DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The rejection of claims 1-20 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35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s deposit statement.
The rejection of claims 1-20 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the subject matter that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant, regards as the invention is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s deposit statement and amendment to the claims.
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wohleser (2019, US 10,285,367) in view of Wohleser (2021, US 10,897,870) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment of the specification to state that recurrent parent MK0619C8-C0DNN is a nonpublic proprietary line, which is also interpreted as meaning that MK0619C8-C0DNN has no other names and is not the line claimed in ‘367. It is also interpreted as meaning that MK0619C8-C0DNN was not produced by backcrossing a trait or transgenic event into the line claimed in ‘367 (or any other soybean variety in the prior art), as Applicant has a duty to disclose such information material to patentability.
The rejection of claims 1-20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,285,367 in view of Wohleser (2021, US 10,897,870) for the reasons the rejection under 35 USC 103 above was withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-20 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.
Due to Applicant’s amendment of the specification, the rejection is modified from the rejection set forth in the Office action mailed 28 August 2025. Applicant’s arguments filed 18 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The instant specification fails to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S. Code § 112(a) because it does not provide a description sufficient to conduct an to conduct an examination, including search of the prior art
MPEP 2163 (I) states “The written description of the deposited material needs to be as complete as possible because the examination for patentability proceeds solely on the basis of the written description. See, e.g., In re Lundak, 773 F.2d 1216, 227 USPQ 90 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also 54 Fed. Reg. at 34,880 ("As a general rule, the more information that is provided about a particular deposited biological material, the better the examiner will be able to compare the identity and characteristics of the deposited biological material with the prior art.").”
The instant specification fails to satisfy the written description because it does not provide enough description to be sufficient to aid in the resolution of questions of infringement.
MPEP 2163(I) states “The description must be sufficient to permit verification that the deposited biological material is in fact that disclosed. Once the patent issues, the description must be sufficient to aid in the resolution of questions of infringement." Id. at 34,880.)” (Quoting the Deposit of Biological Materials for Patent Purposes, Final Rule, 54 Fed. Reg. 34,864 (August 22, 1989) at 34,880).
35 USC 112 requires that the specification have a written description of the invention:
35 U.S.C. 112 Specification.
(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. (emphasis added)
The instant application fails to provide a complete written description of the claimed invention. In claims 1-20, Applicant claims a new soybean variety, 01098264. A plant variety is defined by both its genetics (breeding history) and its traits. Applicant has provided a description of the plant traits as seen in the specification. Applicant has provided the breeding method for the instantly claimed plant variety and has indicated that recurrent parent MK0619C8-C0DNN is a nonpublic proprietary line. However, the parents used to produce the instantly claimed plant variety are not known in the art, at least under the names provided. The instant application is thus incomplete as to the breeding history used to produce the claimed plant variety.
The criticality of a breeding history in assessing the intellectual property rights of a plant is well recognized in the field of plant breeding. With regard to Plant Patents, MPEP 1605 states that a complete detailed description of a plant includes “the origin or parentage”. Other bodies that grant intellectual property protection for plant varieties require breeding information to evaluate whether protection should be granted to new varieties. A breeding history, including information about parentage and breeding methodology, is part of the requirements of Plant Variety Protection (PVP) applications. That information is used to “determine if development is sufficient to consider the variety new” (USDA, “Applying for a Plant Variety Certificate of Protection”, https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/pvpo/application-help/apply, accessed 1 May 2023). Additionally, the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) considers breeding history and methodology part of its evaluation of essentially derived plant varieties (UPOV, 2017, Explanatory Notes on Essentially Derived Varieties Under the 1991 Act of the UPOV Convention, see notes 14 and 30). While the USPTO, USDA, and UPOV have different laws governing intellectual property rights, all recognize that a breeding history is an essential part of adequate description of the plant sought to be protected.
The breeding history is also necessary to aid in the resolution of patent infringement by providing information necessary to determine whether differences in plants where genetic differences, differences caused by the environment, or differences within the accepted variation within a variety. Historically, the USPTO has considered breeding history information when determining the patentability of a new plant variety (See Ex Parte C (USPQ 2d 1492 (1992) and Ex Parte McGowen, Board Decision in Application 14/996,093, 2020). In both of these cases, there were many differences cited by the applicant when comparing the prior art and the new plant variety. However, because the breeding history was available, these differences were deemed to be obvious and within the natural variation expected in a backcrossing breeding process. Without a breeding history in these cases, a complete comparison with the prior art could not have been possible.
Moreover, a specification devoid of a breeding history hampers the public’s ability to resolve infringement analysis with plants already in the prior art as well as plants that have not yet been patented. Because the instant specification lacks the complete breeding history, the public will not be able to fully resolve questions of infringement. Since the breeding history, including the parents, is not known to the public, the public could only rely on the phenotypes of the claimed plants for assessing potential infringement.
As seen above in Ex Parte C and Ex Parte McGowan, a trait table is insufficient to differentiate varieties by itself. It has been long established that intracultivar heterogeneity exists in crop species. The assumption that elite cultivars are composed of relatively homogenous genetic pools is false (Haun et al, 2011, Plant Physiol. 155:645-655; see pg 645, left column). Segregation, recombination, DNA transposition, epigenetic processes, and spontaneous mutations are some of the reasons elite cultivar populations will maintain some degree of plant-to-plant variation (pg 645, right column, paragraph 2, to pg 646, left column, paragraph 3). In addition, environmental variation may lead to phenotypic variation within a cultivar. (Großkinsky et al, 2015, J. Exp. Bot. 66:5429-5440; see pg 5430 left column, paragraph 2, and right column, paragraph 2). In view of this variability, a breeding history is an essential and the least burdensome way to provide genetic information needed at adequate describe a newly developed plant.
Thus, an application that does not clearly describe the breeding history does not provide an adequate written description of the invention.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant must amend the specification to identify any and all other potential names for all parental lines utilized in the development of the instant variety. For example, if Applicant’s breeding history uses proprietary line names, Applicant should notate in the specification all other names of the proprietary lines, especially publicly disclosed or patented line information. If the breeding history encompasses a locus conversion or a backcrossing process, Applicant should clearly indicate the recurrent parent and the donor plant and specifically name the trait or transgenic event that is being donated to the recurrent parent. If any of the parents is a backcross progeny or locus converted line of a publicly disclosed line, Applicant should provide the breeding history of the parent line(s) as well (i.e., grandparents).
Applicant is also reminded that they have a duty to disclose information material to patentability. Applicant should also notate the most similar plants, which should include any other plants created using similar breeding history (such as siblings of the instant variety). This information can be submitted in an IDS with a notation of the relevancy to the instant application or as information submitted as described in MPEP 724 (e.g., trade secret, proprietary, and Protective Order).
Response to Arguments
Applicant urges that in the transmittal letter filed 30 October 2024 they provided another name for donor parent FL1111A2-T2LNN and a patent number in which it was claimed and indicated that parent MK0619C8-C0DNN is a nonpublic proprietary line (response pg 16-17).
This not found persuasive. This information regarding FL1111A2-T2LNN is not in the specification. Bringing that information into the specification would, however, overcome this rejection.
Applicant urges that the written description requirement is provided by the deposit, such that they do not have to provide a breeding history, citing Ex Parte C, Enzo, Inari, in re Lundak, and a letter from the USPTO director (response pg 6-16).
This not found persuasive.
Applicant has other plants with nearly identical traits. Trait similarity and the lack of explanation of the value of the instant soybean makes the analysis on the breeding history vital.
While Applicant urges that the deposit provides all the description necessary to meet the requirements of written description, but that is not the case. The deposit is necessary but not sufficient.
If a deposit were all that is needed, then a phenotype table would not be necessary. However, a plant described only by a deposit cannot be examined; the patent office does not have the facilities to grow up the claimed plant and all soybean plants in the art to compare their phenotypes and do a genetic analysis on the claimed plant and plants with the same phenotype or a phenotype that makes obvious the claimed plant to see if the claimed plant is genetically related to the prior art plant.
There are over 6000 patents on soybean varieties and thousands of patent applications that have been published but not yet issued. If these 6000+ soybean plants were only described by deposit, one needing to know the phenotype and genotype of any or all of the plants, as would a soybean breeder, would need to grow each up to evaluate phenotype and perform a genetic analysis to evaluate genotype. Performing a phenotypic and genetic analysis on 6000+ soybean plants would be an undue burden on each soybean breeder. It would also be a burden on the patent holder, as the deposited seed would rapidly be depleted and would need frequent replacement. Lastly, as deposits do not need to be maintained into perpetuity, the genetic information provided therein would no longer be available if there is a 5-year gap after the last request, shutting later breeders out of the information therein. Words describing the phenotype and parents of a soybean plant do not shut future inventors out of a description of a prior art soybean plant.
Similarly, merely providing in the specification arbitrary names for the parents of a soybean plant and hiding the publicly known names for them is not useful to someone that is not the Applicant, and does not describe an invention to the examiner or the public.
Phenotypic and parental (genetic) information and a deposit are all necessary parts of the description of a soybean plant.
Regarding Applicants’ arguments on the legal basis of the written description rejection and the court’s/board’s interpretations, the best starting point for a written description analysis is the law itself. The first 10 words of 35 USC 112 (a) are critical.
(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. (emphasis added)
The strict interpretation of the law is clear: Applicant must provide in the specification a written description of the invention. The only question is what an “adequate written description” is. This is a fact-based inquiry done by the factfinder (i.e., the examiner) when analyzing the nature of the instant invention.
The references cited in the rejection are evidence regarding that question of fact regarding what is considered when describing plants. They are not cited for legal analysis. The references cited, including USDA and UPOV, establish that in the plant variety art, a breeding history is part of the description of a plant variety.
Applicant has not provided evidence saying that in the plant variety art the breeding history is not considered part of the description of a plant variety. Applicant has not rebutted the evidence provided in the rejection.
The Office has made a finding of fact that for the instant variety the minimum description is the combination of the phenotype and genotype (breeding history). To support this finding of fact, the Office has cited other plant-related intellectual property organizations and relevant court cases dealing with plant varieties in which both the phenotype and genotype are analyzed. The Office did not cite these findings to clarify the law. They are solely to clarify the finding of fact, i.e., what is an adequate written description for the instant plant variety. Applicant’s arguments ask the Office to not consider the actual statute and base our decision solely on statements from court/board cases that do not directly decide what an adequate written description is for a plant variety.
Lastly, MPEP 2163(I) states
“The description must be sufficient to permit verification that the deposited biological material is in fact that disclosed. Once the patent issues, the description must be sufficient to aid in the resolution of questions of infringement." Id. at 34,880.)” (Quoting the Deposit of Biological Materials for Patent Purposes, Final Rule, 54 Fed. Reg. 34,864 (August 22, 1989) at 34,880).
If Applicant has issues with the guidance in the MPEP, arguing with the examiner applying that guidance is not the solution, as examiners have no role the decision to include that guidance in the MPEP.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 that 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wohleser (2013, US 8,455,729) in view of Wohleser (2021, US 10,897,870).
The rejection is repeated for the reasons of record as set forth in the Office action mailed 28 August 2025. Applicant’s arguments filed 18 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The claims are drawn to a plant and seed of soybean variety 01098264, the plant and seed further comprising a single locus conversion, and methods of breeding with it.
Wohleser 2013 teaches a plant and seed of soybean variety A1015644, which like the instantly claimed variety, has purple flowers, tawny pubescence, black hila, brown pods, dull seed coats, a spherical flattened seed shape, an ovate leaf shape, green leaves, an indeterminate growth habit, the Rpslc Phytophthora resistance gene, to moderate resistance to brown stem rot, and the MON89788 glyphosate resistance event (Table 1). A1015644 and the instantly claimed soybean variety have similar relative maturities. Wohleser 2013 is silent regarding the seed coat color, cotyledon color, Phytophthora tolerance. and canopy of A1015644
Wohleser 2013 does not teach A1015644 with the A5547-127 glufosinate resistance event, and the MON87708 dicamba resistance event.
Wohleser 2021 teaches soybean variety 01072322, which has the A5547-127 glufosinate resistance event, and the MON87708 dicamba resistance event (Table 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify A1015644 taught in Wohleser 2013 to backcross in the A5547-127 and MON87708 events from the soybean taught in Wohleser 2021. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Wohleser 2013 claims A1015644 with a transgene conferring glufosinate or dicamba resistance (claim 13). The A5547-127 event is one way of achieving glufosinate resistance and the MON87708 event is one way of achieving dicamba resistance. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to backcross both events into A1015644 because this would also farmers growing the resulting variety to control weeds with glufosinate and dicamba, as well as glyphosate.
One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the resulting A1015644 + A5547-127 + MON87708 soybean plant to have slight differences from A1015644 in traits like relative maturity that are affected by the environment and controlled by multiple genes. Plants with the relative maturity of the instantly claimed soybean variety would be among those produced by backcrossing in the A5547-127 and MON87708 events into A1015644.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to, like Wohleser 2013 claims in claims 10-20, introduce other single locus conversions and/or transgenes into the A1015644 + A5547-127 + MON87708 soybean plant to add other desirable traits, like insect or disease resistance or resistance to other herbicides like sulfonylurea to the plant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so that the plant could be grown in areas infested with the insect or disease or for allowing the farmers to use additional herbicides to control weeds. Wohleser 2013’s claim 16 indicates that the first step in a backcross method is crossing the plant with another distinct plant, thereby producing an F1 hybrid (see also claims 8-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to, like Wohleser 2013 claims in claims 21-23, use the A1015644 + A5547-127 + MON87708 soybean plant as the starting material in producing a plant derived from it. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so that A1015644 + A5547-127 + MON87708’s traits can be passed onto other soybean plants.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the seed in plant seed growth media like soil, as this is what farmers do when they plant the seed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a commodity product like protein concentrate, protein isolate, grain, soybean hulls, meal, flour, or oil from the plant as these are the economically important produces produced from the plant or its parts. These commodity products would include those that have at least one cell of the plant, at least in some stages of refining the commodity product.
Response to Arguments
Applicant urges that the references fail to teach a seed or plant comprising the phenotype and genotype of 01098264; 01098264 and A1015644 have parents with different names (response pg 18-20).
This is not found persuasive. Applicant has not provided a Declaration stating that recurrent parent MK0619C8-C0DNN was not produced by backcrossing one of the A5547-127 or MON87708 events into A1015644. Attorney statements that the plants are “genetically distinct” are merely unsupported arguments. It is noted that depositing seed does not make two soybean varieties non-obvious over each other.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 8,455,729 in view of Wohleser (2021, US 10,897,870).
The rejection is repeated for the reasons of record as set forth in the Office action mailed 28 August 2025. Applicant’s arguments filed 18 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
‘729 claims a plant and seed of soybean variety A1015644, which like the instantly claimed variety, has purple flowers, tawny pubescence, black hila, brown pods, dull seed coats, a spherical flattened seed shape, an ovate leaf shape, green leaves, an indeterminate growth habit, the Rpslc Phytophthora resistance gene, to moderate resistance to brown stem rot, and the MON89788 glyphosate resistance event (Table 1). A1015644 and the instantly claimed soybean variety have similar relative maturities. ‘729 is silent regarding the seed coat color, cotyledon color, Phytophthora tolerance. and canopy of A1015644.
‘729 does not claim A1015644 with the A5547-127 glufosinate resistance event, and the MON87708 dicamba resistance event.
Wohleser 2021 teaches soybean variety 01072322, which has the A5547-127 glufosinate resistance event, and the MON87708 dicamba resistance event (Table 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify A1015644 claimed in ‘729 to backcross in the A5547-127 and MON87708 events from the soybean taught in Wohleser 2021. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because ‘729 claims A1015644 with a transgene conferring glufosinate or dicamba resistance (claim 13). The A5547-127 event is one way of achieving glufosinate resistance and the MON87708 event is one way of achieving dicamba resistance. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to backcross both events into A1015644 because this would also farmers growing the resulting variety to control weeds with glufosinate and dicamba, as well as glyphosate.
One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the resulting A1015644 + A5547-127 + MON87708 soybean plant to have slight differences from A1015644 in traits like relative maturity that are affected by the environment and controlled by multiple genes. Plants with the relative maturity of the instantly claimed soybean variety would be among those produced by backcrossing in the A5547-127 and MON87708 events into A1015644.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to, like‘729 claims in claims 10-20, introduce other single locus conversions and/or transgenes into the A1015644 + A5547-127 + MON87708 soybean plant to add other desirable traits, like insect or disease resistance or resistance to other herbicides like sulfonylurea to the plant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so that the plant could be grown in areas infested with the insect or disease or for allowing the farmers to use additional herbicides to control weeds. ‘729’s claim 16 indicates that the first step in a backcross method is crossing the plant with another distinct plant, thereby producing an F1 hybrid (see also claims 8-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to, like ‘729 claims in claims 21-23, use the A1015644 + A5547-127 + MON87708 soybean plant as the starting material in producing a plant derived from it. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so that A1015644 + A5547-127 + MON87708’s traits can be passed onto other soybean plants.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the seed in plant seed growth media like soil, as this is what farmers do when they plant the seed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a commodity product like protein concentrate, protein isolate, grain, soybean hulls, meal, flour, or oil from the plant as these are the economically important produces produced from the plant or its parts. These commodity products would include those that have at least one cell of the plant, at least in some stages of refining the commodity product.
Response to Arguments
Applicant urges that the genotype of the cited variety is distinct from that disclosed in’729 (response pg 21).
This is not found persuasive for the same reasons as detailed in the response to the rejection under 35 USC 103.
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anne R. Kubelik, Ph.D., whose telephone number is (571) 272-0801. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm Eastern.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amjad Abraham, can be reached at (571) 270-7058. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
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.
/Anne Kubelik/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1663