Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1, 2, 5, 7-15, 18, 20 and 23 and the species elections of SEQ ID NO. 3 for the RPE promoter and SEQ ID NO. 6 for the photoreceptor promoter in the reply filed on Dec. 8, 2025 is acknowledged. It is noted that claim 5 which belongs to Group I was accidently not included in the Restriction requirement and should have been included in Group I. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-15, 18, 20, 23, 24, 34, 39, 40, 62 and 63 remain pending in the current application, claims 24, 34, 39, 40, 62 and 63 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention. Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-15, 18, 20 and 23 have been considered on the merits.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-15, 18, 20, 23, 24, 34, 39, 40, 62 and 63 are currently pending.
Claims 24, 34, 39, 40, 62 and 63 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 25-33, 35-38, and 41-61 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-15, 18, 20 and 23 have been considered on the merits.
Drawings
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities: illegible text in Figure 1.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the use of trademarks.
The use of the terms: Lipofectamine™ in Tables 1 and 2, pg. 40 line 7, pg. 41 lines 4 and 5, pg. 42 line 6; Lipofectamine™ MessengerMAX™ on pg. 41 line 5; and PLUS™ Reagent on pg. 40 line 7, pg. 41 line 4, pg. 42 line 6, which are a trade names or a marks used in commerce, have been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the terms.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1, 2, 5, 7-15, 18, 20 and 23 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 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 inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites a limitation of “a nucleic acid encoding an ATP Binding Cassette Subfamily A Member 4 (ABC) transporter (ABCA4) protein or a function fragment thereof”.
Claim 5 recites a limitation of “the nucleic acid encoding the human ABCA4 protein, or a function fragment thereof comprises a nucleotide sequence encoding a protein having an amino acid sequence of at least 95% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 or 2”.
Claim 9 recites a limitation of the CAG promoter “comprising a nucleic acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 16 or a functional fragment of a variant having at least 70% identity thereto”.
Claim 10 recites a limitation of “the RPE promoter comprises a nucleic acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 3, SEQ ID NO: 4 or SEQ ID NO: 5, or a functional fragment of a variant having at least 70% identity thereto”.
Claim 11 recites a limitation of the photoreceptor promoter comprising a nucleic acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 6, SEQ ID NO: 7, SEQ ID NO: 8 or SEQ ID NO: 9, or a functional fragment of a variant having at least 70% identity thereto”.
However, the specification provides no description what a functional fragment would be for nucleic acid encoding the human ABCA4 protein or what a functional fragment of a variant would comprises a nucleotide sequence encoding a protein having an amino acid sequence of at least 95% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 or 2. There is no description in the specification for a functional fragment of a variant having at least 70% identity to SEQ ID NO: 3, SEQ ID NO: 4, SEQ ID NO, SEQ ID NO: 6, SEQ ID NO: 7, SEQ ID NO: 8 or SEQ ID NO: 9, and SEQ ID NO:16. The specification states that “In the described embodiments, nucleic acid encoding the ABCA4, or a functional fragment thereof, function as transgenes that are integrated into a host genome (e.g., a human genome) to provide desired clinical outcomes” (0106 of published application).
The specification does not disclose structural guidance (specific sequences, minimum lengths) and functional assays defining how to identify, produce, and confirm the claimed functional fragments’ activities. The specification and the claims do not provide any guidance on which segments of the claimed nucleic acid sequences would be a functional fragment or a functional fragment of a variant. There is no description of how to identify functional fragments with sequences with at least 95% homology to SEQ ID. NO. 1 and 2 that are functional and functional fragments of a variant with sequences with at least 70% homology to SEQ ID NO: 3, SEQ ID NO: 4, SEQ ID NO, SEQ ID NO: 6, SEQ ID NO: 7, SEQ ID NO: 8 or SEQ ID NO: 9, and SEQ ID NO:16 that are functional. There is no description of which portions of the nucleic acid sequences are needed to be functional. Additionally, there is no description of what is included in a variant of the CAG promoter, the RPE promoter or the photoreceptor promoter or what defines a variant of any of these promoters. There is no description in the specification of the structural features necessary for a functional fragment, no description of functional assays that could define such fragments, no correlation between structure and function of the fragments, and no working examples of any of the functional fragments.
The purpose of the written description requirement is to ensure that the specification had possession, as of the filing date of the application, of the specific subject matter claimed. A patent specification must describe an invention and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention. The specification lacks any structural description of the claimed functional fragments of the different nucleotide sequences and the variants and does not provide any examples of such functional fragments and variants. Accordingly, the specification fails to provide adequate written description for the listed functional fragments and functional fragments of variants with the claimed homology, and does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors, at the time the application was filed had possession of the entire scope of the claimed invention. Thus, the written description requirement has not been satisfied.
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 9 is 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.
In claim 9, lines 1-2, the phrase “wherein the promoter is CMV enhancer, chicken beta-Actin promoter and rabbit beta-Globin splice acceptor site (CAG)”, renders the claim and its dependents indefinite, since it is unclear whether the promoter contains all of these features (CMV enhancer, chicken beta-Actin promoter and rabbit beta-Globin splice acceptor site) or one of the features listed. For the purposes of compact prosecution, “wherein the promoter is CMV enhancer, chicken beta-Actin promoter and rabbit beta-Globin splice acceptor site (CAG)” in the claims will be interpreted to mean “wherein the promoter contains a CMV enhancer, chicken beta-Actin promoter and rabbit beta-Globin splice acceptor site (CAG)”.
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.
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.
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, 2, 5, 7, 8, 12-15, 18, 20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hildinger (US 2007/0042462 A1) (ref. of record) as evidenced by BLASTP (Query: SEQ ID NO: 1, alignment with Hildinger SEQ ID NO: 12, Date: Jan. 26, 2026) in view of Minshull et al. (US 2015/0291976 A1).
With respect to claim 1 (a), Hildinger teaches a gene transfer construct containing a nucleic acid sequence encoding an ATP Binding Cassette Subfamily A Member 4 (ABC) transporter (ABCA4) protein (abstract and 0006). With respect to claim 1 (b) and claims 7 and 8, Hildinger teaches the promoter is tissue-specific and can be Rhodopsin Kinase promoter for photoreceptor-directed gene expression (retina-specific promoter) (0152).
With respect to claim 2, Hildinger teaches the nucleic composition or gene transfer construct contains DNA (0105). With respect to claim 5, Hildinger teaches the amino acid sequence of the ABCA4 protein, SEQ ID NO: 12 with 100% homology with SEQ ID NO. 1 as evidenced by BLAST protein alignment (see attached document). With respect to claim 20, Hildinger teaches the composition is in the form of a liposome or lipid-based vector (lipid nanoparticles). With respect to claim 23, Hildinger teaches an isolated cell containing the gene construct (0013, 0064, 0200 and 0300).
Hildinger does not teach the gene transfer construct containing a non-viral vector comprising one or more transposase recognition sites and one or more inverted terminal repeats (ITRs) or end sequences as recited in claim 1 (c). Likewise, Hildinger does not teach the gene transfer construct is a non-viral vector that is a DNA plasmid as recited in claim 12. Hildinger does not teach the ITRs or the end sequences are those of a piggyBac-like transposon and/or the ITRs or the end sequences flank the nucleic acid encoding the ABCA4 protein as recited in claim 14. Hildinger does not teach the gene transfer construct further containing an mRNA encoding a transposase as recited in claim 15.
However, Minshull teaches a gene transfer system or construct that is a non-viral vector containing one or more transposase recognition sites and one or more inverted terminal repeats (abstract, 0005-0010, 0025, 0039 and 0055). Minshull teaches a DNA plasmid is a suitable cloning vector (0025 and 0055). Minshull teaches the gene transfer construct can be used in methods of gene expression and gene therapy (abstract and 0015). Minshull teaches that transposons or transposable elements can facilitate the insertion of nucleic acid into target DNA (0010). With respect to claim 14, Minshull teaches the gene transfer construct including transposable elements which contain the ITRs and end sequences of a piggyBac-like transposon with a TTAA repetitive sequence and that the transposable elements flank the nucleic acid encoding the nucleic acid sequence to be inserted (0020-0021 and Fig. 1). With respect to claim 15, Minshull teaches the gene transfer construct further containing a nucleic acid including mRNA encoding a transposase (0092).
Accordingly, at the effective time of filing of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the gene transfer system of Hildinger so that the vector is a non-viral vector one or more transposase recognition sites and one or more inverted terminal repeats (ITRs) or end sequences, is a DNA plasmid, and where the ITRs or the end sequences are those of a piggyBac-like transposon and the ITRs or the end sequences flank the nucleic acid encoding the gene of interest (the ABCA4 protein) for the benefits of effectively inserting the nucleic acid encoding the ABCA4 protein into the target gene as taught by Minshull. Additionally, it would have been obvious to include a nucleic acid including mRNA encoding a transposase in the gene transfer construct for the benefit of having the correct enzyme present to make the insertion of the gene of interest into the genomic DNA as taught by Minshull. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the vector in Hildinger with other known vectors for use in gene expression and gene therapy such as a non-viral DNA plasmid containing one or more transposase recognition sites and one or more inverted terminal repeats (ITRs) or end sequences and where the ITRs or the end sequences are those of a piggyBac-like transposon and the ITRs or the end sequences flank the nucleic acid encoding the gene of interest (the ABCA4 protein) as taught by Minshull. It would have been obvious to further include a nucleic acid including mRNA encoding a transposase in the gene transfer construct, since inclusion of such mRNA sequences was known as taught Minshull. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification to Hildinger, since the transposon based gene delivery system is well known in the art as taught by Minshull.
Similarly, Hildinger does not teach the transposase is derived from Myotis lucifugus or is an engineered version thereof and wherein the transposase specifically recognizes the ITRs or the end sequences as recited in claim 18.
However, with respect to claim 18, Minshull teaches a number of transposable elements are known which facilitate the insertion of nucleic acids into the genome of vertebrates including piggyBac from Myotis lucifugus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that there would be a corresponding transposase that specifically recognizes the ITRs or the end sequences of the transposon of Myotis lucifugus (0010 and 0108). Minshull further teaches that the efficiency of transposition in cell lines derived from different species is variable and that it advantageous to have different possible transposons with different host preferences to widen the potential of transposons as genomic tools (0108).
Accordingly, at the effective time of filing of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the gene transfer system of Hildinger and Minshull so that the nucleic acid including mRNA encoding a transposase in the gene transfer construct is a transposase is derived from Myotis lucifugus for the benefit of having an appropriate transposase enzyme present depending on the transposons to allow for the insertion of the gene of interest into the genomic DNA as taught by Minshull. It would have been obvious to include known nucleic acids of transposases such as transposase is derived from Myotis lucifugus in the gene transfer construct taught by Hildinger and Minshull, since inclusion of such mRNA sequences was known and transposase is derived from Myotis lucifugus was known in the art for such purposes as taught Minshull. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification to Hildinger, since the transposon based gene delivery system using a transposase is derived from Myotis lucifugus was known in the art as taught by Minshull.
Hildinger does not teach the DNA plasmid comprises one or more insulator sequences that prevent or mitigate activation or inactivation of nearby genes as recited in claim 13.
However, Minshull teaches the gene transfer construct containing insulators to prevent the spread of heterochromatin and the silencing of the heterologous polynucleotide (0102 and 0132). Minshull teaches that insulators also shield expression control elements from each other (0121, 0132 and 0197).
Accordingly, at the effective time of filing of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the gene transfer system of Hildinger to include one or more insulator sequences that prevent or mitigate activation or inactivation of nearby genes for the benefits of preventing the spread of heterochromatin and the silencing of the heterologous polynucleotide as taught by Minshull. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include additional sequences in Hildinger that are known to be used in gene transfer systems for gene expression and gene therapy such as an insulator sequences as taught by Minshull. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification to Hildinger, since insulators were well known to be included gene delivery system and improve the expression of the gene of interest as taught by Minshull.
Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing of the invention, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hildinger in view of Minshull (as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 12-15, 18, 20 and 23 above), and further in view of Kurihara et al. (Biotechnology Reports, 2016) as evidenced by GenEmbl Search Results for SEQ ID NO: 16 in the Supplemental Contents.
The teachings of Hildinger and Minshull can be found in the previous rejection above.
Neither Hildinger or Minshull teach the gene transfer construct where the promoter is a CAG promoter composed of Cytomegalovirus (CMV) enhancer fused to the chicken beta-actin promoter and rabbit beta-globin splice acceptor comprising the nucleic sequence of SEQ ID NO:16 or a functional variant as claim 9 is being interpreted as explained in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b).
However, Kurihara teaches a gene transfer construct containing a CAG promoter that is composed of a fusion of the cytomegalovirus early enhancer, the chicken beta-actin promoter and the splice acceptor of rabbit beta globin (pg. 26 Col. 2 para. 2 and Fig. 1 A). Kurihara teaches the CAG promoter within their pAxCALRL vector and has 99% homology with SEQ ID NO: 16 as shown by Result 4 of GenEmbl Search Results in the Supplemental Contents. In further support, Hildinger teaches if high-level constitutive expression is desired promotes such as the cytomegalovirus (CMV) promoter with an CMV enhancer can be used and the β-actin promoter (0153). In addition, Hildinger teaches that a suitable promoter/enhancer sequences can be selected by one of skill in the art using the guidance provided by the application (0150).
Accordingly, at the effective time of filing of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the teachings of Hildinger and Minshull such that the promoter is the CAG promoter for the purpose being able express the gene of interest as taught by Kurihara. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have further modified the gene transfer system such that the promoter is the CAG promoter, since gene transfer construct containing a CAG promoters were known for expression of genes as taught by Kurihara and Hildinger teaches selecting a promoter based on the particular system that is desired. Such a modification merely involves the substitution of one known promoter for another for a gene transfer system.
Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing of the invention, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hildinger in view of Minshull (as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 12-15, 18, 20 and 23 above), and further in view of Nicoletti et al. (Human Molecular Genetics, 1995) as evidenced by GenEmbl Search Results for SEQ ID NO: 3 in the Supplemental Contents.
The teachings of Hildinger and Minshull can be found in the previous rejection above.
Hildinger does not teach the gene transfer construct where the RPE promoter comprises the sequence of SEQ ID NO: 3 as recited in claim 10.
However, Nicoletti teaches the human retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) promoter and has 100% homology with SEQ ID NO: 3 as shown by Result 1 of GenEmbl Search Results in the Supplemental Contents. In further support, Hildinger teaches tissue-specific promoters can be readily selected without undue efforts by a skilled person in the arts (0152). In addition, Hildinger teaches that a suitable promoter/enhancer sequences can be selected by one of skill in the art using the guidance provided by the application (0150).
Accordingly, at the effective time of filing of the At the time of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the teachings of Hildinger and Minshull such that the promoter is the RPE promoter for the purpose being able express the gene of interest in the retina as taught by Hildinger. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have further modified the gene transfer system such that the promoter is the RPE promoter, since gene transfer construct containing retina-specific promoters were known for expression of genes as taught by Hildinger, the sequence of the RPE promoter was known as taught by Nicoletti and Hildinger teaches selecting a promoter based on the particular system that is desired. Such a modification merely involves the substitution of one known promoter for another for a gene transfer system.
Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing of the invention, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hildinger in view of Minshull (as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 12-15, 18, 20 and 23 above), and further in view of Gregory et al. (Nature, 2006) as evidenced by BLASTN (Query: SEQ ID NO: 6, Database: Genome (GRCh38.p14 reference assembly RS_2025_08), Date: Jan. 29, 2026).
The teachings of Hildinger and Minshull can be found in the previous rejection above.
Hildinger does not teach the gene transfer construct where the RPE promoter comprises the sequence of SEQ ID NO: 6 as recited in claim 11.
However, Gregory teaches the human phosphodiesterase 6B (PDE) promoter with 100% homology with SEQ ID NO: 3 as shown by BLASTN search for SEQ ID NO: 6. Gregory reports the sequence is part of the phosphodiesterase 6B gene (see attached BLASTN results).
In further support, Hildinger teaches tissue-specific promoters can be readily selected without undue efforts by a skilled person in the arts (0152). In addition, Hildinger teaches that a suitable promoter/enhancer sequences can be selected by one of skill in the art using the guidance provided by the application (0150).
Accordingly, at the effective time of filing of the At the time of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the teachings of Hildinger and Minshull such that the promoter is the PDE promoter for the purpose being able express the gene of interest in the retina as taught by Hildinger. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have further modified the gene transfer system such that the promoter is the PDE promoter, since gene transfer construct containing retina-specific promoters were known for expression of genes as taught by Hildinger, the sequence of the PDE promoter was known as taught by Gregory and Hildinger teaches selecting a promoter based on the particular system that is desired. Such a modification merely involves the substitution of one known promoter for another for a gene transfer system.
Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing of the invention, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Examiner Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY ANN CORDAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2905. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:30 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, Peter Paras can be reached on 571-272-4517. 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.
/EMILY A CORDAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1632