Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 01/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Status of the Application
Claims 1-4, 8, 10, 13, 14, 21-24, 26, 28, 29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 39, 40, 45-48, 54 and 56-59 are pending. Claims 1-4, 8, 10, 13, 14, 21-24, 26, 28, 29, 31, 33 and 34 are currently under examination. Claims 35, 40, 45-48, 54 and 56-59 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The submission of the Information Disclosure Statement is in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97. The information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner and signed copies have been placed in the file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13, 21 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites “ each of N1….N20 is independently absent or nucleotide”. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear if all of the N1-N20 can be independently absent. Also it is unclear how many can be absent: can all be absent leaving on a single stranded oligonucleotide of X1-X2. Furthermore the recitation of “nucleotide” is unclear because what else can N1-N2 represent besides a nucleotide in a single-stranded oligonucleotide, particularly given claim 1 from which it depends recites the single-stranded oligonucleotide comprises 5-40 nucleotides.
Claim 21 refers to antisense sequences in Tables. This limitation is indefinite because MPEP 2173.05(s), which states:
“Where possible, claims are to be complete in themselves. Incorporation by reference to a specific figure or table "is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a drawing or table into the claim. Incorporation by reference is a necessity doctrine, not for applicant’s convenience." Ex parte Fressola, 27 USPQ2d 1608, 1609 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).”
Claim 28 recites “the protein is capable of altering a target RNA” and is indefinite because the metes and bounds of “altering” has not been defined. The term altering has not been defined in the specification and it is unclear how the protein can alter the target RNA.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 13 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 13 fails to further limit claim 1 with the limitation “each of j, k, 1, m, n, o, p, and q is independently an integer between 0 and 5” because if all of j-q have an integer that is 4 or 5, that would make the single-stranded oligonucleotide longer than 40 nucleotides in length, which broadens the scope of claim 1.
Claim 29 recites “wherein the single-stranded oligonucleotide is complementary with a target sequence within the U1 snRNA sequence” and depends from claim 1 which recites “the single-stranded oligonucleotide targets the U1 snRNA”. Claim 29 fails to limit claim 1 because the limitation of claim 1 “targets the U1 snRNA” means the oligonucleotide is complementary to some portion within the U1 snRNA. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rigo et al. (Patent No. 20150191723),
Claim interpretation:
Claim 1 is interpreted as any single-stranded oligonucleotides with the structural limitations of i) to iv) would meet the limitations of a single stranded oligonucleotide that targets the U1 snRNA.
Regarding claims 1-4, Rigo et al. teach antisense oligonucleotides that are preferably 10-50 nt in length, can comprise one or more phosphorothioate linkages, comprise locked nucleic acids and 2’O methyl groups (0014, 0029 and 0082).
Regarding claim 8, Rigo et al. teach an antisense oligonucleotide, 20 nt in length, comprising the sequence GGTA (SEQ ID No. 206 Table 3).
Thus Rigo et al. anticipates the instant claims.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 13, 14, 22, 23, 24, 36, 28 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gunderson et al. (US 2015/0099796).
Regarding claims 1-4, 22 and 29, Gunderson et al. (US 2015/0099796) teaches a single-stranded oligonucleotide that targets the U1 small nuclear ribonucleic acid (snRNA) [0104] wherein the oligonucleotides are called a U1 adaptor with an effector domain that bind U1 snRNA (0078). Gunderson et al. teach the single-stranded oligonucleotide is between 5 and 40 nucleotides in length (the annealing domain is at least about 13 or 15 nucleotides in length, Para. [0080]), the single-stranded oligonucleotide comprises a plurality of internucleotide phosphorothioate linkages (nucleotides with phosphate modifications comprising one or more phosphorothioate [0082]), the single-stranded oligonucleotide comprises a locked nucleic acid modification (called LNA6 that contains a mixture of Locked Nucleic Acid (LNA) nucleotides and phosphoramidate modified bases was used [0163]) and the single-stranded oligonucleotide comprises a 2'O-methyl group or a 2'O-methoxyethyl group (2'-O-methyl nucleotides are easier to use during synthesis and have a lower cost as compared to LNA-DNA mixmers [0177]).
Regarding claim 8, Gunderson et al. teach the effector domain of the oligonucleotide has the sequence CAGG (see claim 6).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim is a single-stranded oligonucleotide wherein X1 and X2 are phosphate or phosphorothioate group and the oligonucleotide can comprise any number of N1-N20 nucleotides with phosphorothioate linkages (the other limitations are optional). Gunderson et al. teach the oligonucleotide can be between 5 and 40 and comprising phosphorothioate linkages.
Regarding claims 23 and 24, because the single-stranded oligonucleotide taught by Gunderson et al. meets the structural limitations of the claim and binds a U1 snRNA, the functional limitations of inhibiting binding of the U1 snRNA to a target RNA, mediates degradation and modulates binding of the U1 snRNA to a target RNA.
See MPEP 2112.01 below.
II. COMPOSITION CLAIMS — IF THE COMPOSITION IS PHYSICALLY THE SAME, IT MUST HAVE THE SAME PROPERTIES
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Applicant argued that the claimed composition was a pressure sensitive adhesive containing a tacky polymer while the product of the reference was hard and abrasion resistant. “The Board correctly found that the virtual identity of monomers and procedures sufficed to support a prima facie case of unpatentability of Spada’s polymer latexes for lack of novelty.”)
Regarding claims 26 and 28, Gunderson et al. teach the adaptor oligonucleotide can be conjugated to a protein (see 0146). Because Gunderson et al. teach the adaptor oligonucleotide is conjugated to a protein, this meets the structural limitations of the claim and therefore the functional limitation of altering a target RNA is an inherent feature (see MPEP 2112.01 above).
Regarding claims 33 and 34, Gunderson et al. teach a composition and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier (see claims 31 and 32).
Thus Gunderson et al. anticipates the instant claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 13, 14, 21, 22, 33 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreyfuss et al (US Patent No. 11,142,762) and GrÜnweiler et al. ("Locked nucleic acid oligonucleotides." BioDrugs 21.4 (2007): 235-243).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 8 and 22, Dreyfuss et a. teach an antisense oligonucleotide that targets a U1 snRNA wherein the antisense can be modified with phosphorothioate linkages and 2’O methyl (col. 11 ln. 10-24 and col. 17 ln. 18-27).
Regarding claims 8, 13, 14 and 21, Dreyfuss et al. teach an oligonucleotide having SEQ ID No. 7 that is 25 nucleotides in length, comprising the sequence CAGG and comprising 17 nucleotides of SEQ ID No. 20 (col. 30). Gideon et al. do not teach the antisense has locked nucleic acids (LNA).
Regarding claim claims 33 and 34, Dreyfuss et al. teach pharmaceutical compositions (see col. 23 ln. 24-62).
Grunweller et al. teach modifying an antisense oligonucleotide with LNA protects against cellular nucleases (pages 235-236) and it would have been obvious for one of skill in the art to modify the oligonucleotide of Dreyfuss et al. with a LNA.
Thus in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.
Claims 10 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunderson et al. (US 2015/0099796) and Shuai et al.("The U1 spliceosomal RNA is recurrently mutated in multiple cancers." Nature 574.7780 (2019): 712-716) and Suzuki et al. ("Recurrent noncoding U1 snRNA mutations drive cryptic splicing in SHH medulloblastoma." Nature 574.7780 (2019): 707-711).
Gunderson et al. is relied upon as above. Gunderson et al. further teach the use of the single-stranded oligonucleotide targeted to U1 snRNA for treatment of cancer (see 0137-0139). Gunderson et al. do not teach targeting a mutant U1 snRNA.
Regarding claims 10 and 31, Shuai et al. identified 277 somatic mutations in U1 snRNA genes that affected 240 donors, across 30 tumor types (see page 712) and suggest these mutant U1 snRNA can be targeted for treatment (page 716).
Suzuki et al. teach mutant U1 snRNA have been found to occur in subjects with medulloblastoma in the splice recognition sequence (see page 707). A U1 snRNA r.3A>G mutation is the most common single-nucleotide variant in medulloblastoma and patients with a U1 snRNA r.3A>G mutation are an extremely high-risk population, who should be prioritized for the development of targeted therapies.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the methods of Gunderson et al. to target a mutant U1 snRNA for treatment of cancers given mutant U1 snRNA have been identified as correlating with many different types of cancers and Suzuki et al. who teach high risk cancers should be prioritized for development of targeted therapies. It would have been obvious to try using antisense oligonucleotides targeted to mutant U1 snRNA given Gunderson et al. demonstrating using such oligonucleotides targeted to a U1 snRNA that resulted in tumor suppression (see 0246-2056). Furthermore, KSR states an obvious to try rationale may be proper when the possible options for solving a problem are known, finite, and predictable, with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Also, see MPEP § 2143.
Thus in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Written Description
Claims 1-4, 8, 10, 13, 14, 21-24, 26, 28, 29, 31, 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The 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, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The MPEP states that the purpose of the written description requirement is to ensure that the inventor had possession, as of the filing date of the application, of the specific subject matter later claimed by him. The courts have stated:
To fulfill the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe an invention and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that "the inventor invented the claimed invention." Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Gostelli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("[T]he description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed."). Thus an applicant complies with the written description requirement "by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious" and by using "such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that set forth the claimed invention." Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966; Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 43 USPQ2d 1398.
The fundamental factual inquiry is whether the specification conveys with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, applicant was in possession of the invention as now claimed. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, Inc., 935 F.2d at 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d at 1117.
The MPEP lists factors that can be used to determine if sufficient evidence of possession has been furnished in the disclosure of the application. These include: (1) Actual reduction to practice, (2) Disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas, (3) Sufficient relevant identifying characteristics (such as: i. Complete structure, ii. Partial Structure, iii. Physical and/or chemical properties, iv. Functional characteristics when coupled with a known or disclosed structure, and v. Correlation between function and structure), (4) Method of making the claimed invention, (5) Level of skill and knowledge in the art, and (6) Predictability in the art.
Moreover, the written description requirement for a genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by “…disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between functional and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus.” Thus when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus.
The claims are drawn to a genus of single-stranded oligonucleotides between 5 and 40 nucleotides, comprises any conjugated protein wherein the single-stranded oligonucleotide inhibits the binding of U1 snRNA to any target RNA or any mutant U1 snRNA, wherein the conjugated protein alters the target RNA and wherein the binding mediates the degradation of a nucleotide, inhibits binding of the U1 snRNA to a target RNA and modulates binding of the U1 snRNA to a target RNA.
The specification describes 74 different single-stranded oligonucleotides from 13-18 nucleotides (Table 1) targeted to a mutant U1 snRNA wherein several were tested for U1 snRNAs ability to modulate expression of three target RNAs with the result of reduced cell proliferation in MFE319 and JHH7 cell lines (mutant U1 snRNA cell lines).
Whether the written description requirement is met for genus claims, it is first determined whether a representative number of species have been described by their complete structure. In the instant case, single-stranded oligonucleotides, 13-18 nucleotides in length, were the only single-stranded oligonucleotides described that were capable of binding to a mutant U1 snRNA and decrease cell proliferation in 2 types of mutant cell lines in vitro. The specification does not describe the large number of oligonucleotide sizes with various modifications and oligonucleotides conjugated to any protein with the claimed function. The specification and claims do not indicate what distinguishing characteristics of the single-stranded oligonucleotides described that are concisely shared by the members of the broad genus of single-stranded oligonucleotides that would convey to one of skill in the art that these single-stranded oligonucleotides represent the entire genus. A review of the specification shows that it provides no description or guidance that would allow one of skill to distinguish the functional species of the recited structural genus from the non-functional members without empirical determination.
It is then determined whether a representative number of species have been sufficiently described by other relevant identifying characteristics (i.e. other than a nucleotide sequence), specific features and functional attributes that would distinguish different members of the claimed genera. In the instant case, the only other identifying characteristics is single-stranded oligonucleotides, 13-18 nucleotides in length, targeted to mutant U1 snRNAs that had the ability to modulate expression of three target RNAs with the result of reduced cell proliferation in MFE319 and JHH7 cell lines (mutant U1 snRNA cell lines). Such functional limitation cannot be the identifying characteristics for the claimed diverse genus of single-stranded oligonucleotides. The claims require that the single-stranded oligonucleotide, having 5-40 nucleotides, be conjugated to any protein that alters any target RNA, that binding of the single-stranded oligonucleotide, having 5-40 nucleotides, to the U1 snRNA inhibits binding of the U1 snRNA to any target RNA or binding of the single-stranded oligonucleotide, having 5-40 nucleotides, mediates the degradation of any nucleotide.
Regarding the alteration of a target RNA with a conjugated protein, Boriack-Sjodin et al. ("RNA-modifying proteins as anticancer drug targets." Nature reviews Drug discovery 17.6 (2018): 435-453) teach more than 100 distinct modifications to the 4 nucleoside constituents of RNA (adenosine (A), guanosine (G), cytidine (C) and uridine (U)) have been identified by biologists20, with more than 60 of these being found among eukaryotic organisms (see FIG. 1 for some examples). These modifications range from changes in base ring structures (such as uridine to pseudouridine and adenosine to inosine) to the appending of small chemical groups (for example, methyl) to the base or ribose atoms, and they are found in multiple RNA classes, such as tRNA, mRNA and non-coding RNA (ncRNA). The specification does not describe a single-stranded oligonucleotide conjugated to any protein that is capable of modulation of a target RNA, particularly given the vast number of modifications known to occur in the prior art.
Since the disclosure and the prior art fail to describe the common attributes and characteristics concisely identifying members of the proposed genus, and because the claimed genus is highly variant comprising a vast number of differently sized oligonucleotides with or with a conjugated protein, one of skill in the art would reasonably conclude that the disclosure fails to provide a representative number of species to describe the genus claimed.
"A sufficient description of a genus . . . requires the disclosure of either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can "visualize or recognize" the members of the genus" (AbbVie, 759 F.3d at 1297, reiterating Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568-69) (emphasis added).
Further, “Possession may not be shown by merely describing how to obtain possession of members of the claimed genus or how to identify their common structural features.” Ex parte Kubin, 83 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007) citing University of Rochester, 358 F.3d at 927, 69 USPQ2d at 1895. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 19USPQ2d 1111, clearly states 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).
The MPEP further states that if a biomolecule is described only by a functional characteristic, without any disclosed correlation between function and structure of the sequence, it is “not sufficient characteristic for written description purposes, even when accompanied by a method of obtaining the claimed sequence.” MPEP 2163. The MPEP does state that for generic claim the genus can be adequately described if the disclosure presents a sufficient number of representative species that encompass the genus. MPEP 2163. If the genus has a substantial variance, the disclosure must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within that genus. See MPEP 2163. Although the MPEP does not define what constitute a sufficient number of representative, the Courts have indicated what do not constitute a representative number species to adequately describe a broad generic. In Gosteli, the Court determined that the disclosure of two chemical compounds within a subgenus did not describe that subgenus. In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d at 1012, 10 USPQ2d at 1618.
Thus the specification and claims lack written description because it is clear that Applicant did not have possession of every single stranded oligonucleotide wherein the single-stranded oligonucleotide inhibits the binding of U1 snRNA to any target RNA, wherein the conjugated protein alters the target RNA and wherein the binding mediates the degradation of a nucleotide, inhibits binding of the U1 snRNA to a target RNA and modulates binding of the U1 snRNA to a target RNA
The description requirement of the patent statute requires a description of an invention, not an indication of a result that one might achieve if one made that invention. See In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516, 1521,222 USPQ 369,372-372 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (affirming rejection because the specification does "little more than outlin[e] goals appellants hope the claimed invention achieves and the problems the invention will hopefully ameliorate."). Accordingly, it is deemed that the specification fails to provide adequate written description for the genus of the claims and does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the entire scope of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kimberly Chong at (571)272-3111. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday between M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful please contact the SPE for 1636 Neil Hammell at 571-272-5919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Patent applicants with problems or questions regarding electronic images that can be viewed in the Patent Application Information Retrieval system (PAIR) can now contact the USPTO’s Patent Electronic Business Center (Patent EBC) for assistance. Representatives are available to answer your questions daily from 6 am to midnight (EST). The toll free number is (866) 217-9197. When calling please have your application serial or patent number, the type of document you are having an image problem with, the number of pages and the specific nature of the problem. The Patent Electronic Business Center will notify applicants of the resolution of the problem within 5-7 business days. Applicants can also check PAIR to confirm that the problem has been corrected. The USPTO’s Patent Electronic Business Center is a complete service center supporting all patent business on the Internet. The USPTO’s PAIR system provides Internet-based access to patent application status and history information. It also enables applicants to view the scanned images of their own application file folder(s) as well as general patent information available to the public. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov.
For all other customer support, please call the USPTO Call Center (UCC) at 800-786-9199.
/KIMBERLY CHONG/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 1636