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 .
Claim Status-
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 13-14, 20, and 25-33 are pending.
Claims 6, 15-18, 20 and 22-24 are cancelled by the Applicant.
Claims 25-33 are newly added.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 13-14 and 25-33 are being examined.
All previous objections and rejections not set forth below have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 13-14 and 25-23 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.
Independent claim 1 recites, “… positioned in the matrix according to a pre-determined spatial pattern sufficient to induce the plurality of bioprinted plant cells to form a callus”. Independent claim 25 recites, “… are positioned in the matrix according to a pre-determined spatial pattern sufficient to induce, upon culturing, the plurality of bioprinted plant cells to form a callus.”
It is not clear to the Examiner if the Applicant implies that the “pre-determined spatial pattern” used in the bioprinting need to be suitable and sufficient to induce/form callus. An ordinarily skilled artisan would acknowledge that the ability of a cell or a protoplast to induce/form callus basically is due to the composition of the cultural media comprising (mainly) auxin and cytokinin in which the cell/protoplast is being cultured, and not any (pre-determined) spatial pattern. Given a right cultural media and cultural condition, almost any plant cell and protoplast (as used by the Applicant) (Sivak et al., Regulation of the Starch Synthesis Pathway: Targets for Biotechnology, in Advances in Food and Nutrition Research, 1998, Eds.; p.2, para 6, line 1-3) would form callus.
Claims 25-33 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 25 recites “…. root stem cell niche…”. It is not clear to the Examiner what constitutes a “root stem cell niche”. The Applicant defines “stem cell niche (SCN) as- “The stem cells are confined in a region of the root tip called the stem cell niche (SCN), which contains Quiescent Center (QC) cells…” (spec, p.6, para 0032, line 10-12; p.13, para 0053, line 3-5) and tries to identify the SCN in Fig. 2A.
The definition does not specify the region and/or the cells therein in a root apical meristem that a skilled artisan can identify as SCN. However, the accepted meaning of different regions of root apical meristem (RAM) and “stem cell niche” include epidermis (Uchida et al.; Fig. 1), as shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
573
1128
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The SCN is described by Uchida et al. (Fig.1) which comprises stem cells (a few specific cells of the Quiescent Center (QC) and one layer of cells around it) and epidermis. However, there is no upper limit to restrict the SCN. Moreover, epidermis (or the outer layer beyond the root cap region) is present almost all around the plant, as shown below (source: Encyclopedia Britannica).
PNG
media_image2.png
462
360
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, it is not clear what constitutes SCN in the context of the invention. It is unclear whether ‘stem cell niche’ is limited to the Quiescent Center (QC) cells, or includes other layers of cells, as known in the prior art. Any new matter must be avoided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Written Description
Claims 1-5, 7-9 and 13-14 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 claims contain 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.
The Applicant describes using various markers including GFP, YFP, RFP and mCherry fluorescent proteins fused to different promoters allegedly “marking QC cells, CEIs, LRC/EPI, xylem, CSCs, protophloem, SCN, phloem initials, sieve element cells, and cambium” (spec, page 23, para 0084, line 6-7). It is known in the art that stem cells in plants exist strictly in meristems (e.g., shoot/root tips) and identity and fate of a cell in a plant is intimately linked to its relative position within the plant (Efroni, I, 2018, A Conceptual Framework for Cell Identity Transitions in Plants, Plant Cell Physiol. 59:696–706; Abstract). It implies that a specific cell type including a stem cell dissociated from its positional cue and isolated to make or sort individual cells would lose its cellular identity. It is also known in the art that expression of specific stem cell markers including WOX5, as used by the Applicant (spec, page 22, para 0084, line 3), does not imply or assign stem cell identity because such expression for stem cells marker genes like WOX5 is observed in Arabidopsis roots where stem cell niche or the root quiescent center (QC) are ablated or abscised in a specific temporal fashion (Efroni, I., bridging paragraph between page 700, right column, last para and page 701, left column, first para). Moreover, analysis of gene markers and transcriptomic assays have revealed callus cells, which are clearly not any stem cell, express many root meristem-specific markers (Efroni, I; page 702, left column, para 5, line 3-7).
The Applicant describes fluorescence activated cell sorting (FACS) to isolate protoplast to be used for 3D bioprinting (spec, p.23, para 0085, line 1) using expression of different fluorescent proteins (e.g., GFP, YFP, RFP and mCherry) fused to different promoters (page 23, para 0084, line 3-5). The cells are used to make isolated protoplasts before bioprinting (page 23, para 0085, line 1) and these protoplasts/cells are already isolated from its actual positions (including in QC) in the plant. Preponderance of evidence indicate that these isolated protoplasts, maintained in a culture media (PIM) containing auxin (2, 4-D) (Spec, page 32, para 0121; page 32, para 0129, line 6) before being suspended in different bioinks comprising auxin (e.g., 2,4-D, NAA, and IAA) and cytokinin (BAP and Kinetin) (spec, page 31, para 0105; page 31-32, para 0107-0125) prior to bioprinting, would not maintain its specific (initial) cellular identity including that of a stem cell. The cells immersed in exogenously applied plant hormone (auxin and cytokinin) and detached from its actual in-vivo positional cues suspended in the liquid medium is more like a cell in a callus or cell suspension culture, which is often derived from callus. There is practically (or structurally) no difference between a protoplast isolated from a stem cell with the ones isolated from any other plant cell or a callus.
The plant cells and/or the protoplasts used for bioprinting does not include the at least one stem cell. The protoplasts (or cells) used for bioprinting might have been obtained from plurality of plant cells comprising at least one stem cell but those cells/protoplasts neither comprise from plurality of plant cells (all are protoplasts) nor any stem cells. It is not possible for a skilled artisan to identify the characteristics of plurality of plant cells or that of a stem cell by observing/analyzing isolated protoplasts. The Applicant does not describe any structural function relationship between maintaining cellular identity of a plant stem cell among isolated protoplasts with expression of specific marker gene(s).
Considering the breadth of the claims, lack of structure-function relationship of the broad genus claimed, the Applicant does not appear to have been in possession of the claimed genus at the time this application was filed.
Enablement
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 32 depends from claim 25 and is drawn to the matrix of claim 25, wherein the pre-determined spatial pattern mimics an arrangement of cells within a root stem cell niche.
It is known in the art that identity and fate of a cell in a plant is intimately linked to its relative position within the plant (Efroni, I, 2018, A Conceptual Framework for Cell Identity Transitions in Plants, Plant Cell Physiol. 59:696–706; Abstract). It implies that a specific cell type including a stem cell dissociated from its positional cue and isolated to make or sort individual cells would lose its cellular identity. It is also known in the art that expression of specific stem cell markers including WOX5, as used by the Applicant (spec, page 22, para 0084, line 3), does not imply or assign stem cell identity because such expression for stem cells marker genes like WOX5 is observed in Arabidopsis roots where stem cell niche or the root quiescent center (QC) are ablated or abscised in a specific temporal fashion (Efroni, I., bridging paragraph between page 700, right column, last para and page 701, left column, first para). Moreover, analysis of gene markers and transcriptomic assays have revealed callus cells, which are clearly not any stem cell, express many root meristem-specific markers (Efroni, I; page 702, left column, para 5, line 3-7).
The Applicant describes fluorescence activated cell sorting (FACS) to isolate protoplast obtained from different stem cell-types (page 23, para 0084, line 1-2) using expression of different fluorescent proteins (e.g., GFP, YFP, RFP and mCherry) fused to different promoters (page 23, para 0084, line 3-5). These protoplasts/cells are already isolated from its actual positions (including in QC) in the plant. It is highly unlikely that these isolated protoplasts, maintained in a culture media (PIM) containing auxin (2, 4-D) (Spec, page 32, para 0121; page 32, para 0129, line 6) before being suspended in different bioinks comprising auxin (e.g., 2,4-D, NAA, and IAA) and cytokinin (BAP and Kinetin) (spec, page 31, para 0105; page 31-32, para 0107-0125) prior to bioprinting, would maintain its specific (initial) cellular identity including that of a meristematic cell or a stem cell. There is practically no difference between a protoplast isolated from a stem cell with the ones isolated from any other plant cell or a callus. Moreover, protoplasts would regenerate their cells walls and produce (normal) cells as they divide in presence of suitable culture medium comprising auxin and cytokinin forming a mass of unorganized cells to form a callus (Sivak et al.; p.2, para 6, line 1-3).
The applicant does not provide any guidance on how to develop and/or transform bioprinted protoplasts to acquire specific cell type and cell fate including that of stem cells in a root stem cell niche. Stem cells are mitotically less active and divide infrequently while the QC is considered as a signaling center or an organizer of the RAM, sending non-cell autonomous signals toward the surrounding stem cells to regulate their maintenance and asymmetric cell division, as described by Uchida et al. (p.1067, right column, para 3, line 4-8).
Current status of the art also does not provide any guidance on how to develop and/or transform bioprinted protoplasts to acquire specific cell type and cell fate including that of a stem cell among isolated and then bioprinted protoplasts or plant cells immersed in exogenously applied medium comprising plant hormone (auxin and cytokinin) and detached from its actual in-vivo positional cues.
Undue trial and error experimentations would be needed to develop a suitable method to maintain cellular identity of a plant meristematic cells or stem cells among isolated protoplasts or plant cells immersed in exogenously applied medium comprising plant hormone (auxin and cytokinin) and detached from its actual in-vivo positional cues.
Based on breadth of the claims, lack of any working example, lack of guidance in the instant description or in prior art, the specification at the time of the application filed would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without performing undue experiments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 13-14, 25-31 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubanov et al. (Development of 3D Bioprinting Technology Using Modified Natural and Synthetic Hydrogels for Engineering Construction of Organs, 2019, Int. J. Pharm. Phytopharm. Res., 9:37-42) in view of Steingroewer et al. (Monitoring of Plant Cells and Tissues in Bioprocesses, 2018, Pavlov, T. Bley (eds.), Bioprocessing of Plant In Vitro Systems, Reference Series in Phytochemistry), Birnbaum et al. (Cell type–specific expression profiling in plants via cell sorting of protoplasts from fluorescent reporter lines, 2004, Nature Methods, 2:615-619), and Bargmann et al. (Fluorescence Activated Cell Sorting of Plant Protoplasts, 2010, J. Vis. Exp., 18:1673).
Kubanov et al. teaches that the basic concept of bioprinting with plant cells is the exact location of the cells in the proper place of the print area (2D) or volume (3D) (as recited in claims 2 and 26) as per a pre-determined shape will allow the cells to differentiate under the influence of the environment, including phytohormone (as recited in claim 9) composition (in the bioink and/or in the matrix) (p.40, right column, last para, line 3-11). Kubanov et al. describes biodegradable matrix with open porosity of a certain scale capable of supporting the migration, growth, and differentiation of cells including stem cells (p.39, right column, para 1, line 3-6). Kubanov et al. also describes 3D bioprinting (as recited in claims 2 and 26) on a matrix (p.40, left column, para 1) using stem cells (p.38, left column, para 2; page 39, right column, para 1; page 40, left column, para 1) and/or (totipotent) meristematic cells (p.40. right column, para 2, line 5-7) and/or stem cells (p.40, left column, para 1) of plants. It is known in the art that all stem cells in a plant comes from either root or shoot stem cell niche which includes shoot and/or root apical meristem, as discussed above (Uchida et al., p.1068, right column, para 2, line 7-9; and Fig. 2), as recited in claims 1, 3-5 and 25.
Kubanov et al. describes PLA biopolymer to bioprint and create four square-shaped (bioprinted) substrates (p.3, right column, last para, last 3 lines). The PLA biopolymer, a natural and synthetic hydrogel (as recited in claims 8 and 31) containing cells (p.39, right column, last para, first 2 lines) and a “prepared hydrogel” (p.40, left column, para 2, line 1-7) reads on to bioink (as recited in claims 7, 13, 31 and 33), as defined by the Applicant (spec, p.8, para 0041, line 1-2). Kubanov et al. also teaches a bio-printing device, a 3D printer “3Dison Multi”, which is one of the most accurate 3D printers to date (page 38, right column, para 2) using 3D layered 3D printing technology (FDM) (page 39, right column, last para), as recited in claim 14.
However, Kubanov et al. does not describe bioprinting using plant protoplasts. Kubanov et al. also does not describe fluorescence activated cell sorting (FACS).
Steingroewer et al. describes fabrication of 3D constructs (reads on to matrix) with high accuracy and shape fidelity (p.469, last para, line 2-4) using suitable hydrogel material suitable for both fabrication of 3D-matrices and cultivation of embedded cells (p.473, para 2, line 1-2). Steingroewer et al. also describes producing protoplasts (as recited in claim 27) from specific cell types labeled with fluorescent markers and the protoplasts expressing the fluorescent markers are sorted (which reads on to “fluorescence activated cell sorting based on expression of a fluorescent cell-lineage marker”, as recited in claim 29) and investigated on single cell level for specific purpose, viz., metabolite profiling, transcription profiling or signal transduction (p. 470, last para, line 5-9). Steingroewer et al. teaches a method for selection of single cell resulted in a homogenously producing culture exhibiting higher productivity of monoclonal antibody compared to the original (heterogenous) culture (page 466, para 2).
Birnbaum et al. describes a method to isolate up to hundreds of thousands of plant cells of a specific cell type, with very high purity (abstract) and protoplasts derived from such cells (p. 617, Fig1). The method uses reporter lines expressing green fluorescent protein (GFP) (p.617, Fig.1) in histologically defined cell types including the cells in the Arabidopsis thaliana root (abstract; p.616, para 6-7) which includes root meristem and SCN therein, as recited in claim 28.
Before the effective filing of the invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the production of bioprinted plant cells as described by Kubanov by using fluorescence activated cell/protoplast sorting based on expression of a fluorescent cell-lineage marker being expressed in specific cell type including in cells in the root meristem and/or SCN, as described by Steingroewer et al. and Birnbaum et al. It is known in the art that sorting of protoplasts (compared to cells with cell walls) are more beneficial and easier while using Fluorescence Activated Cell Sorting (FACS) especially while using GFP as a fluorescent marker, as described by Birnbaum et al., because FACS of GFP-positive cells makes use of the visualization of the green versus the red emission spectra of protoplasts excited by a 488 nm laser (used for sorting) as the GFP-positive protoplasts (compared to cells with cell wall) can be distinguished by their increased ratio of green to red emission (Bargmann et al.; Abstract, para 3, line 1-2). It is well known in the art that working with roots, as compared to shoots that contain chlorophyll which has its own fluorescence spectrum that often interfere with cell/protoplast sorting due to its broad excitation and emission spectra (often referred to as “autofluorescence”), is more desirable as it does not contain any chlorophyll and, thus, easier to handle and sort cells/protoplasts more efficiently while using FACS based cell/protoplast sorting.
Before the effective filing of the invention, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify a matrix comprising a plurality of bioprinted plant cells comprising at least one meristematic stem cell deposited in the matrix according to a pre-determined spatial 3D pattern wherein the meristematic stem cell niche can be obtained from a root meristem and/or a shoot meristem part of a plant. There would have been many potential uses including, inter alia, understanding and monitoring the developmental and/or differentiation fate of individual cell depending on various environmental cues applied to the cell, generating a callus and/or a suspension culture from any specific type of stem cell to produce specific type of proteins and/or metabolites produced by such cells. Isolating and bioprinting using individual meristematic stem cell can serve for mass production of the required tissues, and/or plant-based production of biomaterial for the industrial use, as taught by Kubanov et al.
Response to the Applicant’s arguments
The argument set forth in the Applicant’s reply on 5/27/2026 has been fully considered but is not found fully persuasive. It is noted that previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn. However, new rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), § 102(a)(1) and § 103 are necessitated by the claim amendments and/or addition of new claims.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. §112(a) (Written Description) rejection, the Applicant argues, “The specification directly and expressly describes matrices comprising a plurality of bioprinted plant cells that include stem cells” (p.7, last para, line 1-2). The Applicant continues to argue that “the inventors' own experimental data, shown in Figures 10 and 13 of the specification, directly demonstrates retention of cell identity markers (including WOX5 and other stem cell markers) for at least three days following bioprinting. The Examiner has presented no experimental data or citation establishing that these markers are lost upon isolation under the specific culture conditions described in the specification” (p.8, para 2, last 6 lines).
The Applicant also argues, “The Examiner Has Misapplied Efroni (2018) to the Claimed Subject Matter” (p.8, para 1, line 1) as “One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that such FACS-sorted protoplasts retain at least the transcriptional hallmarks of stem cell identity at the time they are deposited into the bioink and subsequently bioprinted into the matrix. The Examiner's assertion that these sorted protoplasts are functionally indistinguishable from cells isolated from any other plant source is not
established by Efroni and is contrary to the express experimental data in the specification” (response, bridging paragraph between p.8-9).
The Examiner disagrees. The expression of a particular marker gene by a cell or a protoplast does not confer its identity as a stem cell, and the claims 1-14 need at least one bioprinted plant cells to be a stem cell.
It is known in the art that stem cells in plants exist strictly in meristems (e.g., shoot/root tips) and identity and fate of a cell in a plant is intimately linked to its relative position within the plant (Efroni, I; Abstract). Cell identity is established and maintained by myriad interactions of molecular regulators including hormonal fluxes and mobile signals from neighboring cells that converge on transcription factor activity (Pierre-Jerome et al., Regulation of Division and Differentiation of Plant Stem Cells, 2019, Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol., 34:289–310; p.290, para 1, line 4-6; p.290, para 3, line 3-6). Thus, a specific cell type especially a stem cell dissociated from its positional cue and isolated to make or sort individual cells would lose its cellular identity. It is also known in the art that expression of cell markers including WOX5, as used by the Applicant (spec, page 22, para 0084, line 3), does not imply or assign stem cell identity because such expression for stem cells marker genes like WOX5 is observed in Arabidopsis roots where stem cell niche or the root quiescent center (QC) are ablated or abscised in a specific temporal fashion (Efroni, I., bridging paragraph between page 700, right column, last para and page 701, left column, first para). Moreover, analysis of gene markers and transcriptomic assays have revealed callus cells, which are clearly not any stem cell and do not comprise any SCN, express many root-meristem-specific markers (Efroni, I; page 702, left column, para 5, line 3-7). On top of that, isolated protoplasts, as used by the Applicant, would regenerate their cells walls and produce (normal) cells as they divide in presence of suitable culture medium comprising auxin and cytokinin forming a mass of unorganized cells to form a callus (Sivak et al.; p.2, para 6, line 1-3), as observed by the Applicant, and do not assign the newly developed cells any stem cell identity.
Regarding Applicant’s argument for using Efroni et al. (2018), expression of any stem cell marker in the FACS-sorted protoplasts (or cells) does NOT establish stem cell stem cell identity, as discussed in more detail above, and that’s also not what Efroni et al. taught.
Efroni et al. clearly teaches, “cell identity is intimately linked to its relative position within the plant” (abstract, line 8-9). Moreover, expression for stem cells marker genes like WOX5 is observed in Arabidopsis roots where stem cell niche or the root quiescent center (QC) are ablated or abscised in a specific temporal fashion (Efroni, I., bridging paragraph between page 700, right column, last para and page 701, left column, first para). Moreover, analysis of gene markers and transcriptomic assays have revealed callus cells, which are clearly not any stem cell and do not comprise any SCN, express many root-meristem-specific markers (Efroni, I; page 702, left column, para 5, line 3-7).
Conclusion
No claim is 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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY CHATTERJEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1329. The examiner can normally be reached (Mon - Fri) 8.30 am to 5.30 pm..
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, Bratislav Stankovic can be reached at (571) 270-0305. 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.
Jay Chatterjee
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1662
/Jay Chatterjee/Examiner, Art Unit 1662
/BRATISLAV STANKOVIC/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1661 & 1662
Prosecution Insights