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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/10/2025 has been entered.
Application Status
This action is written in response to applicant’s correspondence received 11/10/2025. Claims 6 and 12 are cancelled. Claims 1-5, 7-11 and 13-20 are currently pending and are examined herein.
Applicant amended claim 1 to require the limitations of “two or more Cas endonucleases” being introduced directly to bodily fluid sample to bind to the “ends of the” target DNA.
Applicant cancelled claim 6 to overcome a 112(d) rejection for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim from which it depends. The 112(d) rejection of record is withdrawn.
Rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gourguechon (WO2016100955A2; published June 23, 2016; as cited in the 17 page IDS filed on August 9, 2024) as applied to 1-3, 5-10, and 13-20 above, and further in view of Cann (US20160017396A1, published January 21, 2016) is withdrawn because it was added to the previous OA, but claim 11 was already rejected under 102 over Cann (see OA 09/30//2024 and below).
Any rejection or objection not reiterated herein has been overcome by amendment. Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been thoroughly reviewed, but are not persuasive to place the claims in condition for allowance for the reasons that follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 – new necessitated by amendment to claim 1
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.
Claim 3 is 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 3, as amended, recites the limitation “wherein the introduction step comprises binding the two or more Cas endonucleases to the ends of the target nucleic acid” depends from amended claim 1, which now recites “introducing two or more Cas endonucleases directly into the bodily fluid sample to bind to the ends of the target nucleic acid”. There is no step or limitation for the “binding” beyond the “introducing” of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 3 is of improper dependent form because it fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim from which it depends.
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 § 103 – new necessitated by amendment to claim 1
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cann (US20160017396A1, published January 21, 2016, of record). This rejection is modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment to require previously unexamined limitations of “two or more Cas endonucleases” being introduced directly to bodily fluid sample to bind to the “ends of the” target DNA.
Regarding claim 1, Cann teaches a variety of methods for enriching target nucleic acids. The method teaches using CRISPR-Cas systems to form a complex with the target nucleic acids, separating the complex, and thereby enriching the target nucleic acid (see abstract, para 0006, and Example 1). Cann teaches that “a protein” includes a mixture of “two or more proteins” and teaches methods of enriching a target nucleic acid including providing a population of Cas9 proteins programmed with a set of crRNAs (see paras 0020, 0026, 0033, 0052-0057, 0093, 0213, and 0234). Cann further teaches that Cas9 protein remains on the target nucleic acid binding site following DNA cleavage, therefore, Cas9 proteins binding and cleaving target nucleic acids can then be bound to the “ends” of the target nucleic acid upon cleavage (see paras 0138 and 0217-0218; Example 1). Cann further teaches methods of enriching target nucleic acids comprising obtaining the target DNA from a subject’s plasma or serum (see claim 22). Claim 1 recites “the method comprising”, which allows additional steps to achieve enriching a sample. Cann teaches isolating target nucleic acids before introducing Cas endonuclease (para 0164) and after introducing Cas endonuclease (claim 1, para 0006, and Example 1). Cann teaches more sensitive methods of enriching and detecting single nucleotide variants (SNV), including point mutations and SNPs, present in cell free DNA sample in the 0.01% to 0.1% frequency range (see para 0166). Cann teaches the target nucleic acid comprising cell free DNA (cfDNA) (see claim 22 and para 0157). Cann further teach methods of enriching and/or detecting target nucleic acids in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from cancer patients (see paras 0156 and 0165).
However, Cann does not specifically teach using the enrichment methods wherein the target nucleic acid is present at no more than about 0.01% of cell-free DNA in the bodily fluid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Cann’s method of enriching nucleic acids with Cas endonucleases specifically for target nucleic acids present in cell free DNA samples at 0.01% as also taught in Cann because it would have amounted to a simple combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Cann teaches methods of enriching and detecting target nucleic acids using Cas endonucleases to bind the target nucleic acid and further teaches more sensitive methods of enriching and detecting point mutations and SNPs present in cell free DNA sample in the 0.01% to 0.1% frequency range (see para 0166). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Cann teaches several compositions and different uses of Cas endonucleases to bind target nucleic acids in samples collected from subjects. Thus, the claimed invention as a whole is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Cann teaches Cas endonuclease containing two catalytically inactive nuclease domains (see paras 0015, 0141, 0163, and 0167).
Regarding claim 3, Cann teaches contacting target nucleic acid with a population of Cas9 proteins programmed with a set of crRNAs that are complimentary to a series of different regions of the target nucleic acid (see claim 25). Cann further teaches a method for targeted haplotype sequencing using CRISPR-Cas systems where Cas9 proteins remain associated with the ends of cleaved DNAs (see para 0218).
Regarding claim 5, Cann teaches bodily fluid samples comprising plasma and serum (see claim 22) and maternal plasma and blood (see paras 0164 and 0168).
Regarding claim 7, Cann teaches isolating the target nucleic acid from the CRISPR-Cas and gRNA complex and further teaches isolating the target nucleic acid from the polynucleotide population (see paras 0122 and 0152).
Regarding claim 8, Cann teaches amplifying the targeted nucleic acid to yield amplicons (see paras 0007, 0140, 0155, 0167, and Examples 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 9, Cann teaches methods for sequencing target DNA sequences from ctDNA isolated from cancer patients and analyzing the target DNA sequences to describe one or more mutations in a subject to detect mutations in key genes that have relevance for treatment decisions (see paras 0156 and 0167).
Regarding claims 10-11, Cann further teaches methods used to diagnose a cancer having analyzed the target nucleic acid to describe one or more mutations specific to a tumor in a subject and to monitor tumor progression and/or test a tumor patient's response to targeted drug treatments (see paras 0165 and 0166).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Cann teaches detecting the target nucleic acid by hybridizing the target nucleic acid to a biotinylated capture probe or to a primer for detection or amplification (see Example 1, Fig. 9, Example 6, and 0151). Cann further teaches detecting the target nucleic acid by labelling the target nucleic acid with detectable capture tags, such as biotinylated dNTP, oligo probes, or double-stranded nucleic acid adapters (see para 0184).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Cann teaches detecting the target nucleic acid with a CRISPR-Cas system containing a Cas9 protein and a crRNA-tracrRNA chimera added and binding to a target DNA sequence to form a complex. The Cas9 protein is labeled with a capture tag, through which the complex is separated. The target DNA is then isolated from the complex (see paras 0058, 0152, and Example 6).
Regarding claims 17-19, Cann teaches detection of target nucleic acids where Cas9 complexes with fragmented target BRAF DNA are isolated using streptavidin coated magnetically responsive beads (see para 0058, Fig. 14, and Example 7).
Regarding claim 20, Cann teaches enriching target DNA using a CRISPR-Cas system and detecting the target nucleic acid with gel electrophoresis (see para 0232 and 0261).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/2/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Cann does not teach or disclose "...introducing two or more Cas endonucleases directly into the bodily fluid sample to bind to the ends of the target nucleic acid..." nor does the Office Action allege that Cann does.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly added limitations for claim 1 were not previously examined. Accordingly, a new 103 rejection detailed above addresses the teachings within Cann for introducing populations of Cas proteins that bind to the target nucleic acid. Therefore the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 – maintained
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cann (US20160017396A1, published January 21, 2016, as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, and 13-20 above, and further in view of Gourguechon (WO2016100955A2; published June 23, 2016; as cited in the 17 page IDS filed on August 9, 2024).
The teachings of Cann are applied to claim 4 as they are applied to claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 above.
However, Cann does not teach introducing an exonuclease to the bodily fluid sample to digest unbound nucleic acid.
Gourguechon’s disclosure is directed to methods and compositions for depleting targeted nucleic acid sequences from a sample, enriching for sequences of interest from a sample, and/or partitioning of sequences from a sample using CRISPR-Cas system protein-gRNA complexes (see abstract and para 0010). Gourguechon teaches embodiments with catalytically active Cas9 endonuclease (see para 1060). Gourguechon further teaches catalytically inactive CRISPR-Cas complexes with guide RNAs bound to target nucleic acid sequences that prevent dCas9 from cutting the target nucleic acid (see para 0162-0164).
Regarding claim 4, Gourguechon teaches a method of enriching a sample by contacting target nucleic acids with a plurality of CRISPR-Cas system protein-gRNA complexes and treating the sample with exonucleases to enrich the bound nucleic acids (see para 0181-0182).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cann’s method of enriching nucleic acids with Cas endonuclease with the exonucleases described by Gourguechon because it would have amounted to a simple combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Gourguechon teaches enriching for sequences from a sample by treating the sample with exonucleases, as discussed above. One would have been motivated to have combined the methods of Cann and Gourguechon to provide improved methods of enriching and detecting tumor mutations in cancer patients with increased sensitivity by digesting and removing unwanted nucleic acids. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both Cann and Gourguechon are directed to improved methods of detecting target nucleic acids and can be used to diagnose and/or treat patients.
Therefore the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/2/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Gourguechon is cited for disclosing that catalytically inactive CRISPR-Cas complexes with guide RNAs bound to target nucleic acid sequence that prevent dCas9 from cutting the target nucleic acid at paras 0162-0164, but FIG. 2 teaches that only one dCas9/gRNA complex binds to a target nucleic acid at a time.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Gourguechon are not persuasive because the Office relies on Gourguechon to teach methods of enriching a sample by contacting target nucleic acids with a plurality of CRISPR-Cas system protein-gRNA complexes and treating the sample with exonucleases to digest unbound nucleic acid to enrich the bound nucleic acids.
Applicant argues that neither Cann nor Gourguechon, either individually or in combination, disclose or render obvious claim 1 as amended to require using at least two Cas proteins to bind the ends of a target nucleic acid.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As discussed above, the newly added limitations for claim 1 were not previously examined. Accordingly, a new 102 rejection details Cann’s teachings regarding using at least two Cas proteins and binding the ends of a target nucleic acid. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Double Patenting – withdrawn
Provisional rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 and 14-19 of copending Application No. 18/128,698, in view of Cann (US20160017396A1) is withdrawn in view of the Notice of Abandonment of the co-pending application mailed 05/04/2026.
Double Patenting – new necessitated by amendment
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/385,649 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because there is significant overlap in the claims.
Claims 1-20 of the ‘649 application encompass a method of enriching a sample, the method comprising: obtaining a bodily fluid sample comprising a target nucleic acid; introducing two or more Cas endonucleases directly into the bodily fluid to bind the ends of the target nucleic acid (which encompasses catalytically active and inactive) and that the target nucleic acid is present at no more than about 0.01% of cell-free DNA in the bodily fluid sample. Claims 1-20 of the ‘649 application encompass a guide RNA that targets the target nucleic acid to a particle to form a particle-bound segment, digesting unprotected nucleic acids with an exonuclease, isolating the target nucleic acid. Claims 1-20 of the ‘649 application further teach that the bodily fluid sample comprises bile, blood, plasma, serum, sweat, saliva, urine, feces, phlegm, mucus, sputum, tears, cerebrospinal fluid, synovial fluid, pericardial fluid, lymphatic fluid, semen, vaginal secretion, products of lactation or menstruation, amniotic fluid, pleural fluid, rheum, or vomit, and that the target nucleic acid comprises cfDNA. Claims 1-20 of the ‘649 application further teach detecting tumor mutations from the sample, amplifying the target nucleic acid to yield amplicons, analyzing sequence reads, applying magnetic fields to separate the target nucleic acids from the particle by applying the sample to a column, wherein the protein-bound target nucleic acid is separated from unbound nucleic acid in the sample by size exclusion, ion exchange, or adsorption, and detection comprises gel electrophoresis.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-5, 7-11 and 13-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-7, 9-14 and 16-21 of copending Application No. 18/131,634. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because there is significant overlap in the claims.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-14, and 16-21 of the ‘634 application encompass a method of enriching a sample, the method comprising: obtaining a bodily fluid sample comprising a target nucleic acid; binding Cas endonuclease (which encompasses catalytically active and inactive) and guide RNA that targets the target nucleic acid to a particle to form a particle complex; digesting unprotected nucleic acids with an exonuclease; isolating the target nucleic acid; and introducing the particle complex to the sample to bind to the target nucleic acid. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-14, and 16-21 of the ‘634 application further teach that the bodily fluid sample comprises bile, blood, plasma, serum, sweat, saliva, urine, feces, phlegm, mucus, sputum, tears, cerebrospinal fluid, synovial fluid, pericardial fluid, lymphatic fluid, semen, vaginal secretion, products of lactation or menstruation, amniotic fluid, pleural fluid, rheum, or vomit, that the target nucleic acid comprises cDNA, cfDNA, or ctDNA, and that the target nucleic acid is present at no more than about 0.01% of cell-free DNA in the bodily fluid sample. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-14, and 16-21 of the '634 application further teach detecting tumor mutations from the sample, amplifying the target nucleic acid, analyzing sequence reads, and applying magnetic fields to separate the target nucleic acids from the particle.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
19. Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 and 14-19 of copending Application No. 18/514,333, in view of Cann (US20160017396A1, of record).
Copending claims 1-12 and 14-19 of the '333 application encompass a method of enriching a sample, the method comprising: obtaining a liquid biopsy sample comprising a target nucleic acid; binding Cas endonuclease (catalytically active and inactive) and guide RNA that targets the target nucleic acid to a particle to form a particle complex; digesting unprotected nucleic acids with an exonuclease; isolating the target nucleic acid; and introducing the particle complex to the sample to bind to the target nucleic acid. Claims 1-12 and 14-19 of the ‘333 application further teach that the target nucleic acid is present at no more than about 0.01% of cell-free DNA in the bodily fluid sample. Claims 1-12 and 14-19 of the '333 application further teach detecting tumor mutations from the sample, amplifying the target nucleic acid, and analyzing sequence reads to provide genetic information to a subject.
The copending claims do not teach that the detection step comprises connecting the protein-bound target nucleic acid to a particle or column and removing other components of the bodily fluid sample (claim 15), the particle comprises an agent that binds to at least one protein to form a particle-bound segment (claim 16), the particle comprises magnetic or paramagnetic material and the detection step further comprises applying a magnetic field to separate the particle-bound segment from the other components (claim 17), the detection step comprises applying the sample to a column (claim 18), the protein-bound target nucleic acid is separated from unbound nucleic acid in the sample by size exclusion, ion exchange, or adsorption (claim 19), and the detection step comprises gel electrophoresis (claim 20).
However, the teachings of Cann are discussed above. In particular, the teachings of Cann regarding the detection steps comprising magnetic particles, applying a magnetic field to separate components, and further using gel electrophoresis for detection are discussed above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of the copending claims with the detection steps as taught by Cann because Cann also teaches methods of enriching nucleic acids with Cas endonuclease and detecting nucleic acids from fluid samples.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
19. Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 and 21-22 of copending Application No. 18/519,589, in view of Cann (US20160017396A1, of record).
Copending claims 1-18 and 21-22 of the ‘589 application encompass a method of enriching a sample, the method comprising: obtaining a bodily fluid sample comprising a target nucleic acid; binding Cas endonuclease (which encompasses catalytically active and inactive) and guide RNA that targets the target nucleic acid to a particle to form a particle complex; digesting unprotected nucleic acids with an exonuclease; isolating the target nucleic acid; and introducing the particle complex to the sample to bind to the target nucleic acid. Claims 1-18 and 21-22 of the '589 application further teach that the bodily fluid sample comprises bile, blood, plasma, serum, sweat, saliva, urine, feces, phlegm, mucus, sputum, tears, cerebrospinal fluid, synovial fluid, pericardial fluid, lymphatic fluid, semen, vaginal secretion, products of lactation or menstruation, amniotic fluid, pleural fluid, rheum, or vomit, that the target nucleic acid comprises cDNA, cfDNA, or ctDNA, and that the target nucleic acid is present at no more than about 0.01% of cell-free DNA in the bodily fluid sample. Claims 1-18 and 21-22 of the '589 application further teach detecting tumor mutations from the sample, amplifying the target nucleic acid, analyzing sequence reads, and applying magnetic fields to separate the target nucleic acids from the particle.
The copending claims do not specifically teach introducing two or more Cas endonucleases to the sample.
However, the teachings of Cann are discussed above. In particular, the teachings of Cann regarding methods of enriching a target nucleic acid including providing a population of Cas9 proteins programmed with a set of crRNAs and binding the ends of the target nucleic acid are discussed above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of the copending claims with the plurality of Cas9 proteins binding target nucleic acid at the ends because Cann also teaches methods of enriching nucleic acids with Cas endonuclease and detecting nucleic acids from bodily fluid samples.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHALEDA B HASAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0239. The examiner can normally be reached IFP, Monday - Friday 7:30am-5pm.
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, Neil Hammell can be reached at (571) 270-5919. 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.
/KHALEDA B HASAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1636
/BRIAN WHITEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1636
Prosecution Insights