DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This is a final office action in response to a communication filed on June 29, 2026. Claims 19-30 and 52-83 are pending in the application.
Status of Objections and Rejections
All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 19, 21, 52, 54, 64-65, 67, 69-73, 75-79, and 82-83 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shachar (US 2016/0238553) in view of Berg (US 2015/0359485).
Regarding claim 19, Shachar teaches a biosensor system (¶2: solid-state biosensors) for characterizing a subject's immune response to pathogen exposure (this preamble limitation is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and are not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02(II)), the system comprising:
an electronic reader (Fig. 9; ¶131: circuit architecture, called the pathfinder reader) comprising:
a circuit for delivering a signal (Fig. 9; ¶131: analog interface 802); and
a processing device for reading the signal (Fig. 9; ¶131: digital processing unit 804);
a biosensor (Fig. 8; ¶131: cell 1 (cells 206 or 207); Fig. 4; ¶117: bioFET cell 1) comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 4; ¶117: nonconductive substrate (SiO2) 24) comprising a planar surface (Fig. 4: the top surface of substrate 24);
a spatially defined array (Fig. 7; ¶124: array 261) of active areas on the planar surface of the substrate (Fig. 4: the top surface of the substrate 24), each active area comprising:
a carbon material, wherein the carbon material is graphene (Fig. 1B:,14; ¶114: the carbon nanotubes 14; Fig. 2: semiconductive single wall carbon nanotubes, sSWCNT; ¶115: nanotubes are members of the fullerene structural family; their name is derived from their long, hollow structure with the walls formed by one-atom-thick sheets of carbon, called graphene); and
at least two spaced electrodes (Fig. 4; ¶117: the source 22 and the drain 23), wherein the carbon material is deposited on the planar surface of the substrate between the at least two electrodes (Fig. 4);
a plurality of pathogen proteins or peptides thereof (Fig. 3, 4; ¶116: antibody 20), wherein different pathogen proteins or peptides thereof are positioned at different active areas and immobilized on the deposited carbon material of said active areas (Fig. 3; ¶119: the CNT based semiconducting channel 14 is modified and functionalized with antibodies 20; ¶55: an array of different, selected biological reagents attached to different, selected regions on an assay); and
an electrical connection comprising a plurality of electrical contacts (Fig. 6; ¶123: electrode pad 251), each electrical contact configured to transmit an electrical signal between the at least two electrodes of a single active area and the electrical connection (¶123: acts as the electrical connection to the array of single bioFET sensor cells 252; further, this limitation is functional limitation in apparatus claims and does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus because the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114 (II));
wherein the biosensor is operatively connected to the electronic reader via the electrical connection of the biosensor (¶131: the array and the circuit architecture in Fig. 9 are combined) and configured to receive the signal delivered by the circuit (Fig. 9; ¶131: analog interface 802; further, this limitation is functional limitation in apparatus claims and does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus because the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114 (II)); and
wherein the electronic reader is configured to deliver the signal to the biosensor and obtain an output impedance value (Fig. 5; ¶130: the measure of impedance per unit of surface area) before and after a sample has been applied to the array of active areas on the biosensor (Fig. 5; ¶121: the binding event will cause a change in the impedance; further, this limitation is functional limitation in apparatus claims and does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus because the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114 (II)), and said processing device is configured to compare the output impedance values to determine whether a binding event has occurred at one or more of the active areas to characterize the subject's immune response to pathogen exposure (this limitation is functional limitation in apparatus claims. MPEP 2114 (II). It does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus because the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)).
Shachar further discloses wherein the substrate is a single layer, but fails to teach the substrate is of an anti-static polymeric material having a surface resistivity between 103 and 1010 ohms/square.
However, Berg teaches a system for conducting signals from a set of biosensing contacts ([Abstract]), comprising a first bonding layer 130 including a set of openings 135 that expose a set of conductive leads 120 for coupling to the set of biosensing contacts 500 (Fig. 1; ¶17). The first bonding layer 130 is a polymer material, and prevents and/or dissipate static interference with added suitable additives (¶57). The surface resistance or an anti-static or static dissipating material can be between 106 and 1012 ohm per square (¶58), which overlaps the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shachar by adjusting the surface resistance of the substrate within the claimed range because it represents a suitable substrate’s surface resistance of a biosensor and known in the art. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 21, Shachar teaches the biosensor system of claim 19 further comprising:
a communication interface (Fig. 9: SPI; ¶131: computer 806 including conventional input/output peripherals for data processing and display) coupled to the electronic reader for transmitting data from the electronic reader (Fig. 9: connected to the analog interface 802 and digital processing unit 804);
a data management computing device (Fig. 9; ¶131: computer 806) configured to receive data from the electronic reader via the communication interface (this limitation is functional limitation in apparatus claims. MPEP 2114 (II). It does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus because the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), said data management computing device comprising a memory (¶187: associated memory bank) coupled to a processor (Fig. 9: microcontroller) which is configured to execute programmed instructions comprising and stored in the memory (¶157: microcontroller 901 interfaced with a digital signal processing board and software; ¶165: the embedded software is designed to function as a state machine to control the impedance measurement sequence) to:
geographically map immune response data to pathogen exposure, based on data received from electronic reader (¶165: to control the impedance measurement sequence of impedance converter 902 over output 714, and to further provide control of DDS 903 over output 912; further, this limitation is functional limitation in apparatus claims. MPEP 2114 (II). It does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus because the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)).
Regarding claim 52, Shachar teaches a biosensor system (¶2: solid-state biosensors) for characterizing a pathogen's antigen profile (this preamble limitation is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and are not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02(II)), the system comprising:
an electronic reader (Fig. 9; ¶131: circuit architecture, called the pathfinder reader) comprising:
a circuit for delivering a signal (Fig. 9; ¶131: analog interface 802) and
a processing device for reading the signal (Fig. 9; ¶131: digital processing unit 804);
a biosensor (Fig. 8; ¶131: cell 1 (cells 206 or 207); Fig. 4; ¶117: bioFET cell 1) comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 4; ¶117: nonconductive substrate (SiO2) 24) comprising a planar surface (Fig. 4: the top surface of substrate 24);
a spatially defined array (Fig. 7; ¶124: array 261) of active areas on the planar surface of the substrate (Fig. 4: the top surface of the substrate 24); each active area comprising:
a carbon material, wherein the carbon material is graphene (Fig. 1B:,14; ¶114: the carbon nanotubes 14; Fig. 2: semiconductive single wall carbon nanotubes, sSWCNT; ¶115: nanotubes are members of the fullerene structural family; their name is derived from their long, hollow structure with the walls formed by one-atom-thick sheets of carbon, called graphene); and
at least two spaced electrodes (Fig. 4; ¶117: the source 22 and the drain 23), wherein the carbon material is deposited on the planar surface of the substrate between the at least two electrodes (Fig. 4);
a collection of binding molecules (Fig. 3, 4; ¶116: antibody 20), wherein different binding molecules of the collection bind different pathogen proteins and wherein different binding molecules are positioned at different active areas and immobilized on the deposited carbon material of said active areas (Fig. 3; ¶119: the CNT based semiconducting channel 14 is modified and functionalized with antibodies 20; ¶55: an array of different, selected biological reagents attached to different, selected regions on an assay); and
an electrical connection comprising a plurality of electrical contacts (Fig. 6; ¶123: electrode pad 251), each electrical contact configured to transmit an electrical signal between the two or more electrodes of a single active area and the electrical connection (¶123: acts as the electrical connection to the array of single bioFET sensor cells 252; further, this limitation is functional limitation in apparatus claims and does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus because the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114 (II));
wherein the biosensor is operatively connected to the electronic reader via the electrical connection of the biosensor (¶131: the array and the circuit architecture in Fig. 9 are combined) and configured to receive the signal delivered by the circuit (Fig. 9; ¶131: analog interface 802); and
wherein the electronic reader is configured to deliver the signal to the biosensor and obtain an output impedance value (Fig. 5; ¶130: the measure of impedance per unit of surface area) before and after a sample has been applied to the array of active areas of the biosensor (Fig. 5; ¶121: the binding event will cause a change in the impedance; further, this limitation is functional limitation in apparatus claims and does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus because the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114 (II)), and said processing device is configured to compare the output impedance values to determine whether a binding event has occurred at one or more of the active areas to characterize the pathogen's antigen profile (this limitation is functional limitation in apparatus claims. MPEP 2114 (II). It does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus because the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)).
Shachar further discloses wherein the substrate is a single layer, but fails to teach the substrate is of an anti-static polymeric material having a surface resistivity between 103 and 1010 ohms/square.
However, Berg teaches a system for conducting signals from a set of biosensing contacts ([Abstract]), comprising a first bonding layer 130 including a set of openings 135 that expose a set of conductive leads 120 for coupling to the set of biosensing contacts 500 (Fig. 1; ¶17). The first bonding layer 130 is a polymer material, and prevents and/or dissipate static interference with added suitable additives (¶57). The surface resistance or an anti-static or static dissipating material can be between 106 and 1012 ohm per square (¶58), which overlaps the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shachar by adjusting the surface resistance of the substrate within the claimed range because it represents a suitable substrate’s surface resistance of a biosensor and known in the art. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 54, Shachar teaches the biosensor system of claim 52 further comprising:
a communication interface (Fig. 9: SPI; ¶131: computer 806 including conventional input/output peripherals for data processing and display) coupled to the electronic reader for transmitting data from the electronic reader (Fig. 9: connected to the analog interface 802 and digital processing unit 804);
a data management computing device (Fig. 9; ¶131: computer 806) configured to receive data from the electronic reader via the communication interface (this limitation is functional limitation in apparatus claims. MPEP 2114 (II). It does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus because the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), said data management computing device comprising a memory (¶187: associated memory bank) coupled to a processor (Fig. 9: microcontroller) which is configured to execute programmed instructions comprising and stored in the memory (¶157: microcontroller 901 interfaced with a digital signal processing board and software; ¶165: the embedded software is designed to function as a state machine to control the impedance measurement sequence) to:
geographically map pathogen antigen, based on data received from electronic reader (¶165: to control the impedance measurement sequence of impedance converter 902 over output 714, and to further provide control of DDS 903 over output 912; further, this limitation is functional limitation in apparatus claims. MPEP 2114 (II). It does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus because the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)).
Regarding claim 64, Shachar and Berg disclose all limitations of claim 19. Shachar further discloses an example of a 3x4 array of cells (Fig. 6A), but fail to teach the spatially defined array of active areas comprises at least 30 active areas.
However, Shachar teaches the number of sensors and number of columns can be chosen in any geometric arrangement as may be desired (¶82).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shachar and Berg by adjusting the number of active areas of the array within the claimed range as suggested by Shachar because the number is a matter of choice and can be optimized as desired. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 65, Shachar teaches wherein the at least two electrodes comprise a conductive metal selected from Au, Cu and Ag (Fig. 1A; ¶114: a silver or gold layer is printed to form the electrodes).
Regarding claim 67, Shachar teaches wherein each of the plurality of pathogen proteins or peptides thereof is immobilized on the deposited carbon material via a hydrophobic linker (Fig. 3(A)-(B); ¶116: PGMA 19; PGMA is hydrophobic), wherein said hydrophobic linker is coupled to a pathogen protein or peptide thereof via the protein or peptide’s amino terminus (Fig. 3(C); ¶116: the epoxide group of PGMA binds with the amino functionality in antibodies 20).
Regarding claims 69-71, they are directed to the pathogen that is a material or article worked upon. "Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim." Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, "[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Young, 75 F.2d. 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 72, Shachar and Berg disclose all limitations of claim 52. Shachar further discloses an example of a 3x4 array of cells (Fig. 6A), but fail to teach the spatially defined array of active areas comprises at least 30 active areas.
However, Shachar teaches the number of sensors and number of columns can be chosen in any geometric arrangement as may be desired (¶82).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shachar and Berg by adjusting the number of active areas of the array within the claimed range as suggested by Shachar because the number is a matter of choice and can be optimized as desired. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 73, Shachar teaches wherein the at least two electrodes comprise a conductive metal selected from Au, Cu and Ag (Fig. 1A; ¶114: a silver or gold layer is printed to form the electrodes).
Regarding claim 75, Shachar teaches wherein each binding molecule of the collection is immobilized on the deposited carbon material via a hydrophobic linker (Fig. 3(A)-(B); ¶116: PGMA 19; PGMA is hydrophobic), wherein said hydrophobic linker is coupled to a binding molecule via the binding molecule’s amino terminus (Fig. 3(C); ¶116: the epoxide group of PGMA binds with the amino functionality in antibodies 20).
Regarding claims 76-79, they are directed to the pathogen that is a material or article worked upon. "Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim." Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, "[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Young, 75 F.2d. 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). MPEP 2115.
Regarding claims 82-83, Shachar teaches wherein the binding molecules of the collection are antibody-based molecules and wherein the antibody-based molecules are antibodies (Fig. 3, 4; ¶116: antibody 20).
Claim(s) 20 and 53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shachar in view of Berg, and further in view of Sun (J. Sun, Magnetic Graphene Field-Effect Transistor Biosensor for Single-Strand DNA Detection, Nanoscale Research Letters 2019 (14), 248, pp. 1-8).
Regarding claims 20 and 53, Shachar in view of Berg discloses all limitations of claims 20 and 52 respectively, but fails to teach wherein the biosensor comprises an electromagnet positioned beneath the substrate of the biosensor.
However, Sun teaches a magnetic graphene field-effect transistor (GFET) biosensor ([Abstract]), in which a magnetic field rather than an electrical field is utilized to modulate the GFET conductivity (p. 2, col. 1, para. 2). The MGFETs include a substrate with two electrodes (Fig. 1: source S and drain D), having a graphene film grown between S and D and functionalized with probe aptamer, which would hybridization with cDNA, and a magnet positioned beneath the substrate (Fig. 1; p. 2, col. 2, para. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shachar and Berg by incorporating an electromagnet beneath the biosensor substrate as taught by Sun because the magnetic field is an alternative approach to be utilized to modulate the FET conductivity for impedance measurement as a biosensor (p. 2, col. 1, para. 2). Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of one known element, i.e., the magnetic field, for another, i.e., electrical field, would yield nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2141(III)(B).
Claim(s) 66 and 74 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shachar in view of Berg, and further in view of Ho (US 2013/0059380).
Regarding claims 66 and 74, Shachar in view of Berg discloses all limitations of claims 19 and 52 respectively, but fails to teach wherein each active area further comprises a preservative solution.
However, Ho teaches preservation solutions for preserving biologics comprising at least one membrane penetrable sugar, at least one membrane impenetrable sugar, at least one anti-microbial agent, at least one anti-oxidant, adenosine, albumin, a salt, a buffer, and a chelating agent ([Abstract]). The term "biologic" means a cell and/or a biomolecule (¶30), which means enzymes, antibodies, an peptides (¶35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shachar and Berg by incorporating the additives of a preservation solution in the active area to preserve biologics such as antibodies and peptides as taught by Ho because the preservation solution containing these suitable additives would provide anti-microbial, anti-oxidization effects for preservation so that they would have full function upon use (¶5). Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 68 and 80-81 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shachar in view of Berg, and further in view of Mitsuhashi (US 2019/0219578).
Regarding claim 68, Shachar in view of Berg discloses all limitations of claim 19, including an array of different, selected biological reagents attached to different, selected regions on an assay support surface comprising of the bioFET source, drain and gate forming the internal chambers as the flow cavity (Shachar, ¶55) on a multiplexed data acquisition and analysis platform (¶157). The array of bioFET cells with a distinct sets of specific probes, allowing multiple independent reactions to be analyzed simultaneously (¶157). Here, the capture probes, i.e., antibodies 20, specific to target biomarkers are physically bound to the surface of the nanotubes 14 (Fig. 3; ¶121).
Shachar in view of Berg does not disclose a collection of antibody mimetics and different antibody mimetics are positioned at different active areas not occupied by the pathogen protein or peptides.
However, Mitsuhashi teaches detecting and quantitating biomarkers in diagnostic and prognostic methods ([Abstract]), using capture agents such as antibodies, antibody mimetics, aptamers, receptors, or ligands (¶8). The solid support comprises more than one type of capture agent associated therewith, for example, different capture agents that selectively bind to different biomarkers (¶13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shachar and Berg by substituting some antibodies with antibody mimetics in different active areas as suggested by Mitsuhashi because both antibodies and antibody mimetics are suitable capturing agents for binding and detecting different biomarkers so that the suggestion for doing based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07. Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claims 80-81, Shachar in view of Berg discloses all limitations of claim 52 respectively, but fails to teach wherein the binding molecules of the collection are antibody mimetics (claim 80) or wherein the antibody mimetics are affilins (claim 81).
However, Mitsuhashi teaches detecting and quantitating biomarkers in diagnostic and prognostic methods ([Abstract]), using capture agents such as antibodies, antibody mimetics, aptamers, receptors, or ligands (¶8). Any type of antibody mimetic may be used, including affilins (¶73).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shachar and Berg by substituting antibodies with antibody mimetics as taught by Mitsuhashi. The suggestion for doing so would have been that antibody mimetics is a suitable material for being capture agent and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07. Here, the substitution of one known element for another would yield nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2141(III)(B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are unpersuasive because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLYN M SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-6788. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am - 5:30pm.
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, Luan Van can be reached on 571-272-8521. 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.
/C. SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights