roush et al., and Arroyo et al., such that the fluorophore-labeled TNA sense strand of the TNA probe is sense to Let-7 and the quencher-labeled TNA recognition strand of the TNA probe is antisense to Let-7 as recited in claim 9.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meserve et al., in view of Culbertson et al., as applied to claims 1, 4, 8, and 14 above, and further in view of 1988 Stratagene catalog (page 39).
The teaching of Meserve et al., and Culbertson et al., have been summarized previously, supra.
Meserve et al., and Culbertson et al., do not disclose that a kit as recited in claim 12.
1988 Stratagene catalog teaches a motivation to combine reagents into a kit format (page 39).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the kit recited in claim 12 by putting the threose nucleic acid (TNA) probe which is made based on the teachings of Meserve et al., and Culbertson et al., into a kit format in view of the prior arts of Meserve et al., Culbertson et al.,
and 1988 Stratagene. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the Stratagene catalog teaches a motivation for combining reagents of use in an assay into a kit, “[E]ach kit provides two services: 1) a variety of different reagents have been assembled and pre-mixed specifically for a defined set of experiments. 2) The other service provided in a kit is quality control” (page 39, column 1).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meserve et al., in view of Culbertson et al., and 1988 Stratagene catalog as applied to claims 1, 4, 8, 12, and 14 above, and further in view of Small et al., (US 2003/0113725 A1, published on June 19, 2003).
The teaching of Meserve et al., Culbertson et al., and 1988 Stratagene catalog have been summarized previously, supra.
Meserve et al., Culbertson et al., and 1988 Stratagene catalog do not disclose that the kit further comprises a scrambled TNA probe as a negative control as recited in claim 13.
Small et al., teach that a kit also contain sources of “control” target polynucleotides as positive and negative controls (see paragraph [0190]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the kit recited in claim 13 by putting a scrambled TNA probe into the kit recited in claim 12 as a negative control in view of the prior arts of Meserve et al., Culbertson et al., 1988 Stratagene, and Small et al.. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Small et al., have shown that a kit also contain sources of “control” target polynucleotides as positive and negative controls (see paragraph [0190]). One having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have a reasonable expectation of success to make the kit recited in claim 13 by putting a scrambled TNA probe into the kit recited in claim 12 as a negative control in view of the prior arts of Meserve et al., Culbertson et al., 1988 Stratagene, and Small et al., in order to ensure the specificity of a test reaction and reduce false positives of the test reaction when one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made uses the kit recited in claim 12 in his or her experiments.
Response to Arguments
In page 9, first to sixth paragraph of applicant’s remarks, applicant argues that “[T]he Applicant respectfully submits that the additional references, Shafer, Roush, Arroyo, 1988 Stratagene catalog, and Small, alone or in combinations, nor do they provide any teaching, suggestion, or motivation that would render the claimed invention obvious. Specifically, while Shafer may disclose a sensing platform that is superficially similar in overall architecture, Shafer is entirely silent with respect to TNA probe structures, Xeno- nucleic acids, or the use of TNA as a recognition element. Accordingly, Shafer does not remedy Meserve's failure to teach or suggest the use of TNA, nor does it provide any guidance toward the claimed TNA-based probe design. Roush and Arroyo are further limited in scope, as they are restricted to studies involving the let-7 miRNA family. In contrast, the present invention provides a universal and programmable platform, wherein any target miRNA can be detected and imaged by simply modifying the TNA sequence. This broad programmability represents a significant inventive advance over the narrow, sequence-specific approaches of Roush and Arroyo and is not suggested or motivated by those references. The 1988 Stratagene catalog and Small are even further removed from the claimed invention. These references do not disclose, teach, or suggest TNA or any related Xeno-nucleic Acids (XNAs). Being entirely devoid of TNA chemistry, they are technically distant and have no bearing on the novelty or non-obviousness of the present invention. Notwithstanding the above, the Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are allowable as depending from an allowable independent claim, and further in view of the comments provided above”
These arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive toward the
withdrawal of the rejection because Meserve et al., in view of Culbertson et al., teach all limitations recited in claim 1 (see above Response to Argument related to Rejection Item No. 5).
Conclusion
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
No claim is allowed.
Papers related to this application may be submitted to Group 1600 by facsimile transmission. Papers should be faxed to Group 1600 via the PTO Fax Center. The faxing of such papers must conform with the notices published in the Official Gazette, 1096 OG 30 (November 15, 1988), 1156 OG 61 (November 16, 1993), and 1157 OG 94 (December 28, 1993)(See 37 CAR § 1.6(d)). The CM Fax Center number is (571)273-8300.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frank Lu, Ph.D., whose telephone number is (571)272-0746. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9 A.M. to 5 P.M.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Dr. Anne Gussow, Ph.D., can be reached on (571)272-6047.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FRANK W LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1683
May 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights