DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Status and Formal Matters
This action is in response to papers filed 4/17/2026.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8-9, 12, 14-17 are pending.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8, 14-17 have been amended.
Applicant’s election of group I, TIMD4, Spp1, CD68 in the reply filed on 8/12/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 8-9, 11-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/14/2025.
Claims 1-2, 6 are being examined.
The objection to the claims has been withdrawn in view of the amendment to eliminate the reference to color in the specification.
The objection to the claims has been withdrawn in view of the amendment to provide the full terminology of the claims.
Priority
The application was filed 01/31/2023 and is a national stage entry of PCT/SG2021/050458 with an international filing date: 08/04/2021, which claims foreign priority to SG10202007446W, filed 08/04/2020.
Improper Markush Group
Claims 1-2, 6 are rejected under the judicially approved ‘‘improper Markush grouping’’ doctrine. (See Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 27, Wednesday, February 9, 2011, page 7166). This rejection is appropriate when the claim contains an improper grouping of alternatively useable species. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 719–20 (CCPA 1980). A Markush claim contains an ‘‘improper Markush grouping’’ if: (1) the species of the Markush group do not share a ‘‘single structural similarity,’’ or (2) the species do not share a common use. Members of a Markush group share a ‘‘single structural similarity’’ when they belong to the same recognized physical or chemical class or to the same art-recognized class. However, when the Markush group occurs in a claim reciting a process or a combination (not a single compound), it is sufficient if the members of the group are disclosed in the specification to possess at least one property in common which is mainly responsible for their function in the claimed relationship, and it is clear from their very nature or from the prior art that all of them possess this property. See MPEP § 803.02.
Here each species is considered to be genes which characterizes the macrophage as being an embryonic-derived macrophage, a long-lived tissue resident macrophage, and/or a monocyte-derived macrophage
The recited alternative species in the groups set forth here do not share a single structural similarity, as each method relies on detection of different gene. Each gene that could be detected is itself located in a separate region of the genome and has its own structure. The nature of genes is that they are expressed differently in different cells. The biomarkers recited in the instant claims, and the methods which detect them, do not share a single structural similarity since each consists of a different nucleotide sequences that occurs at a different location on human genome. The only structural similarity present is that all detected genes are part of nucleic acid molecules. The fact that the markers comprise nucleotides per se does not support a conclusion that they have a common single structural similarity because the structure of comprising a nucleotide alone is not essential to the common activity of being correlated characterizes the macrophage as being an embryonic-derived macrophage, a long-lived tissue resident macrophage, and/or a monocyte-derived macrophage. The association between the claimed genes is not considered as ‘property’ as the association is a statistical construct, it is a conclusion based on analysis of a specific population and may not be present in subject outside of the population assayed. Further there is no evidence the association was known in the prior art. While the instant specification asserts genes. have a common function of being correlated with the asserted phenotype, the association between the claimed gene is not clear from their very nature. If the instantly claimed genes are placed in a group with an equal number of genes the skilled artisan could not differentiate those associated with a phenotype from those that are not associated with a phenotype. Thus the one of skill in the art could not identify those genes that are asserted to be associated with the phenotype by their very nature. Thus the instant claims have not met the requirements of a proper Markush group.
Following this analysis, the claims are rejected as containing an improper Markush grouping.
Response to Arguments
The response traverses the rejection asserting, “Amended claim 1 and its dependent claims include a proper Markush grouping i.e., the biomarkers that identify each macrophage subpopulation share a common function with differential expression of the biomarkers identifying / characterizing the specific macrophage populations.” This argument has been thoroughly reviewed but is not considered persuasive as the biomarkers do not share a single structural similarity, as each method relies on detection of different gene. Further, it is not clear from their very nature or from the prior art that all of Markus group possess this property. Thus the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2 and 6 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 previously recited, “wherein the method characterises the macrophage as being an embryonic-derived macrophage, a long-lived tissue resident macrophage, and/or a monocyte-derived macrophage.” The claim has been amended to recite, “wherein macrophage populations in the tissue comprise
Response to Arguments
This is a new ground of rejection necessitated by amendment.
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 1-2, 6 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it lacks a positive active step relating back to the preamble. The preamble recites a method of characterizing macrophage populations in a tissue of a subject, however the last positive active step is drawn to determining an expression of two or more biomarkers in the macrophage, wherein the one or more biomarkers. Therefore it is unclear as to whether the method is drawn to characterizing macrophage population in a tissue of a subject or determining an expression of one or more biomarkers in the macrophage, wherein the one or more biomarkers.
macrophage populations in the tissue comprise as being an embryonic-derived macrophage population, a long-lived tissue resident macrophage population, and[[/or]] a monocyte-derived macrophage population.
Claim 1 previously recited, “wherein the method characterises the macrophage as being an embryonic-derived macrophage, a long-lived tissue resident macrophage, and/or a monocyte-derived macrophage.” The claim has been amended to recite, “wherein macrophage populations in the tissue comprisemacrophage or is defining the starting macrophage as being an embryonic-derived macrophage, a long-lived tissue resident macrophage, and/or a monocyte-derived macrophage. Thus one of skill in the art is not adequately apprised of the breadth of the claim so as to avoid infringement.
Response to Arguments
The response traverses the rejection asserting, “Amended claim 1 recites where the macrophage populations are determined to express two or more of the defined list of biomarkers, the macrophage population is characterized / identified as either an embryonic-derived macrophage population, a long-lived tissue resident macrophage population or a monocyte-derived macrophage population. “ This argument has been thoroughly reviewed but is not considered persuasive as the claim merely requires detecting and determining expression of two biomarkers which does not specifically characterize macrophage populations. Thus the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a natural correlation and mental step without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract idea or mental step of det3ermining gene expression which broadly encompasses examining data from a microarray or whole exosome sequencing experience.. Further the claim has been amended to recite, “the method characterises the macrophage as being an embryonic-derived macrophage, a long-lived tissue resident macrophage, and/or a monocyte-derived macrophage “ which is a natural law or correlation. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because if there is no additional steps depend from or otherwise integrate the judicial exception. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims require no specific reagents.
Claim analysis
The instant claim 1 is directed towards a method of characterizing macrophage populations in a tissue of a subject, the method comprising: detecting and determining an expression of two or more biomarkers in the macrophage populations, wherein the two[[one]] or more biomarkers are selected from the group consisting of folate receptor beta (Folr2), serine (or cysteine) peptidase inhibitor clade A, member 31 (Serpina3i},Nidogen 2 (Nid2),solute carrier family 27 member 6 (Slc27a6), semaphorin 6A (Sema6a),Cadherin 13 (Cdh13}, B-cell CLL/lymphoma 6, member B (Bcl6b), Complement component 6 (C6}, Kruppel-like factor 15 Klfl5), macrophage receptor with collagenous structure (Marco}, CD209 antigen-like protein D (Cd209d), Teashirt zinc finger homeobox 3 (Tshz3}, Bone morphogenetic protein receptor type 1A (Bmprla), Talin 2 (Tln2),Coronin 2B (Coro2b}, Atypical chemokine receptor 2 (Ackr2), RIKEN cDNA 1110046J04 gene(1110046JO4Rik), protocadherin alpha subfamily C, 2 (Pcdhac2), predicted gene 2253(Gm2253), V-set and immunoglobulin domain containing 4 (Vsig4), phosphatase and actin regulator 1 (Phactr1), natriuretic peptide receptor 1 (NprI}, Copine VIII (Cpne8}, angiopoietin-like 7 (Angptl7), predicted gene 26714 (Gm26714), autism susceptibility candidate 2 (Auts2), C-X-C motif chemokine ligand 13 (Cxc113), sargoglycan epsilon(Sgce), RIKEN cDNA 290052N01 gene (2900052NO1Rik), CD209 antigen-like protein B (Cd209b), T-cell immunoglobulin and mucin domain containing 4 (Timd4), CD209 antigen-like protein G (Cd209g), mannose receptor C-type 1 (Mrcl (CD206)), secreted phosphoprotein 1 (osteopontin)(Spp l), interleukin 22 receptor subunit alpha 2 (Il22ra2), predicted gene 24112 (Gm24112),predicted gene 23010 (Gm23010), immunoglobulin heavy variable 7-1 (Ighv7-1),predicted gene 23628 (Gm23628),predicted gene 24620(Gm24620), predicted gene 23058 (Gm23058), Rho guanine nucleotide exchange factor 37 (Arhgef37), glutamate decarboxylase 1, pseudogene (Gadl-ps), predicted gene 26397 (Gm26397), immunoglobulin heavy variable 2-5 (Ighv2-5), chitinase-like 3 (Chil3),microRNA 1934 (Mir1934), RIKEN cDNA 1810012K08 gene (1810012K08Rik},immunoglobulin heavy variable 1-59 (Ighv1-59),predicted gene 14119 (Gm14119), predicted gene 19620 (Gm19620} and small nucleolar RNA, C/D box 71 (Snord71},wherein the populations in the tissue comprisepopulation, a long-lived tissue resident macrophage population, and a monocyte-derived macrophage population, wherein where the macrophage population is determined to express two or more of Folr2, Serpina3i, Nid2, Slc27a6, Sema6a, Cdh13, Bcl6b, C6, Klfl5, Mrcl (CD206), Marco, Cd209d, Tshz3, Bmprla, Tln2, Coro2b, Ackr2, 1110046J04Rik, Pcdhac2, Gm2253, Vsig4, Phactr1, Nprl, Cpne8, Angptl7, Gm26714, Auts2, Cxcll3, Sgce, 2900052N01Rik, Cd209b, Timd4 and Cd209g, the macrophage population is characterized /identified as an embryonic-derived macrophage population and/or a long- lived tissue resident macrophage population, and wherein where the macrophage population is determined to express two or more of Sppl, I122ra2, Gm24112, Gm23010, Ighv7-1, Gm23628, Gm24620, Gm23058, Arhgef37, Gadl-ps, Gm26397, Ighv2-5, Chil3, Mir1934, 1810012K08Rik, Ighvl-59, Gml4119, Gm19620 and Snord7l, the macrophage population is characterized / identified as a monocyte-derived macrophage population... The correlation in the wherein clauses in a natural correlation or phenomena. The determining step broadly encompasses reading a report from microarray experiment or whole exosome sequencing and thus could be considered a mental step or abstract idea.
The determining expression of a biomarker as indicated above can be considered a mental step. Alternatively if can be considered an active step.
Dependent claims set forth further limitations to selecting cells, how to characterize cells and gene expression..
According to the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance an initial two step analysis is required for determining statutory eligibility.
Step 1. Is the claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? In the instant case the Step 1 requirement is satisfied as the claims are directed towards a process.
Step 2A Prong one. Does the claim recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, abstract idea and law of nature or natural phenomena.
With regards to claim 1, the claim recites, “determining an expression of one or more biomarkers in the macrophage,.” The determining step broadly encompasses reading a report from microarray experiment or whole exosome sequencing and thus could be considered a mental step or abstract idea).
Further claim 1 recites, “wherein the populations in the tissue comprisepopulation, a long-lived tissue resident macrophage population, and a monocyte-derived macrophage population, wherein where the macrophage population is determined to express two or more of Folr2, Serpina3i, Nid2, Slc27a6, Sema6a, Cdh13, Bcl6b, C6, Klfl5, Mrcl (CD206), Marco, Cd209d, Tshz3, Bmprla, Tln2, Coro2b, Ackr2, 1110046J04Rik, Pcdhac2, Gm2253, Vsig4, Phactr1, Nprl, Cpne8, Angptl7, Gm26714, Auts2, Cxcll3, Sgce, 2900052N01Rik, Cd209b, Timd4 and Cd209g, the macrophage population is characterized /identified as an embryonic-derived macrophage population and/or a long- lived tissue resident macrophage population, and wherein where the macrophage population is determined to express two or more of Sppl, I122ra2, Gm24112, Gm23010, Ighv7-1, Gm23628, Gm24620, Gm23058, Arhgef37, Gadl-ps, Gm26397, Ighv2-5, Chil3, Mir1934, 1810012K08Rik, Ighvl-59, Gml4119, Gm19620 and Snord7l, the macrophage population is characterized / identified as a monocyte-derived macrophage population.” This is a natural correlation.
Step 2A prong two. Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? The answer is no as the claims provide no steps which depend from or otherwise integrate the judicial exception. .
Step 2B. Does the claim recite additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exceptions? No, as the only active step is detecting and determining expression of the recited biomarkers. This does not provide or require any specific reagents and encompasses the lack of expression of the recited genes.
With regards to claim 1 recites detecting and determining biomarker expression. The determining biomarker expression broadly encompasses reading a report. If the determining gene expression is considered an active step, it is routine and conventional in view of the teachings of Dick (Nature Immunology | VOL 20 | JANUARY 2019 | 29–39), Mass (Science mag (2016) volume 353, pages 1114) and Liu (CELL, vol. 178, no. 6, 5 September 2019)
Thus the claim does not provide additional steps which are significantly more.
Response to Arguments
The response traverses the rejection asserting, “In other words, the present application provides a method of characterizing macrophage populations, i.e., characterize/identify macrophage populations into a monocyte-derived macrophage population, an embryonic-derived macrophage population and/or a long-lived tissue resident macrophage population based on the expression of the two or more of the of biomarkers recited in the amended claim.” This argument has been thoroughly reviewed but is not considered persuasive as the “alleged” characterizing is at best a mental step and does not provide for integration or significantly more than the judicial exception.
The response continues by arguing the teachings of Dick. This argument has been thoroughly reviewed but is not considered persuasive as Dick, Liu and Mass are provided to demonstrate the single active step of detecting is routine and conventional. Further the arguments with respect to Dick are relative to the wherein clause which provides intended outcome, but does not specifically limit the single active step of the claims. Thus this argument is not persuasive.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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) 1-7 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dick (Nature Immunology | VOL 20 | JANUARY 2019 | 29–39).
As noted in the MPEP 2111.02, “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.” Further, a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Accordingly, the claim language of "a method of characterising a macrophage in a tissue of a subject” merely sets forth the intended use or purpose of the claimed methods, but does not limit the scope of the claims.
MPEP 2111 states: Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are:
(A) “adapted to” or “adapted for” clauses;
(B) “wherein” clauses; and
(C) “whereby” clauses.
The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 283 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a “wherein” clause limited a process claim where the clause gave “meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps”). In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court held that when a “‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.” Id. However, the court noted (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)) that a “‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’” Id.
Thus the broadest reasonable interpretation is the claims require detection and determining expression of the recited biomarkers, as the wherein clauses of claims 1-2 and 6 do not provide any limitations which limit the active steps of the claims.
With regards to claim 1, Dick teaches isolation of macrophages were isolated and gene expression was determined (methods (tissue isolation and transcriptional array). Dick teaches, “Recruited macrophages did not express TIMD4, highlighting the ability of TIMD4 to track a subset of resident macrophages in the absence of fate mapping” (abstract). Dick teaches, “After myocardial infarction, the phosphatidylserine receptor TIMD4 and CCR2 emerged as mutually exclusive markers of resident macrophages and recruited macrophages, respectively. Resident macrophage abundance within the infarct zone was markedly reduced after infarction and slowly increased through in situ proliferation. Depletion of diphtheria toxin receptor–labeled resident (Cx3cr1-expressing) macrophages promoted adverse cardiac remodeling primarily in the peri-infarct zone, a vulnerable region surrounding infarct tissue” (page 31, 1st column top).Dick teaches. “Genes associated with mature macrophages (Lyve1, Timd4, Retnla, Cd163, Folr2 and Klf2) were downregulated, whereas genes associated with monocytes (Ms4a7 and Spp1) were upregulated in post-infarction macrophages, compared to noninfarcted control macrophages (Fig. 5f). “ (page 35, 2nd column 1st full paragraph). Dick teaches detection of CD209
Thus Dick teaches detecting and determining expression of Timd4 and Folr2 in macrophages and thus anticipates the active steps of the claims.
With regards to claim 2, Dick teaches, “We partitioned resident macrophages into CD68+LYVE1+Td+ and CD68+LYVE1– Td+ macrophages in the cardiac tissue sections” ((page 35, 1st column 1st full paragraph)
With regards to claim 6, Dick teaches detecting and determining expression of Timd4.
Response to Arguments
The response traverses the rejection asserting, “As noted above in the 35 USC 101 section, Dick only discloses Timd4 as a marker for a subset of resident cardiac macrophage; and Spp1 in Dick in monocytes. Dick does not characterize / identify macrophage populations into the three macrophage subpopulations of the present application with the two or more biomarkers of the present claim. None of the cited documents teach a method of characterizing / identifying the three macrophage subpopulations based on the expression of two or more of the defined panel of biomarkers recited in the amended claim. As shown in the present application, the inventors of the present disclosure have found a method of characterizing macrophage populations into three sub-populations of macrophages. The figures presented in the present application clearly show the correlations and implications in diseases such as cancer and inflammation. Further, the inventors' findings were validated by single-cell RNA seq dataset that allows the screening of a selected panels of about 400 genes in thousands of cells and several samples from distinct tumours context. Based on tissue residency and/or ontogeny, macrophage populations have different functions that impact cancer growth. The ability to characterise macrophage populations into three sub-populations is therefore clearly advantageous as it has significant impact on therapy design. As such, the method of the present application that allows for the characterisation of the macrophage subpopulations can become a useful tool that allows for the generation of relevant data for diagnosing diseases quickly. In contrast, none of the cited documents teaches or suggests the possibility of dividing macrophages into three distinct sub-populations of an embryonic-derived macrophage, a long- lived tissue resident macrophage, or a monocyte-derived macrophage, with the biomarkers recited. Without the hints of the possibility of characterising macrophages into the three sub- populations according to the markers as claimed, a person skilled in the art readig the cited documents would not have been able to arrive at the methods as claimed. For at least the reasons and amendments presented herein, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection are respectfully requested.” This argument has been thoroughly reviewed but is not considered persuasive as the response is arguing limitation where at wherein clauses which do not specifically limit the active steps of the claims. Further the wherein clause set forth the intended outcome of the steps, but does not alter how the active steps are performed. Thus these arguments are not persuasive.
Summary
No claims are allowed.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN C POHNERT PhD whose telephone number is (571)272-3803. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday about 6:00 AM-5:00 PM, every second Friday off.
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, Anne Gussow can be reached at (571)272-6047. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Steven Pohnert/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1683
Prosecution Insights