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 .
Application Status
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/20/2026 has been entered.
In response to FINAL-Office Action mailed on 03/20/2026, applicants’ response dated 08/20/2026 is acknowledged; in said response applicants’ have amended claims 1-2, 4-7, 9 and 14, cancelled claims 8 and 10-13 and added new claims 16-26. Amended claims 1-2, 4-7, 9 and 14-26 are present in the instant application and are now under consideration for examination. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office action are hereby withdrawn.
Withdrawn-Claim Rejections: 35 USC § 112(a)
Previous rejection of claims 1-2, 4-9 and 14-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for written-description and enablement, is being withdrawn due to claim amendments.
Withdrawn-Claim Rejections: 35 USC § 102 (AIA )
Previous rejections: I. Claims 1-2 and 4-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dundon et al., (US 9,249,420 B2); and II. Claims 1-2 and 4-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Simon et al., (US 10,017,804 B2), is being withdrawn due to claim amendments.
Withdrawn-Claim Rejections: 35 USC § 103
Previous rejection of claims 1-2, 4-9 and 14-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dundon et al., (US 9,249,420 B2) or Simon et al., (US 10,017,804 B2) as applied to claims 1-2 and 4-9 (see 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejection above) and further in view of Velasco et al., (Eukaryotic Cell., 2004, Vol. 3(6): 1492-1503, in IDS), Lucic et al., (New Phytologist, 2008, Vol. 180: 343-364), Challinor et al., (Nature, 1954, Vol. 174(4436): 877-878, in IDS) and Ponomarova et al., (Cell Systems., 2017, Vol. 5: 345-357, in IDS), is being withdrawn due to claim amendments.
New-Claim Rejections: 35 USC § 112(b)
Necessitated by claim amendments
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.
Claim 1 and claims 2, 4-7, 9 and 14-26 depending therefrom 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 14 and 23 are indefinite in the recitation of “derivatives thereof”. The metes and bounds of the term “derivatives thereof” is not clear in the context of the claims. At the outset, S. cerevisiae strain Sigma 1278B and S. cerevisiae strain 23344c are two different strains with different genotypes and thus claims as written is confusing and scientifically unclear and broadens the scope of the claims; see col. 1, Experimental Procedures, page 21363 of evidentiary reference Boeckstaens et al., (The J. Biol. Chem., 2008, Vol. 283 (31): 21632-21370). Additionally, It is not clear to the examiner what are the structures/genotype/phenotype encompassed in “derivatives thereof”? or is a representative member of a genus/merely exemplary; and “derivatives thereof” as written, one cannot determine if the term refers to ‘functions of several real variables” or ‘structural variables’ i.e., structures/genotype/phenotype of “derivatives thereof” (unlimited structures or structurally undefined or functionally variable strains, i.e., genotype and phenotype). The metes and bounds of the claims are unclear. For examination purposes, no patentable weight will be given to the term “derivatives thereof”. It is not clear to the examiner as to what the phrase “derivatives thereof” means in the context of the above claims, is this synonymous with “obtained from specific source or having specific structures/genotype/phenotype? or does it include natural and man-made variants of unlimited/undefined strains thereof from any source//genotype/phenotype? Clarification and correction required.
New-Claim Rejections: 35 USC § 112(a)
Necessitated by claim amendments
The following is a quotation 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.
Enablement
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9 and 14-26 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 enablement requirement. The claims contain 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. Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9 and 14-26 recite specific strains “S. cerevisiae strain Sigma 1278B and S. cerevisiae strain 23344c” comprising specific gene mutations and expressing a recombinant protein. It is apparent that specific strains “S. cerevisiae strain Sigma 1278B and S. cerevisiae strain 23344c” comprising specific gene mutations and expressing a recombinant protein is required to practice the claimed invention. As such the biological material must be readily available or obtainable by a repeatable method set forth in the specification, or otherwise readily available to the public. If it is not so obtainable or available, the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, may be satisfied by a deposit of “S. cerevisiae strain Sigma 1278B and S. cerevisiae strain 23344c” comprising specific gene mutations and expressing a recombinant protein, and there is no indication in the specification as to the public availability. If the deposit was made under the terms of Budapest Treaty, then a statement, affidavit or declaration by applicants’, or a statement by an attorney of record over his/her signature and registration number, or someone empowered to make such a statement, stating that the invention will be irrevocably and without restriction released to the public upon the issuance of a patent, would satisfy the deposit requirement made herein. In order to certify that the deposit meets the criteria set forth in 37 CFR 1.801-1.809 and MPEP 2402-2411.05, applicants’ may provide assurance of compliance by statement, affidavit or declaration, or by someone empowered to make same, or by a statement by an attorney of record over his/her signature and registration number showing that:
(a) during the pendency of the application, access to the invention will be afforded to the Commissioner upon request;
(b) all restrictions upon availability to the public will be irrevocably removed upon granting the patent;
(c) the deposit will be maintained in public depository for a period of 30 years, or 5 years after the last request or for the enforceable life of the patent, whichever is longer;
(d) a test of the viability of the biological material at the time of deposit (see 37 CFR 1.807); and the deposit will be replaced if it should ever become inviable.
New-Claim Rejections: 35 USC § 103
Necessitated by claim amendments
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9 and 14-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dundon et al., (US 9,249,420 B2) or Simon et al., (US 10,017,804 B2) and further in view of Smolke et al., (WO 2014/143744 A2), Velasco et al., (Eukaryotic Cell., 2004, Vol. 3(6): 1492-1503, in IDS), Lucic et al., (New Phytologist, 2008, Vol. 180: 343-364), Challinor et al., (Nature, 1954, Vol. 174(4436): 877-878, in IDS) and Ponomarova et al., (Cell Systems., 2017, Vol. 5: 345-357, in IDS).
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9 and 14-26 as interpreted are directed to a genus of structures of undefined and unlimited structures including variants, mutants and homologs in the claimed yeast strains S. cerevisiae strain Sigma 1278B and S. cerevisiae strain 23344c and “derivatives thereof” wherein activity of one or more membrane transporters of the DHA1 family is reduced relative to a wild type strain or to a parental strain from which it is obtained, said genera of DHA1 proteins comprising any polypeptide or an amino acid sequence with at least 90% sequence identity to the amino acid sequences SEQ ID NOs: 1, 5, 7, 9 and 11 (as in claims 1-2, 4-9 and 17-24); and a method for reducing contamination of lactic acid bacteria in yeast cultures, the method comprising culturing a yeast strain, wherein the lactic acid bacteria comprise a Lactobacillus species (as in claims 14-16 and 25-26; also see 35 U.S.C. 112(b) claim rejections above for claims interpretation).
I. Dundon et al., (US 9,249,420 B2) discloses yeast strains comprising deletion/genetic modification of DHA1 transporter proteins, said transporter proteins includes transporter proteins encoding AQR1, QDR2 and QDR3, including structural information of said transporter proteins and the encoding polynucleotides, wherein the reference polypeptides having 100% sequence identities to SEQ ID NO: 1 & 5 of the instant invention and the encoding reference polynucleotides having 100% sequence identities to SEQ ID NO: 2 & 6 of the instant invention (see provided sequence alignments). Applicants are directed to the following sections in Dundon et al., (US 9,249,420 B2: Abstract; Fig. 1 & 4, col. 6, lines 5-32; col. 2, lines 59-67 to col. 3, lines 1-6; col. 4, lines 44-63; Example 2, Table 2, cols. 31-32; and entire document.
II. Simon et al., (US 10,017,804 B2) also disclose discloses yeast strains comprising deletion/genetic modification of endogenous transporter proteins, said endogenous transporter proteins includes transporter proteins encoding AQR1, QDR2 and QDR3, including structural in formation of said transporter proteins and the encoding polynucleotides, wherein the reference polypeptides having 100% sequence identities to SEQ ID NO: 1, 5, 9 & 11 of the instant invention and the encoding polynucleotides (see provided sequence alignments). Applicants are directed to the following sections in Abstract; col. 8, lines 5-20; inactivating endogenous transporters, col. 36, lines 58-67 to col. 38, lines 1-31; hosts/yeasts, col. 40, lines 14-67 to col. 42, lines 1-13; Example 5, disruption of endogenous genes includes AQR1, QDR2 and QDR3, col. 54, TABLE 15; and entire document.
The disclosure of Dundon et al., or Simon et al., is described rejection above. However, Dundon et al., or Simon et al., does not teach a yeast strains S. cerevisiae strain Sigma 1278B and S. cerevisiae strain 23344c and “derivatives thereof” (as in claims 1-2, 4-9 and 17-24) and a method for reducing contamination of lactic acid bacteria in yeast cultures, the method comprising culturing a yeast strain, wherein the lactic acid bacteria comprise a Lactobacillus species (as in claims 14-15 and 25-26).
Additionally regarding claims 1-2, 4-7, 9 and 17-21, III. Smolke et al., (WO 2014/143744 A2) disclose wild-type S. cerevisiae strain Sigma 1278B and derivatives (page 9, line 1) and comprising deletion in transporter genes AQR1, QDR1, QDR2, QDR3, TPO1, TPO2, TPO3, TPO4 compared to wild-type/native host cell and expressing recombinant proteins of interest (see page 17, lines 30-35; page 53, lines 25-30; page 76, lines 19-23, Embodiment 28; page 82, lines 34-37 to page 83, line1; and entire document).
IV. Velasco et al., (Eukaryotic Cell., 2004, Vol. 3(6): 1492-1503, in IDS), disclose strain S. cerevisiae strain 23344c comprising deletions including the structural and information of DHA1 transporter AQR1 and QDR3 is involved in amino acid excretion/transport into the culture medium and deletion of AQR1 and QDR3 impacted/resulted in reduced/lowered concentration of amino acids into the culture medium (see Abstract; TABLE 1-2, pages 1493-1494; TABLE 3, page 1495; col. 2, page 1497; Fig. 5, page 1498; Discussion, col. 1, page 1501; and entire document); and
V. Lucic et al., (New Phytologist, 2008, Vol. 180: 343-364) also teach DHA1 transporter AQR1 and QDR3 is involved in amino acid excretion/transport into the culture medium (see col. 1, page 354; and entire document).
Regarding claims 1, 14-15, 22 and 24, multiple lines of evidence teaches Lactobacillus growth in co-cultures with yeast/Saccharomyces requires amino acid in culture medium and depletion of amino acids in defined culture medium or deletion of DHA1 transporters AQR1 and QDR3 in yeast/Saccharomyces reduced or impacted the growth of Lactobacillus.
VI. Challinor et al., (Nature, 1954, Vol. 174(4436): 877-878, in IDS) provide evidence regarding interrelationships between a yeast/Saccharomyces and a bacterium/Lactobacillus; said reference provides evidence that bacterium/Lactobacillus fails to grow in defined medium lacking nicotinic acid or thiamine or amino acids but is able to grow when cultured in the presence of yeast and suggest that the amino acids produced and excreted by yeast into the culture medium supports growth of bacterium/Lactobacillus.
VII. Ponomarova et al., (Cell Systems., 2017, Vol. 5: 345-357, in IDS) provide teaching, suggestion and motivation that yeast creates a niche for symbiotic bacteria/Lactobacillus wherein said symbiotic bacteria/Lactobacillus utilizes the amino acids excreted by yeasts into the culture medium and deletion of amino acid transporters reduced/impacted the growth of symbiotic bacteria/Lactobacillus (see Abstract; Fig. 4A, page 360; Table S5; and entire document).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate a genetically modified yeast wherein activity of one or more membrane transporters of the DHA1 family is reduced relative to a wild type strain or to a parental strain from which it is obtained and said transporters of the DHA1 family are involved in the transport/secretion of amino acid into culture medium as suggested by Smolke et al., Velasco et al., and Lucic et al., and the teachings of Challinor et al., and Ponomarova et al., provide evidence that yeast creates a niche for symbiotic bacteria/Lactobacillus, wherein said symbiotic bacteria/Lactobacillus utilizes the amino acids excreted by yeasts into the culture medium and deletion of amino acid transporters reduced/impacted the growth of symbiotic bacteria/Lactobacillus and a skilled artisan would realize yeast employed in the production of industrial products of interest significance and to delete transporters of the DHA1 family transporters and advantageously inhibit unwanted growth of bacteria/Lactobacillus that could potentially utilize and divert nutrients and other growth factors required for the optimal growth and metabolic activity of yeasts, and a skilled artisan will be motivated to modify the teachings of primary references Dundon et al., or Simon et al., and employ the disclosed yeast strains in said references for the production of industrial products of interest significance and as claimed in the method of claims 14-15 and 25-26 of the instant invention. A person of ordinary skill in the art is motivated to make such change, because deletion of DHA1 transporters AQR1 and QDR3 in yeast/Saccharomyces reduced or impacted the growth of Lactobacillus and a skilled artisan would realize such a modification would be useful to increase the production of fermentation products of interest. One of ordinary skill in the art has a reasonable expectation of success yeast strain wherein activity of one or more membrane transporters of the DHA1 family is reduced relative to a wild type strain or to a parental strain from which it is obtained including strains S. cerevisiae strain Sigma 1278B and S. cerevisiae strain 23344c, because the molecular biology techniques required to construct yeast of interest are well known in the art and disclosed in the cited references and method of use is also suggested in the cited references. Therefore, the inventions as a whole lack an inventive step over the prior art. The expectation of success is high, because the combined teachings of Dundon et al., or Simon et al., Smolke et al., Velasco et al., and Lucic et al., Challinor et al., and Ponomarova et al., also provide the structural and functional elements of the instant invention and the method of use (Teaching, Suggestion and Motivation).
Given this extensive teaching in prior art (Dundon et al., or Simon et al., Smolke et al., Velasco et al., and Lucic et al., Challinor et al., and Ponomarova et al.,) a genus of structures of undefined and unlimited structures including variants, mutants and homologs in the claimed yeast strains S. cerevisiae strain Sigma 1278B and S. cerevisiae strain 23344c and “derivatives thereof” wherein activity of one or more membrane transporters of the DHA1 family is reduced relative to a wild type strain or to a parental strain from which it is obtained, said genera of DHA1 proteins comprising any polypeptide or an amino acid sequence with at least 90% sequence identity to the amino acid sequences SEQ ID NOs: 1, 5, 7, 9 and 11; and a method for reducing contamination of lactic acid bacteria in yeast cultures, the method comprising culturing a yeast strain, wherein the lactic acid bacteria comprise a Lactobacillus species (also see 35 U.S.C. 112(b) claim rejections above for claims interpretation), as taught by the instant invention and as claimed in claims 1-2, 4-7, 9 and 14-26 is not of innovation but of ordinary skill in the art and the expectation of success is extremely high i.e., “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.”KSR, 550 U.S. at, 82 USPQ2d at 1397”.
Hence, claims 1-2, 4-7, 9 and 14-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dundon et al., (US 9,249,420 B2) or Simon et al., (US 10,017,804 B2) and further in view of Smolke et al., (WO 2014/143744 A2), Velasco et al., (Eukaryotic Cell., 2004, Vol. 3(6): 1492-1503, in IDS), Lucic et al., (New Phytologist, 2008, Vol. 180: 343-364), Challinor et al., (Nature, 1954, Vol. 174(4436): 877-878, in IDS) and Ponomarova et al., (Cell Systems., 2017, Vol. 5: 345-357, in IDS).
Applicants’ have traversed the above 35 USC § 103 rejection with the arguments following claim amendments: (see pages 15-20 of Applicants’ REMARKS dated 08/20/2026)
Applicants’ argue: “…Without acquiescing to the Office Action's assertions and solely to expedite examination, Claim 1 has been amended to recite, "[a] composition comprising a culture medium comprising a yeast strain that has reduced activity of one or more membrane transporters of the Drug:H+ - Antiporter-1 (DHA1) family relative to an activity of the one or more membrane transporters in a wild type strain, wherein the wildtype strain is Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain Sigma 1278B, or a derivative thereof, and wherein propagation of lactic acid bacteria in the culture medium is reduced relative to propagation of the lactic acid bacteria in an otherwise corresponding culture medium comprising S. cerevisiae strain Sigma 1278B, or the derivative thereof, under corresponding culture conditions." Dundon does not disclose all features of the claimed composition as they are arranged in the claim...”.
Reply: Applicants' arguments have been considered but are found to be non-persuasive for the following reasons. Examiner continues to maintain the rejection for reasons stated on record (dated 08/19/2025 and 03/20/2026) and additionally for the following reasons.
Contrary to applicants’ arguments claims examiner has provided arguments for teaching, suggestion and motivation in the body of rejection above and the support in the cited references:
III. Smolke et al., (WO 2014/143744 A2) disclose wild-type S. cerevisiae strain Sigma 1278B and derivatives (page 9, line 1) and comprising deletion in transporter genes AQR1, QDR1, QDR2, QDR3, TPO1, TPO2, TPO3, TPO4 compared to wild-type/native host cell and expressing recombinant proteins of interest (see page 17, lines 30-35; page 53, lines 25-30; page 76, lines 19-23, Embodiment 28; page 82, lines 34-37 to page 83, line1; and entire document); and
IV. Velasco et al., (Eukaryotic Cell., 2004, Vol. 3(6): 1492-1503, in IDS), disclose strain S. cerevisiae strain 23344c comprising deletions including the structural and information of DHA1 transporter AQR1 and QDR3 is involved in amino acid excretion/transport into the culture medium and deletion of AQR1 and QDR3 impacted/resulted in reduced/lowered concentration of amino acids into the culture medium (see Abstract; TABLE 1-2, pages 1493-1494; TABLE 3, page 1495; col. 2, page 1497; Fig. 5, page 1498; Discussion, col. 1, page 1501; and entire document).
In response to applicants’ argument that the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicants’ disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Therefore, examiner continues to take the position that each and every element of the instant invention is taught in the combination of cited references and that the combined teachings in the cited prior art provides a reasonable expectation of success and predictability for the genetically modified “S. cerevisiae strain 23344c comprising deletions and S. cerevisiae strain 23344c comprising deletions” and a method of use as claimed herein and the method of use of claimed composition and the claimed benefits are very much expected and predictable.
Summary of Pending Issues
The following is a summary of issues pending in the instant application
Claim 1 and claims 2, 4-7, 9 and 14-26 depending therefrom are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9 and 14-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement/Biologic-Deposit.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9 and 14-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dundon et al., (US 9,249,420 B2) or Simon et al., (US 10,017,804 B2) and further in view of Smolke et al., (WO 2014/143744 A2), Velasco et al., (Eukaryotic Cell., 2004, Vol. 3(6): 1492-1503, in IDS), Lucic et al., (New Phytologist, 2008, Vol. 180: 343-364), Challinor et al., (Nature, 1954, Vol. 174(4436): 877-878, in IDS) and Ponomarova et al., (Cell Systems., 2017, Vol. 5: 345-357, in IDS).
Conclusion
None of the claims are allowable. Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9 and 14-26 are rejected for the reasons identified in the Rejections and Summary sections of this Office Action. Applicants’ must respond to the rejections in each of the sections in this Office Action to be fully responsive for prosecution.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GANAPATHIRAMA RAGHU whose telephone number is (571)272-4533. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5pm EST.
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, Robert Mondesi can be reached on 408-918-7584. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/GANAPATHIRAMA RAGHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1652
Prosecution Insights