DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/20/23 was filed and entered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been considered by the Examiner.
Election/Restrictions
3. Applicant’s election, without traverse, of Group I, in the reply filed on 11/12/25, is acknowledged.
Claim Status
4. The amendment, filed 11/12/25, has been entered. Claims 51-70 are newly added and pending. Claims 1-50 are cancelled. Claims 61-69 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/12/25. Claims 51-60 and 70 are under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 53 and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The term “stable” in claim 53 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “stable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, to what degree of stability is included vs. excluded in the claim’s scope? Thus, clarification is required to ascertain the metes and bounds of this claim.
The terms “desirable” and “improved” in claim 54 are each a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. Neither desirable or improved is defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, what is a desirable color vs. an undesirable one and/or what is a desirable texture vs. an undesirable one? And/or what is the improved tolerance relative to and/or how much of an improvement is included vs. excluded in the claim’s scope? Thus, clarification is required to ascertain the metes and bounds of this claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claims 51-60 and 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) 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 had possession of the claimed invention. This is a written description rejection.
Instant claims are drawn to “A modified strain of a Chlorella microalgae species, derived from a parent strain of a Chlorella microalgae species, the modified strain having a chitin content at least 10% lower than a chitin content of the parent strain of Chlorella microalgae from which it is derived, when grown under the same conditions”.
However, it is the Office’s position that modified strains of Chlorella have not been described with sufficient particularity, such that one skilled in the art would recognize that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention, at the time of filing, because of (A) a lack of a correlation, known or disclosed, between the claimed functional requirements and the structures that meet those requirements; and/or (B) a lack of a representative number and variety of species to constitute possession of the full scope of the claimed genus.
For example, the specification does not provide adequate written description to identify the broad genus of the claims because, inter alia, the specification does not disclose a correlation between the necessary structure of the modified Chlorella (e.g. particular necessary mutations), and the claimed function to be maintained (i.e. producing at least 10% less chitin than a parental strain grown under the same conditions). The specification generically describes a method of producing a modified strain of Chlorella comprising obtaining a parent strain, performing mutagenesis, cultivating the mutated strain “… at specific temperature, for predefined period of time, in the dark, and in presence of organic carbon”; and identifying and isolate chitin-deficient mutant (see Figure 1); but does not adequately describe the particular mutations correlated with the production of less chitin (i.e. the modified Chlorella’s functional properties), and does not adequately describe the culturing conditions (e.g. lists multiple mutually exclusive conditions; see pages 21-37). The specification defines "…mutagenesis as used herein, relates to a technique of inducing mutations by artificially exposing the organism to mutagens using laboratory procedures. Mutagens have the effect of increasing the frequency of genetic mutation over and above the natural frequency of spontaneously occurring mutations” (see page 18); but does not adequately describe the particular mutations of the modified strains having the functional properties of at least 10% reduced chitin content. The specification states “It will be appreciated that the quantity of the mutagenic chemical used for performing the mutagenesis, combined with the exposure time, can determine the amount of mutation undergone by the organism” (see page 24); but the specification does not adequately describe the specific quantities of the specific chemicals and/or the specific exposure times. The specification states “…the mutagenesis is performed by exposure of the parent strain of Chlorella vulgaris to a physical mutagen, wherein the physical mutagen comprises at least one of: UV light, gamma rays, X-rays. These mutagens cause changes in the genotype of the parent strain of Chlorella vulgaris to result in the mutated strain of Chlorella vulgaris.” (see page 27); but does not adequately describe the amount or duration of the physical mutagens nor the particular mutations linked to the reduction in chitin content of the modified strains. Further, the specification does not adequately describe desirable phenotypes comprising a color, a pigment content, a protein content, a smell, a taste, a texture, a biochemical composition and improved tolerance to process conditions (see claim 54). The specification does not adequately describe the particular mutations in Chlorella vulgarus that yield a chitin content of less than 4.8 mg/g dry cell weight (see claims 57-58). The specification does not adequately describe the particular mutations in Chlorella sorokiniana that yield a chitin content of less than 5.2 mg/g dry cell weight (see claim 59-60). The specification does not adequately describe algae biomass derived from these modified strains (see claim 70).
Consequently, the specification fails to adequately describe the particular structural features that are required to meet the claimed functional attributes. Thus, the specification does not define sufficient structural features commonly possessed by members of the claimed genus because while the description of an ability of a modified strain to produce at least 10% less chitin might generically describe that strain’s function, it does not describe the strain itself. Therefore, a definition by function (i.e. producing at least 10% less chitin) does not suffice to define the genus because it is only an indication of what the modified strain does (i.e. produces less chitin), rather than what it is (i.e. what modifications are required to produce less chitin) and even one of skill in the art cannot visualize or recognize the necessary structures (i.e. modifications) by only knowing the reduced chitin content thereof. Accordingly, the specification does not provide substantive evidence for possession of this large and variable genus, encompassing a potentially massive number of modifications to any and all Chlorella species, but claimed only by functional characteristics. Consequently, it is the Office’s position that even one of skill in the art would not conclude that Applicant was in possession of this entire genus.
In addition, the specification does not provide adequate written description to identify the broad genus of the claims because, inter alia, it does not describe a sufficient number and/or a sufficient variety of representative species to reflect the breadth and variation within the claimed genus. It is noted that the genus of “modified strains of Chlorella” having the claimed 10% less chitin content, is expected to be large and highly variable. The specification appears to identify modified Chlorella vulgaris (see Table 2) and modified Chlorella sorokiniana (see Table 4); but does not adequately describe the modified strains by required structures (i.e. the modifications per se). The specification states that “…the chitin content of the modified strain of Chlorella vulgaris is a result of a stable genetic mutation. To clarify, the difference in the chitin content of the modified strain of Chlorella vulgaris as compared to the chitin content of the parent strain of Chlorella vulgaris is the direct result of mutations in the genome of the modified strain of Chlorella vulgaris as a result of the exposure to mutagens” (see page 27); but the specification does not adequately describe these genetic mutations which then correlate to strains having at least 10% lower content of chitin. The specification identifies a modified strain called 4TC3/16 as a proprietary strain; but does not identify it by structure (see page 26 and Figure 7). The specification lists strains p4-102, p5-94, p5-39 and p5-59 as modified strains, but does not identify them by structure (i.e. see Table 2; Figures 2 and 3; pages 52-53). The specification generically lists possible mutations in a primary amino acid sequence of chitin synthase, a regulator of chitin synthase, biosynthesis of N-acetylglucosamine, a metabolic flux of N-acetylglucosamine in the biosynthesis of chitin, and biosynthesis of a chitinase or related enzyme class; (see page 27); but it is unclear which of the modified strains have which mutations and/or which of the modified strains were produced using which mutagens and/or under what conditions. The specification describes variability among the modified strains (see Table 2 and pages 40 and 52-54) but does not correlate the variations to the corresponding required structures. Therefore, the specification supports that a person of skill in this art would need to know the structure of the modifications (i.e. genetic mutations) in order to recognize the corresponding function (i.e. at least 10% less chitin) because these seemingly similar strains have varying amounts of chitin content (see Figures 2 and 3). Accordingly, it is the Office’s position that even one of skill in the art would not conclude that Applicant was in possession of the entire genus because, inter alia, that artisan would not accept the disclosure of these poorly-described, genetically-uncharacterized, modified strains as representative in number or variety, to demonstrate possession of the entire genus of modified Chlorella with reduced chitin contents, as broadly as is claimed. Therefore, it is the Office’s position that even one of skill in the art would not conclude that Applicant was in possession of the entire genus.
With regards to the state of the art, modifying Chlorella strains for improved characteristics was still under development and thus necessarily unpredictable. For example, Schuler et al. 2020 (Isolation and characterization of novel Chlorella vulgaris mutants with low chlorophyll and improve protein contents for food applications; Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology 8:469; pp 1-10; of record) teaches that mutagens cause random (i.e. unpredictable) mutations and that upon mutagenesis with either physical or chemical mutagens, it is important to apply a selection procedure to screen for desired mutants (e.g. page 2, Introduction). Schuler teaches the selection of correct survival rates of modified strains is critical to increase the likelihood that survivors contain at least one mutation, but also to avoid the selection of cells containing multiple mutations which are then detrimental to growth (see page 4; Results). Thus, the art provides evidence that there is unpredictability in the results obtained for examples other than those specifically enumerated, and accordingly, provides evidence which indicates even skilled artisans could not reliably predict the operability in the invention other than the ones disclosed (i.e. there are no adequately described structural modifications in the Chlorella strains having at least 10% less chitin). Therefore, the state of the art does not provide adequate written description support for which options and which combinations (i.e. which mutations) would predictably retain their functional activities (i.e. result in modified strains producing at least 10% less chitin).
Consequently, neither the specification nor the state of the art provides sufficient written description to support the genus encompassed by the claims. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 19 USPQ2d 1111, makes clear that "applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention. The invention is, for purposes of the 'written description' inquiry, whatever is now claimed." (See page 1117.) The specification does not "clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed." (See Vas-Cath at page 1116.). Given the above analysis of the factors as a whole, which the courts have determined are critical in determining whether Applicant is in possession of the claimed invention, it is the Office’s position that Applicant has not satisfied the requirements as set forth under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. Claims 51-60 and 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. This is an enablement/biological deposit rejection.
Instant claims appear to employ a novel biological material, specifically uniquely modified strains of Chlorella having a chitin content at least 10% lower than the chitin content of a parental strain grown under the same conditions (see instant specification at page 26; and Figures 2 and 3). Since the biological material is essential to the claimed invention, it must be obtainable by a repeatable method set forth in the specification or otherwise readily available to the public. If the biological materials are not so obtainable or available, the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) may be satisfied by a deposit of the biological material.
If a deposit has been made under the provisions of the Budapest Treaty, filing of an affidavit or declaration by applicant or assignees or a statement by an attorney of record who has authority and control over the conditions of deposit over his or her signature and registration number stating that the deposit has been accepted by the International Depository Authority under the provisions of the Budapest Treaty and that all restrictions upon public access to the deposit will be irrevocably removed upon the grant of a patent on this application. These requirements are necessary when deposits are made under the provisions of the Budapest Treaty as the Treaty leaves this specific matter to the discretion of each State. Amendment of the specification to recite the date of the deposit and the complete name and full street address of the depository is required.
If a deposit has not been made under the provisions of the Budapest Treaty, then in order to certify that the deposits comply with the criteria set forth in 37 CFR 1.801-1.809, assurance regarding availability and permanency of the deposit is required. Such assurance may be in the form of an affidavit or declaration by applicants or assignees or in the form of a statement by an attorney of record that has the authority and control over the conditions of deposit over his or her signature and registration number averring:
during the pendency of this application, access to the deposits will be afforded to the Commissioner upon request;
all restrictions upon the availability to the public of the deposited biological material will be irrevocably removed upon the granting of a patent on this application;
the deposits will be maintained in the public repository for a period of at least thirty years from the date of deposit or for the enforceable life of the patent of or for a period of five years after the date of the most recent request for the furnishing of a sample of the deposited biological material, whichever is longest;
a test of the viability of the biological material at the time of deposit will be made (See CFR 1.807); and
the deposit will be replaced if they should become nonviable or non-replicable.
In addition, a deposit of biological material that is capable of self-replication either directly or indirectly must be viable at the time of deposit and during the term of deposit. Viability may be tested by the repository. The test must conclude only that the deposited material is capable of reproduction. A viability statement for each deposit of biological material not made under the Budapest Treaty must be filed in the application and must contain:
The name and address of the depository;
The name and address of the depositor;
The date of deposit;
The identity of the deposit and the accession number given by the depository;
The date of the viability test;
The procedures used to obtain a sample if test is not done by the depository; and
A statement that the deposit is capable of reproduction.
As a possible means for completing the record, applicant may submit a copy of the contract with the depository for deposit and maintenance of each deposit.
If the deposit was made after the effective filing date of the application for patent in the United States, a verified statement is required from a person in a position to corroborate that the biological material described in the specification as filed is the same as that deposited in the depository. Corroboration may take the form of a showing a chain of custody from applicant to the depository coupled with corroboration that the deposit is identical to the biological material described in the specification and in the applicant’s possession at the time the application was filed. Applicant’s attention is directed to In re Lundack, 773 F.2d.1216, 227 USPQ (CAFC 1985) and 37 CFR 1.801-1.809 for further information concerning deposit practice.
Thus, it is the Office’s position that the specification fails to provide sufficient guidance on how to make the invention as claimed, without undue experimentation (i.e. random trial and error to generate essential mutations in a Chlorella species to thereby ascertain critical functional features of at least 10% lower chitin content).
The factors to be considered in determining whether undue experimentation is required, are set forth in In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400. They include (1) the quantity of experimentation necessary, (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or absence of working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the prior art, (6) the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art and (8) the breadth of the claims. Although all the factors were considered, the most relevant ones are discussed below. In the instant case:
Nature of the invention: The invention is a modified strain of a Chlorella microalgae species, derived from a parent strain of a Chlorella microalgae species, the modified strain having a chitin content at least 10% lower than a chitin content of the parent strain of Chlorella microalgae from which it is derived, when grown under the same conditions. Therefore, the nature of the invention is a chemical case, where there is natural unpredictability in performance of certain species or subcombinations other than those specifically enumerated; see MPEP 2163. Accordingly, it is the Office’s position that undue experimentation would be required to practice the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success because it would not be predictable from the disclosure of one particular species what other species may or may not work; and there are no modified strains sufficiently disclosed by structure; and random mutagenesis, by definition, would not be expected to generate the same modifications (i.e. structures) as required by the claim.
Breadth of the claims: The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims encompasses all modifications (e.g. mutations) of all Chlorella species having at least 10% less chitin content as compared to parental strains grown under the same conditions. Accordingly, undue experimentation would be required to practice the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, because while enablement is not precluded by the necessity for routine screening, if a large amount of screening is required, the specification must provide a reasonable amount of guidance with respect to the direction in which the experimentation should proceed and such guidance has not been provided in the instant specification. In other words, there is insufficient guidance on how to obtain (i.e. how to make) the modified strains comprising the functional properties of reduced chitin content because the structural requirements of those strains have not been sufficiently identified and disclosed (i.e. which mutations result in at least 10% less chitin?).
Amount of direction provided by Inventor/Existence of Working Examples: The specification appears to identify modified Chlorella vulgaris (see Table 2) and modified Chlorella sorokiniana (see Table 4); but does not sufficiently disclose the modified strains by their required structures (i.e. the modifications per se). The specification states that “…the chitin content of the modified strain of Chlorella vulgaris is a result of a stable genetic mutation. To clarify, the difference in the chitin content of the modified strain of Chlorella vulgaris as compared to the chitin content of the parent strain of Chlorella vulgaris is the direct result of mutations in the genome of the modified strain of Chlorella vulgaris as a result of the exposure to mutagens” (see page 27); but the specification does not sufficiently disclose which of these genetic mutations resulted in at least 10% lower content of chitin. The specification identifies a modified strain called 4TC3/16 as a proprietary strain; but does not identify it by structure (see page 26). The specification lists strains p4-102, p5-94, p5-39 and p5-59 as modified strains, but does not identify them by structure (see Table 2; Figures 2 and 3; pages 52-53). The specification generically lists possible mutations in a primary amino acid sequence of chitin synthase, a regulator of chitin synthase, biosynthesis of N-acetylglucosamine, a metabolic flux of N-acetylglucosamine in the biosynthesis of chitin, and biosynthesis of a chitinase or related enzyme class (see page 27); but it is unclear which of the modified strains have which mutations and/or which of the modified strains were produced using which mutagens and/or under what growth conditions. The specification discloses variability in the strains (see Table 2 and pages 40 and 52-54) but does not sufficiently disclose the necessary structures of these strains. The specification discloses a generic method of producing a modified strain comprising obtaining a parent strain, performing mutagenesis, cultivating the mutated strain “… at specific temperature, for predefined period of time, in the dark, and in presence of organic carbon”; and identifying and isolate chitin-deficient mutant (see Figure 1); but does not sufficiently disclose the particular mutations correlated with the production of less chitin and does not sufficiently disclose the culturing conditions employed (e.g. lists multiple mutually exclusive conditions; see pages 21-37). The specification defines "…mutagenesis as used herein, relates to a technique of inducing mutations by artificially exposing the organism to mutagens using laboratory procedures. Mutagens have the effect of increasing the frequency of genetic mutation over and above the natural frequency of spontaneously occurring mutations” (see page 18); but does not sufficiently disclose the particular mutations of the modified strains having at least 10% reduced chitin content. The specification states “It will be appreciated that the quantity of the mutagenic chemical used for performing the mutagenesis, combined with the exposure time, can determine the amount of mutation undergone by the organism” (see page 24); but does not sufficiently disclose the specific quantities of the specific chemicals and/or the specific exposure times. The specification states “…the mutagenesis is performed by exposure of the parent strain of Chlorella vulgaris to a physical mutagen, wherein the physical mutagen comprises at least one of: UV light, gamma rays, X-rays. These mutagens cause changes in the genotype of the parent strain of Chlorella vulgaris to result in the mutated strain of Chlorella vulgaris.” (see page 27); but does not sufficiently disclose the amount or duration of the physical mutagens nor the particular mutations linked to the reduction in chitin content. Further, the specification does not sufficiently disclose desirable phenotypes comprising a color, a pigment content, a protein content, a smell, a taste, a texture, a biochemical composition and improved tolerance to process conditions (see claim 54). The specification does not sufficiently disclose the particular mutations in Chlorella vulgarus that yield a chitin content of less than 4.8 mg/g dry cell weight (see claims 57-58). The specification does not sufficiently disclose the particular mutations in Chlorella sorokiniana that yield a chitin content of less than 5.2 mg/g dry cell weight (see claim 59-60). The specification does not sufficiently disclose algae biomass derived from modified strains (see claim 70) because the strains are not sufficiently disclosed. Accordingly, a non-routine amount of experimentation would be required to practice the invention with a reasonable expectation of success because the skilled artisan needs to first figure out how to modify which species of Chlorella and then determine which of the modifications predictably result in modified strains producing at least 10% less chitin, and testing such a vast number of options in a large number of species would be easily recognized by the skilled practitioner to be disproportionately demanding and thus rise to the level of undue experimentation.
State of the Prior Art and Level of Predictability in the Art: The state of the art regarding modifying Chlorella strains for improved characteristics was still under development and thus necessarily unpredictable. For example, Schuler et al. 2020 (Isolation and characterization of novel Chlorella vulgaris mutants with low chlorophyll and improve protein contents for food applications; Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology 8:469; pp 1-10; of record) teaches that mutagens cause random (i.e. unpredictable) mutations and that upon mutagenesis with either physical or chemical mutagens, it is important to apply a selection procedure to screen for desired mutants (see page 2, Introduction). Schuler teaches the selection of correct survival rates of modified strains is critical to increase the likelihood that survivors contain at least one mutation, but also to avoid the selection of cells containing multiple mutations which are then detrimental to growth (see page 4; Results). Thus, the art provides evidence that there is unpredictability in the results obtained for examples other than those specifically enumerated, and accordingly, provides evidence which indicates even skilled artisans could not reliably predict the operability in the invention other than the ones disclosed (i.e. there are no adequately described structural modifications in the Chlorella strains having at least 10% less chitin). Therefore, the only way to determine if an option (i.e. a modification) works is empirical testing of each and every one. Accordingly, the claims, as written, are not enabled because even the skilled artisan cannot make and use the invention with a reasonable expectation of success, and without undue experimentation, because they do not have access to the modified Chlorella; and thus do not have a means to obtain the necessary material to determine the necessary modifications.
Relative Skill of Those in the Art: The relative level of skill of those in the art is deemed to be high (e.g. PhD level); however, even one of skill in the art could not predictably extrapolate the teachings in the specification, limited to genetically uncharacterized Chlorella vulgaris and/or Chlorella sorokiniana strains, to all the other modified Chlorella strains having at least 10% lower chitin content, as broadly as is claimed. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in this art, given its unpredictability, would have to engage in non-routine experimentation to determine which modifications in which species of Chlorella would reliably lead to strains with at least 10% less chitin and thereby carry out the invention as claimed.
Quantity of Experimentation Necessary Based on Content of the Disclosure: The specification does not enable the genus because where the results are unpredictable, the disclosure of a single species usually does not provide an adequate basis to support generic claims. In re Soil, 97 F.2d 623, 624, 38 USPQ 189, 191 (CCPA 1938). In cases involving unpredictable factors, such as most chemical reactions and physiological activity, more may be required. In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833,839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970) (contrasting mechanical and electrical elements with chemical reactions and physiological activity). See also In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488,496, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Without such guidance the experimentation left to those skilled in the art is unnecessarily and improperly extensive and undue. See Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., 927 F, 2d 1200, 18 USPQ 1016 (Fed. Cir. 1991) at 18 USPQ 1026 1027 and Exparte Forman, 230 USPQ 546 (BPAI 1986). It is noted that providing methods for determining the amount of chitin in a Chlorella strain would not reduce the amount of experimentation required because the modifications must still be made and verified empirically in order the practice the invention.
Therefore, in view of the lack of guidance and direction provided by Applicant there would be undue experimentation required to practice the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, absent a specific and detailed description in Applicant's specification regarding how to make (or obtain) the modified strains. Thus, Applicant has not satisfied the requirements as set forth under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Conclusion
10. No claims are allowed.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY MAILLE LYONS whose telephone number is (571)272-2966. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am to 5 pm 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, Vanessa Ford can be reached on (571)-272-0857. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
12. 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.
/MARY MAILLE LYONS/ Examiner, Art Unit 1645
December 12, 2025