DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s response to the office action filed on May 15, 2026 has been entered. The claims pending in this application are claims 1, 2, 4-9, 12-14, 16, 19, 22, 25-27, 33, 37, 38, 45-47, and 56-62 wherein claim 16 has been withdrawn due to the restriction requirement mailed on August 13, 2025. The objections and rejection not reiterated from the previous office action are hereby withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment filed on May 15, 2026.
Election/Restrictions
In view of newly added claims 58-62, this application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
(9) the molecule capable of changing the barcode elements switches one or more barcode elements to an undetectable state from a detectable state (claim 58)
(10) the molecule capable of changing the barcode elements switches one or more barcode elements to a detectable state from an undetectable state (claim 59)
The species are independent or distinct because these species are directed to different
molecules capable of changing the barcode elements which have different properties. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, generic claims are 1, 2, 4-9, 12-14, 16, 19, 22, 25-27, 33, 37, 38, 45-47, 56, 57, and 60-62.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because the searches for species (9) and (10) are not overlap.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
This application further contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
(11) the cellular components are mapped to cell surfaces (claim 60)
(12) the cellular components are mapped to synapses (claims 60 and 61)
(13) the cellular components are mapped to organelles (claim 60)
(14) the cellular components are mapped to secreted components (claim 60)
The species are independent or distinct because these species are directed to different
cellular components which have different properties. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, generic claims are 1, 2, 4-9, 12-14, 16, 19, 22, 25-27, 33, 37, 38, 45-47, 56-59, and 62.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because the searches for species (11) and (14) are not overlap.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with Dr. Raj Pai (Reg. No. 77,792) on July 21, 2026, a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute species (10), the molecule capable of changing the barcode elements switches one or more barcode elements to a detectable state from an undetectable state in claim 59, and species (14), the cellular components are mapped to secreted components in claim 60. Affirmation of these elections must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 58 and 61 have been withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 12-14, 19, 22, 25-27, 33, 37, 38, 45-47, 56, 57, 59, 60, and 62 will be examined.
Drawings
New Figures 1, 4-6, and 11 filed on May 15, 2026 have been accepted and entered.
Specification
The substituted specification filed on May 15, 2026 have been accepted and entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 or 12 or 13 is objected to because of the following informality: “the recognition sequences” should be “the barcode recognition sequences” in view of claim 6.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informality: “each error correction element” should be “each of the error correction elements”.
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informality: “a barcode set” should be “one of the one or more orthogonal barcode sets”.
Claim 45 is objected to because of the following informality: “the barcode” should be “the barcodes”.
Claim 47 is objected to because of the following informality: “one or more barcode” should be “one or more of the barcodes”.
Claim 56 is objected to because of the following informality: “said detecting each of the barcodes” should be “said detecting the barcodes and their locations in the one or more cells” in view of step (iv) of claim 1.
Claim 59 is objected to because of the following informality: “one or more barcode elements” should be “one or more of the barcode elements”.
Claim 60 is objected to because of the following informality: “secreted components” should be “the secreted cellular components”.
Claim 62 is objected to because of the following informality: “each of the barcodes comprises a unique combination of barcode elements” should be “each of the barcodes is unique”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
New Matter
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 12-14, 19, 22, 25-27, 33, 37, 38, 45-47, 56, 57, 59, 60, and 62 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 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.
A limitation “each of the barcode elements is covalently linked to one of the cellular components” is added to amended independent claim 1 while a limitation “the nucleic acids encoding elements of barcodes are inherited by one or more progeny cells” is added to amended dependent claim 57. Although the specification describes that barcode molecules are attached to cell surface or cytoplasmic components of the cell and “[I]n some embodiments, each barcoded cellular component of any of the previous embodiments, can be inherited through progeny cells. In certain embodiments, each edited barcoded cellular component of any of the previous embodiment can be inherited through progeny cells” (see paragraphs [0075], [0126] and [0127] of US 2023/0332214 A1, which is US application of this instant application), paragraphs [0024] and [0025], Figure 10, and Examples 1-5 of the specification suggested by applicant do not describe such limitations recited in claims 1 and 57 since the specification only describes that each of barcoded cellular components is inherited through progeny cells and does not describe that barcode molecules are covalently attached to cell surface or cytoplasmic components of the cell.
MPEP 2163.06 notes “If new matter is added to the claims, the examiner should reject the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph - written description requirement. In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981).” MPEP 2163.02 teaches that “Whenever the issue arises, the fundamental factual inquiry is whether a claim defines an invention that is clearly conveyed to those skilled in the art at the time the application was filed...If a claim is amended to include subject matter, limitations, or terminology not present in the application as filed, involving a departure from, addition to, or deletion from the disclosure of the application as filed, the examiner should conclude that the claimed subject matter is not described in that application.” MPEP 2163.06 further notes “When an amendment is filed in reply to an objection or rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, a study of the entire application is often necessary to determine whether or not “new matter” is involved. Applicant should therefore specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure” (emphasis added).
Scope of Enablement
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 12-14, 19, 22, 25-27, 33, 37, 38, 45-47, 56, 57, 59, 60, and 62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for providing one or more cells and providing one or more nucleic acids encoding elements of barcodes, does not reasonably provide enablement for mapping spatial distribution of one or more cellular components using the methods recited in claims 1, 2, 4-9, 12-14, 19, 22, 25-27, 33, 37, 38, 45-47, 56, 57, 59, 60, and 62. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Factors to be considered in determining whether a disclosure meets the enablement requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph, have been described by the court in In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (CA FC 1988). Wands states at page 1404,
“Factors to be considered in determining whether a disclosure would require undue experimentation have been summarized by the board in Ex parte Forman. 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.”
The Nature of The Invention
The claims are drawn to a method for mapping spatial distributions of one or more cellular components. The invention is a class of invention which the CAFC has characterized as “the unpredictable arts such as chemistry and biology.” Mycogen Plant Sci., Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 243 F.3d 1316, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
The Breadth of The Claims
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 12-14, 19, 22, 25-27, 33, 37, 38, 45-47, 56, 57, 59, 60, and 62 encompass a method for mapping spatial distributions of one or more cellular components comprising: (i) providing one or more cells; (ii) providing one or more nucleic acids encoding elements of barcodes, wherein upon expression and translation of the nucleic acids, each of the barcode elements is covalently linked to one of the cellular components, and wherein each of the barcodes comprises a combination of barcode elements, and wherein each of the barcodes identifies one of the cellular components in or near the one or more cells, and wherein each of the barcodes is transported with the one of the cellular components; (iii) localizing the barcodes to sites of the cellular components component; (iv) detecting the barcodes and their locations in the one or more cells by contacting probes to the barcode elements in the barcodes; and (v) recording one or more locations of each barcode the barcodes to map the spatial distributions of the one or more cellular components.
Working Examples
The specification provides 12 examples (see paragraphs [0109] to [0176] and Figures 1-12 of US 2023/0332214 A1, which is US publication of this instant case). However, the specification provides no working example for mapping spatial distributions of one or more cellular components using the methods recited in claims 1, 2, 4-9, 12-14, 19, 22, 25-27, 33, 37, 38, 45-47, 56, 57, 59, 60, and 62.
The Amount of Direction or Guidance Provided and The State of The Prior Art
The specification provides 12 examples (see paragraphs [0109] to [0176] and Figures 1-12 of US 2023/0332214 A1, which is US publication of this instant case). However, the specification provides no working example for mapping spatial distributions of one or more cellular components using the methods recited in claims 1, 2, 4-9, 12-14, 19, 22, 25-27, 33, 37, 38, 45-47, 56, 57, 59, 60, and 62. Furthermore, there is no experimental condition and/or experimental data in the specification to support the claimed invention. During the process of the prior art search, the office has found a prior art related to map spatial distributions of one or more cellular components using the methods recited in 1, 2, 4-9, 12-14, 19, 22, 25-27, 33, 37, 38, 45-47, 56, 57, 59, 60, and 62.
Level of Skill in The Art, The Unpredictability of The Art, and The Quantity of Experimentation Necessary
While the relative skill in the art is very high (the Ph.D. degree with laboratory experience), there is no predictability whether spatial distributions of one or more cellular components can be mapped using the methods recited in 1, 2, 4-9, 12-14, 19, 22, 25-27, 33, 37, 38, 45-47, 56, 57, 59, 60, and 62.
First, since the specification teaches that “[T]his example, as illustrated in FIG. 1, provides an exemplary process of mapping the spatial distributions of cellular components”, “[I]n 1, a barcode and a barcode changing molecule are introduced into a cell. The barcode is operably linked to a cellular component. The barcode and barcode changing molecule can be operably transcribed within the nucleus of the cell. Alternatively, the barcode and barcode changing molecule can be operably translated with the cytoplasm of the cell”, “[I]n 2, the barcode changing molecule makes changes to the barcode to produce an edited barcode”, “[I]n 3, the changed barcode is translated to produce a protein barcode linked to a cellular component, in this case a target protein”, “[I]n 4, the barcode linked to the cellular component is transported to a target region, which may include a cell surface receptor, synapse, organelle, or part of a secreted cellular component. The cellular component integrates into the cell as a cell surface receptor, synapse, organelle, or part of a secreted component”, “[I]n 5, the spatial distribution of the barcodes are mapped using fluorophores and sequential imaging. The mapping may utilize antibodies capable of binding oligonucleotides that bind a probe. The use of seqFISH and multiple rounds of hybridization uniquely maps each barcode linked to a cellular component accurately”, “[T]his example, as illustrated in FIG. 4, provides an exemplary designs of barcode molecules for the use of analysing cell contacts, protein secretion, organelle transport, and neuronal connectivity”, “(A) illustrates s an exemplary embodiment, illustrating barcode molecules attached to cell surface or cytoplasmic components of the cell, that can be used to measure transport through cell-cell contacts or cell junctions to neighboring cells”, “(B) illustrates exemplary embodiments, illustrating barcode molecules attached to cell surface or cytoplasmic components of the cell, that can be used to measure transport through transient cell-cell contacts or cell junctions (1) to neighborig cells also when the interaction is no longer present (2)”, “(C) illustrates exemplary embodiments, illustrating barcodes attached to secretory cell components that can be used to measure secretion from cells to the extracellular space and uptake by other cells”, “(D) illustrates exemplary embodiments, illustrating the barcodes localized to organelles in a cell that can be used to measure the transport of organelles to other cells in a cell population”, and “(E) illustrates exemplary embodiments, illustrating two distinct barcodes localized at the pre- and postsynaptic compartment of two neurons, that can be used to map neuronal connectivity” (see Examples 1 and 4, and Figures 1 and 4), the specification clearly indicate that elements of barcodes encoded by nucleic acids are proteins or peptides wherein the nucleic acids are introduced to one or more cells and each of elements of barcodes encoded by the nucleic acids can be transported to cell components inside of the one or more cells and specifically binds to only one of the cell components inside of the one or more cells or each of elements of barcodes can be transported to outside of the one or more cells and specifically binds to only one of cell components on the surfaces of the one or more cells or near the one or more cells. Although claim 1 does not require that nucleic acids are introduced to one or more cells, if the nucleic acids are not introduced to the one or more cells, it is unpredictable how elements of barcodes such as proteins or peptides can be expressed such that each of the elements of barcodes cannot be transported to cell components inside of the one or more cells and cannot specifically bind to only one of the cell components inside of the one or more cells or each of elements of barcodes cannot be transported to outside of the one or more cells and cannot specifically bind to only one of cell components on the surfaces of the one or more cells or near the one or more cells and spatial distributions of one or more cellular components cannot be mapped using the methods recited in 1, 2, 4-9, 12-14, 19, 22, 25, 27, 33, 37, 38, 45-47, 56, 57, 59, 60, and 62. Furthermore, although claim 1 requires that each of the elements of barcode is covalently linked to one of the cellular components, since traditional covalent labeling uses broad chemical reagents which react widely with any accessible amino acid side chain, covalently linking of elements of barcodes to cellular components is non-specific. Since it is known that cellular components “include macromolecules such as proteins and nucleic acids, biomolecular complexes such as a ribosome, and structures such as membranes, and organelles. While the majority of cellular components are located within the cell itself, some may exist in
extracellular areas of an organism” (see “Cellular components” from Wikipedia), eukaryotic organelles include endoplasmic reticulum, Golgi apparatus, and mitochondrion (see pages 3 and 4 of “Organelle” from Wikipedia), and claim 1 does not require that elements of barcodes encoded by nucleic acids are proteins or peptides wherein each of elements of barcodes is transported to cell components inside of one or more cells and specifically binds to only one of the cell components inside of the one or more cells or each of elements of barcodes is transported to outside of one or more cells and specifically binds to only one of cell components on the surfaces of the one or more cells or near the one or more cells, if each of the barcode elements is non-specific covalently linked to one of the cellular components and each of the elements of barcodes is transported to the cell components inside of the one or more cells, each of the elements of barcode can non-specifically linked to different cellular components of the cellular components such that each of the elements of barcode cannot be used to differentiate each of the cellular component located inside of the one or more cells and spatial distributions of one or more cellular components cannot be mapped using the methods recited in 1, 2, 4-9, 12-14, 19, 22, 25-27, 33, 37, 38, 45-47, 56, 57, 59, 60, and 62. In addition, if each of the barcode elements is non-specific covalently linked to one of the cellular components and each of elements of barcodes cannot be transported to outside of one or more cells wherein each of elements are receptors on the surfaces of the one or more cells, each of the elements of barcode can non-specifically linked to different cellular components of the cellular components such that each of the elements of barcode cannot be used to differentiate each of the cellular component located outside of the one or more cells or near the one or more cells and spatial distributions of one or more cellular components cannot be mapped using the methods recited in 1, 2, 4-9, 12-14, 19, 22, 25-27, 33, 37, 38, 45-47, 56, 57, 59, 60, and 62.
Second, since claim 59 does not indicate that the molecule capable of changing the barcode elements is what kind of molecule, if the molecule capable of changing the barcode elements is any kind of molecule capable of changing the barcode elements such as a methylation agent, it is unpredict how the molecule capable of changing the barcode elements such as a methylation agent can switch one or more of the barcode elements to a detectable state such as a state cleaved by a protease from an undetectable state such as a state not cleaved by the protease.
Case law has established that “(t)o be enabling, the specification of a patent must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation’.” In re Wright 990 F.2d 1557, 1561. In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970) it was determined that “[T]he scope of the claims must bear a reasonable correlation to the scope of enablement provided by the specification to persons of ordinary skill in the art”. The amount of guidance needed to enable the invention is related to the amount of knowledge in the art as well as the predictability in the art. Furthermore, the Court in Genentech Inc. v Novo Nordisk 42 USPQ2d 1001 held that “[I]t is the specification, not the knowledge of one skilled in the art that must supply the novel aspects of the invention in order to constitute adequate enablement”.
In view of above discussions, the skilled artisan will have no way to predict the experimental results. Accordingly, it is concluded that undue experimentation is required to make the invention as it is claimed. These undue experimentation at least includes to test whether spatial distributions of one or more cellular components can be mapped using the methods recited in 1, 2, 4-9, 12-14, 19, 22, 25-27, 33, 37, 38, 45-47, 56, 57, 59, 60, and 62.
Conclusion
In the instant case, as discussed above, the level of unpredictability in the art is high, the specification provides one with no guidance that leads one to claimed methods. One of skill in the art cannot readily anticipate the effect of a change within the subject matter to which the claimed invention pertains. Thus given the broad claims in an art whose nature is identified as unpredictable, the unpredictability of that art, the large quantity of research required to define these unpredictable variables, the lack of guidance provided in the specification, the absence of any working example related to claimed invention and the no teaching in the prior art balanced only against the high skill level in the art, it is the position of the examiner that it would require undue experimentation for one of skill in the art to perform the method of the claim as broadly written.
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, 4-9, 12-14, 19, 22, 25-27, 33, 37, 38, 45-47, 56, 57, 59, 60, and 62 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 recites the limitation “the barcode elements” in step (ii) of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no phrase “barcode elements” before “the barcode elements”. Please clarify.
Claim 56 is rejected as vague and indefinite because it is unclear that said detecting each of the barcodes comprises sequential rounds of imaging what. Please clarify.
Claim 59 is rejected as vague and indefinite because it is unclear that the molecule capable of changing the barcode elements can switch one or more of the barcode elements to a detectable state related what from an undetectable state related to what. Please clarify.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 4-9, 12-14, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25-27, 33, 37, 38, 41, 45-47, 56, and 57 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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.
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frank Lu, Ph. D., whose telephone number is (571)272-0746. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM.
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, Ph.D., 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.
/FRANK W LU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1683
August 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights