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 .
Applicant newly adds claims 27-30. Claims 1-30 are currently pending and under examination.
Any rejection of record in the previous office actions not addressed herein is withdrawn.
New grounds of rejection are presented herein that were not necessitated by applicant’s
amendment of the claims since the office action mailed December 12, 2025. Therefore, this
action is not final.
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 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to one or more judicial exceptions (i.e., product of nature, a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Every claimed invention must be examined to determine whether the claimed invention complies with 35 U.S.C. 101, particularly whether the claimed invention falls within a 35 U.S.C. 101 judicial exception of non-patentable subject matter (e.g., an abstract idea, law of nature, natural phenomenon, natural product etc.). Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, natural products, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work. See MPEP 2106. As per the “2019 Revised Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (Federal Register Vol. 84, No. 4, available 01-07-2019), claims drawn to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter are further analyzed according to a two-part process to determine if A) the claim(s) is/are “directed to” a judicial exception because the claims(s) recite(s) a judicial exception (i.e. prong one) that is not integrated into a practical application (i.e. prong two) and, if so, if B) the claim(s) provide(s) an inventive concept, i.e. recite(s) additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes
Step 1 - Is the Claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of Matter? YES
Claims 1-30 are directed to one of the statutory classes. Claims 1-30 are directed to a method for determining the sequence of at least one nucleic acid (process).
Step 2A, Prong One — Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? YES
Claims 1-30 recite the abstract idea of receiving and processing data using mental steps. Claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas, natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection (see MPEP 2106.04). Abstract ideas include certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes (including procedures for collecting, observing, determining, evaluating, and organizing information (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). In particular, these abstract ideas include:
• Obtaining signal data corresponding to at least one labeled nucleotide base incorporated at each of the two primer extensions (mental process, human mind is capable of receiving/ collecting data, observing/evaluating, organizing information).
• Determining from said signal data the identity of the nucleotide bases and allocating said bases to an extension read to determine the sequence of the at least one nucleic acid (mental process, human mind is capable of receiving/ collecting data, observing/evaluating, organizing information).
• Signal data corresponding to each of the two primer extensions is obtained substantially simultaneously (mental process, human mind is capable of receiving/ collecting data, observing/evaluating/determining, organizing information).
• Analyzing a signal intensity profile corresponding to unique labels detected at each of the extension reads. (mental process, human mind is capable of receiving/ collecting data, observing/evaluating, organizing information).
• Allocating the bases to an extension read comprises providing a preliminary base call and a final base call (mental process, human mind is capable of receiving/ collecting data, observing/evaluating/comparing data and organizing information).
• Comparison of the preliminary base call data with a reference genome (mental process, human mind is capable of receiving/ collecting data, observing/evaluating/comparing data and organizing information).
• Signal data corresponding to each of the two primer extensions is obtained in the same cycle of determining identity of nucleotide bases (mental process, human mind is capable of receiving/ collecting data, observing/evaluating/comparing data and organizing information).
Therefore, the claims recite elements that constitute one or more judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two — Does the Claim Recite an Additional Elements that Integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application? NO.
The Supreme Court has long distinguished between principles themselves, which are not patent eligible, and the integration of those principles into practical applications, which are patent eligible. However, absent are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions which integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. The “integration into a practical application” requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claim analysis continues with identifying additional elements beyond the judicial exceptions that might evidence integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application. The steps or elements in addition to the judicial exceptions are: “performing primer extensions on a same strand of nucleic acid of the at least one nucleic acid at each of at least two primers hybridized to the same strand of nucleic acid in the presence of labeled nucleotide bases to result in two primer extensions”, “[using] blocked and unblocked primers” and “base calling”, which is not indicative of integration into practical application. These steps, recited at a high level of generality, comprise routine data gathering, which is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity. This data gathering is required for using the judicial exceptions. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). There are no further/additional steps which applies either the identified judicial exception into practical application. Thus, a careful evaluation of the claim as a whole fails to reveal the practical application of the judicial exception to, e.g., effect an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology/technical field, effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical treatment, implement a particular machine that is integral to the claim, or effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or to apply the judicial exception in another meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application and is therefore directed to a judicial exception.
Step 2B - Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements that Amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception? NO.
The Supreme Court has identified a number of considerations for determining whether a claim with additional elements amounts to “significantly more” than the judicial exception(s) itself. The claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any additional element/step, or combination of additional elements/steps, in addition to the identified judicial exception(s) is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more” than the exception(s).
The eligibility analysis proceeds with identifying any additional elements or limitations, separate from the judicial exceptions, that might potentially render the claims directed to a judicial exception patent eligible. To render the claims patent- eligible, these elements must comprise meaningful limitations that add to or transform the judicial exception to the effect that it amounts to significantly more than the natural correlation or abstract idea itself - i.e. provide an “inventive concept’. The elements that are in addition to the judicial exception comprise performing primer extensions on a same strand of nucleic acid of the at least one nucleic acid at each of at least two primers hybridized to the same strand of nucleic acid in the presence of labeled nucleotide bases to result in two primer extensions, using blocked and unblocked primers and base calling. When considered separately and in combination, these elements do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. These steps are well-understood, routine and conventional activities in the field. For example, Leamon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2006/0040297 A1, published February 23, 2006), previously cited in the December 22, 2025 Office Action, discloses performing primer extensions on a same strand of nucleic acid of the at least one nucleic acid at each of at least two primers hybridized to the same strand of nucleic acid in the presence of labeled nucleotide bases to result in two primer extensions, using blocked and unblocked primers and base calling. The claims recite an abstract idea with additional elements. Because these elements are not inventive concepts, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The judicial exception alone cannot provide that inventive concept or practical application (MPEP 2106.05). The claims therefore do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the claims do not qualify as patent-eligible subject matter.
For further information, please see the latest revision of MPEP 2104-2106 {Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. 101}, including MPEP 2106.04 {Eligibility Step 2A: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception} and 2106.05 {Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More}, as well as the guidance on Subject Matter Eligibility, including the 2019 Guidance issued Jan. 7, 2019, and the October 2019 Update, provided on the USPTO website at https:/Awww.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter- eligibility.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Leamon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2006/0040297 A1, published February 23, 2006), previously cited in the December 22, 2025 Office Action.
Regarding claim 1, Leamon teaches a method for determining the sequence of at least one nucleic acid (Title and Abstract). Leamon teaches performing primer extensions on a same strand of nucleic acid of the at least one nucleic acid at each of at least two primers hybridized to the same strand of nucleic acid in the presence of labeled nucleotide bases to result in two primer extensions (Page 3, [0024], Page 6, [0043], Page 7, [0065]-[0066], Page 9, [0102], Pages 19-20, [0210], Page 27, [0284], Page 59, [0755]-[0757]). and Fig. 25). Leamon teaches obtaining signal data corresponding to at least one labeled nucleotide base incorporated at each of the two primer extensions (Page 3, [0024]-[0026], Pages 5-6, [0041]-[0042], Page 23, [0244], Page 27, [0284] and [0286]-[0287] and Page 30, [0312]). Leamon teaches determining from said signal data the identity of the nucleotide bases and allocating said bases to an extension read to determine the sequence of the at least one nucleic acid (Page 2, [0020], Page 3, [0024], Page 5, [0038], Pages 5-6, [0041]-[0043], Page 27, [0287] and Page 30, [0312]).
Regarding claim 2, Leamon teaches the method comprises contacting the at least one nucleic acid with an enzyme in the presence of the at least two primers and four labelled nucleotide analogues selected from dGTP, dCTP, dTTP, dUTP, and dATP (Page 2, [0018], Page 19, [0205], Page 25, [0262]-[0264] and Page 27, [0281] and [0287]).
Regarding claim 3, Leamon teaches each of the four labelled nucleotide analogues have a unique label which is different from the unique labels of the other three labelled nucleotide analogues (Page 6, [0042], Page 9, [0108] and Page 30, [0310]).
Regarding claim 4, Leamon teaches the unique label comprises a dye, a fluorophore, a chromophore, a combinatorial fluorescence energy transfer tag, a mass tag, or an electrophore (Page 3, [0024]-[0026], Pages 5-6, [0041]-[0042], Page 23, [0244], Page 27, [0284] and [0286]-[0287] and Page 30, [0312]).
Regarding claim 5, Leamon teaches the method comprises the step of removing unbound labelled nucleotide analogues (Page 2, [0018], Page 8, [0091], Page 18, [0195], Page 27, [0283] and Page 30, [0312]).
Regarding claim 6, Leamon teaches the four labelled nucleotide analogues each comprises a single reversibly terminating nucleotide analogue or reversible terminator analogue (Page 3, [0024], Page 6, [0043], Page 28, [0294] and Page 29, [0302]).
Regarding claim 7, Leamon teaches the enzyme comprises a polymerase or ligase (Page 4, [0036], Page 5, [0038], Page 6, [0043], Page 6, [0046], Page 10, [0119], Page 13, [0144]-[0145], and Page 44, [0510]).
Regarding claim 8, Leamon teaches the same set of four labelled nucleotide analogues are used for each extension read (Page 25, [0262] and Page 27, [0281]).
Regarding claim 9, Leamon teaches he at least two primers comprise blocked and unblocked primers to differentiate between each extension read (Page 3, [0024], Page 6, [0043], Page 35, [0349] and Page 54, [0690]-[0691]).
Regarding claim 10, Leamon teaches the at least two primers comprise a first unblocked primer having a first nucleotide sequence and a second mixture of unblocked and blocked primers having a second nucleotide sequence (Page 3, [0024], Page 6, [0043], Page 35, [0349] and Page 54, [0690]-[0691]).
Regarding claim 11, Leamon teaches determining the identity of the nucleotides bases comprises determining the signal intensity of newly added labeled nucleotide bases from the first unblocked primer and the second mixture of blocked and unblocked primers (Page 2, [0020], Page 3, [0024], Page 5, [0038], Pages 5-6, [0041]-[0043], Page 27, [0287], Page 35, [0349], Page 54, [0690]-[0691] and Page 30, [0312]).
Regarding claim 12, Leamon teaches the at least one nucleic acid is bound to a support comprising a chip or a bead (Page 2, [0017], Page 3, [0023], Page 7, [0072], Page 8, [0074], Page 34, [0342] and Page 38, [0411]. Regarding claim 13, Leamon teaches the least two primers have overlapping sequences (Page 29, [0301]-[0302] and Page 66, [0816]).
Regarding claim 14, Leamon teaches the at least two primers differ by a single base addition (Page 23, [0244], Page 29, [0302], Page 30, [0308] and Page 50, [0648]).
Regarding claim 15, Leamon teaches bioinformatics information is used to allocate the bases to the extension read (Page 2, [0020], Page 3, [0024], Page 5, [0038], Pages 5-6, [0041]-[0043], Page 27, [0287] and Page 30, [0312]).
Regarding claim 16, Leamon teaches signal data corresponding to each of the two primer extensions is obtained substantially simultaneously (Pages 5-6, [0041]-[0042], Page 35, [0347] and Page 66, [0814]).
Regarding claim 17, Leamon teaches the step of determining the identity of the nucleotide bases comprises analyzing a signal intensity profile corresponding to unique labels detected at each of the extension reads (Page 3, [0024]-[0026], Pages 5-6, [0041]-[0042], Page 8, [0096], Page 27, [0284] and [0286]-[0287], Page 64, [0801], Page 75, [0916] and Page 77, [0924]).
Regarding claim 18, Leamon teaches the signal data comprises one or more images (Page 5, [0039], Page 8, [0088]-[0089], Page 22, [0232], Page 23, [0240]-[0244], Page 55, [0709], Page 64, [0801] and Page 66, [0814]).
Regarding claim 19, Leamon teaches the signal data is detected as color signals corresponding to a plurality of nucleotide analogues incorporated at the primer extensions and wherein each color signal corresponds to a different nucleotide analogue or combination of nucleotide analogues (Page 9, [0102], Page 7, [0066], Page 51, [0663]and Page 59, [0755] and [0757]).
Regarding claim 20, Leamon teaches a step of signal processing comprising one or more of signal deconvolution, signal refinement and signal selection (Page 7, [0066], Page 41, [0447], Page 64, [0802], Page 74, [0907] and Pages 75-76, [0917]).
Regarding claim 21, Leamon teaches multiple base calls are made at each primer extension cycle (Pages 64-65, [0802]-[0804], Pages 75-76, [0917] and Page 76, [0919]-[0920]).
Regarding claim 22, Leamon teaches the step of allocating the bases to an extension read comprises determining the position of the nucleotide bases (Page 2, [0020], Page 3, [0024], Page 5, [0038], Pages 5-6, [0041]-[0043], Page 27, [0287], Page 34, [0344] and Page 30, [0312]).
Regarding claim 23, Leamon teaches the step of allocating the bases to an extension read comprises providing a preliminary base call and a final base call for each extension read (Pages 64-66, [0801]-[0810] and Pages 75-76, [0917]-[0922]).
Regarding claim 24, Leamon teaches the final base call is provided by comparison of the preliminary base call data with a reference genome (Pages 64-66, [0801]-[0810] and Pages 75-76, [0917]-[0922]).
Regarding claim 25, Leamon teaches a method for determining the sequence of at least one nucleic acid, comprising exciting fluorescence from the at least one nucleic acid (Abstract, Page 4, [0032], Page 27, [0284], Page 33, [0337]-[0338] and Page 58, [0738]). Leamon teaches substantially simultaneously obtaining signal data corresponding to labeled nucleotide bases incorporated at each of two primer extensions on a same strand of nucleic acid of the at least one nucleic acid (Page 3, [0024], Pages 5-6, [0041]-[0043], Page 7, [0065]-[0066], Page 9, [0102], Pages 19-20, [0210], Page 27, [0284], Page 35, [0347], Page 59, [0755]-[0757] Page 66, [0814] and Fig. 25). Leamon teaches determining from said signal data the identity of the nucleotide bases and allocating said bases to an extension read to determine the sequence of the at least one nucleic acid (Page 2, [0020], Page 3, [0024], Page 5, [0038], Pages 5-6, [0041]-[0043], Page 27, [0287] and Page 30, [0312]).
Regarding claim 26, Leamon teaches a method for determining the sequence of at least one nucleic acid, comprising simultaneously exciting unique labels on labeled nucleotide bases incorporated at each of two primer extensions on a same strand of nucleic acid of the at least one nucleic acid (Abstract, Page 3, [0024], Pages 5-6, [0041]-[0043], Page 7, [0065]-[0066], Page 9, [0102], Pages 19-20, [0210], Page 27, [0284], Page 35, [0347], Page 59, [0755]-[0757] Page 66, [0814] and Fig. 25). Leamon teaches obtaining signal data from said excitation (Page 4, [0032], Page 27, [0284], Page 33, [0337]-[0338] and Page 58, [0738]). Leamon teaches determining from said signal data the identity of the nucleotide bases and allocating said bases to an extension read to determine the sequence of the at least one nucleic acid (Page 2, [0020], Page 3, [0024], Page 5, [0038], Pages 5-6, [0041]-[0043], Page 27, [0287] and Page 30, [0312]).
Regarding claim 27, Leamon teaches the signal data corresponding to each of the two primer extensions is obtained in the same cycle of determining identity of nucleotide bases (Page 2, [0020], Page 3, [0024], Page 5, [0038], Pages 5-6, [0041]-[0043], Pages 17-18, [0191], Page 27, [0281], Page 27, [0287] and Page 30, [0312]).
Regarding claim 28, Leamon teaches the signal data corresponding to each of the two primer extensions is obtained in the same cycle of determining identity of nucleotide bases (Page 2, [0020], Page 3, [0024], Page 5, [0038], Pages 5-6, [0041]-[0043], Pages 17-18, [0191], Page 27, [0281], Page 27, [0287] and Page 30, [0312]).
Regarding claim 29, Leamon teaches the signal data corresponding to each of the two primer extensions is obtained in the same cycle of determining identity of nucleotide bases (Page 2, [0020], Page 3, [0024], Page 5, [0038], Pages 5-6, [0041]-[0043], Pages 17-18, [0191], Page 27, [0281], Page 27, [0287] and Page 30, [0312]).
Regarding claim 30, Leamon teaches multiple base calls are made in each cycle of determining identity of nucleotide bases (Pages 17-18, [0191], Page 27, [0281], Pages 64-65, [0802]-[0806], Pages 75-76, [0917] and Page 76, [0919]-[0920]).
Leamon teaches each and every limitation of claims 1-30, therefore Leamon anticipates claims 1-30.
Double Patenting
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 1-24 and 26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 11,555,218. This rejection is maintained.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while the preambles are almost identical, it appears that the steps of the claims are identical, so it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform a method for determining the sequence of a nucleic acid or determine the sequence of at least one nucleic acid using those same steps. Therefore, the claims are not deemed to be patentably distinct.
Response to arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed March 20, 2026, with respect to the
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed March 20, 2026, with respect to the
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed March 20, 2026, with respect to the
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part therefore these rejections are withdrawn; Specifically applicant asserts Leamon fails to cure the deficiencies of Brennan with respect to Brennan failing to disclose performing primer extension reactions on a same strand of nucleic acid of the at least one nucleic acid at each of at least two primers hybridized to the same strand of nucleic acid.
However, the new rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Leamon are set forth above and discussed below.
Leamon discloses performing primer extension reactions on a same strand of nucleic acid of the at least one nucleic acid at each of at least two primers hybridized to the same strand of nucleic acid.
Additionally, upon further consideration new rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 as set forth above.
Regarding the nonstatutory double patenting rejections, Applicant requests that these rejections be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. Therefore, these rejections are maintained as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA DANIELLE PARISI whose telephone number is (571)272-8025. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday 7:30-5:00 Eastern with alternate Fridays 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, Heather Calamita can be reached at 571-272-2876. 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.
/JESSICA D PARISI/Examiner, Art Unit 1684
/HEATHER CALAMITA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1684
Prosecution Insights