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 .
Priority
This application filed 02/07/2023 is a Continuation of 16640865 , filed 02/21/2020 ,now U.S. Patent # 11583589; 16640865 is a National Stage entry of PCT/EP2018/072699 , International Filing Date: 08/22/2018, claims foreign priority to 201831002945, filed 01/24/2018 claims foreign priority to 201731029916, filed 08/23/2017.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted 07/02/2026 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
The claim amendments and arguments filed on 07/02/2026 are acknowledged and have been
fully considered. Claims 1, 2, 7, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 21 are currently amended. Claims 24 and 25 are new. Claims 1-25 are now pending and will be examined on the merits herein.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
Objections and/or rejections not reiterated from previous Office Action are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied, and constitute
the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a natural phenomenon (natural product) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the judicial exception of ‘a recombinant protein….1 nm to 5 nm’. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims are drafted such that there is no difference in substance from the conjugate to that of a naturally occurring gp5 of bacteriophage T4 (PDB ID: 1K28; Isr. J. Chem. 2015, 55, 40 – 50). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
PNG
media_image1.png
225
158
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See the following analysis.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to a composition of matter.
Step 2A: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or
abstract idea?
Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes,
the claim recites a composition. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed cell penetrating conjugate, is the structure of T4 gp5 protein linked to gp27, that is naturally occurring
in bacteriophage T4.
Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application? No, the additional elements in the claim do not integrate the judicial exceptions
into a practical application. The claim is directed only to the conjugate and to the function
incorporated by the conjugate.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hiroshi Inaba et al., Hiroshi Inaba et al., hereinafter Inaba-1 (Hiroshi Inaba et al., Isr. J. Chem. 2015, 55, 40 – 50).
The applied reference has a common Inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 1, Inaba-1 teaches C-terminal of (gp5)3 which consists of a robust needle domain formed from a triple-stranded β-helix with cell-penetrating and protein translocation roles (see page 44, last paragraph, last 5 lines). In Fig 7, Inaba-1 discloses the width and length of (gp5)3 as being 2.4 nm and 14 nm respectively (i.e. 1 nm to 5 nm and 5 nm to 15 nm). Embodiments of the specification disclose ‘functional molecule’ as any molecule that has a utility within the cell [0055]. Inaba-1 teaches (His)6 tag covered gold nanoclusters (i.e. functional molecule) in the construction of tetrapod assembly of (gp5)3 (see page 45, section 3.1; Fig 9). TEM images in Fig 9 teach a length of 14 nm, that matches with the size of the (gp5-His6)3-covered gold nanoclusters (see section 3.1, page 45). Additionally, Inaba-1 teaches the crystal structure of (gp27-gp5)3 wherein the length and width of (gp5)3 is 14 nm and 2.4 nm respectively, linked to (gp27)3 (i.e. functional molecule) with cell penetration function (see Fig 8c, page 45).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection has been noted above.
Regarding claim 11, Inaba-1 teaches (His)6, i.e. peptide.
Regarding claim 12, Inaba-1 teaches Histidine.
Regarding claim 13, Inaba-1 teaches (gp5-His6)3-covered gold nanoclusters (i.e. covalent and non-covalent bonds).
Regarding claim 14, Inaba-1 teaches (gp5-His6)3, and (gp27-gp5)3 (i.e. peptide, amide linkage).
Regarding claim 15, Inaba-1 teaches gold nanoclusters (see Fig 9a) (i.e. nanoparticles).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-19 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hiroshi Inaba et al., Hiroshi Inaba et al., hereinafter Inaba-1 (Hiroshi Inaba et al., Isr. J. Chem. 2015, 55, 40 – 50) in view of Hiroshi Inaba et al., hereinafter Inaba-2 (Hiroshi Inaba et al., Chem. Lett. 2014, 43, 1505–1507).
The applied reference has a common Inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
The teachings of Inaba-1 have been set forth above.
Additionally, regarding claim 16, Inaba-1 does not teach a signal sequence. Embodiments of the specification disclose signal sequence as an NLS or recognition sequence for different cell organelles or nucleic acid binding domains [0069].
Inaba-2 teaches β-PN (β-helical protein needle), reconstructed from the triple-stranded β-helix of the cell membrane-puncturing protein gene product 5 (gp5) (see page 1505, Col 1, last paragraph). Inaba-2 teaches fusion of β-PN with sfGFP, and a linker rich in serine and glycine residues between sfGFP and β-PN (see page 1506, Col 1). Specifically, Inaba-2 teaches that cellular uptake of sfGFP - β-PN and its localization in the cytoplasm (i.e. signal sequence), is detected by confocal microscopy (see page 1507, 2nd paragraph lines1-2) and that subsequent to uptake, sfGFP is released from sfGFP - β-PN owing to flexible linkers with accessibility to proteases (see page 1507, lines 1-2; paragraph 2, last two lines).
Obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to
produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (discussing rationale underlying the
motivation-suggestion-teaching test as a guard against using hindsight in an obviousness analysis).
Consequently, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the specific teachings in Inaba-1 of a cell penetrating protein (gp5)3 to generate a cell penetrating conjugate with a signal sequence (i.e. flexible linker) for accessibility to proteases as specifically disclosed in Inaba-2. One motivated to do so would have a reasonable expectation of success as both references teach cell penetrating proteins and the potential to use peptide-based needles in drug delivery systems (see Inaba-1 Introduction Col 2; Inaba-2 Abstract). Thus, one would have recognized that applying the teaching of Inaba-2 would have yielded predictable results and improved the utility of a conjugate (See MPEP § 2143 l(A)(D)).
Regarding claim 19, the obviousness rationale has been noted above. As noted above, GFP (i.e. functional molecule) is detected in the cytoplasm (see Fig 3b) (i.e. cell organelles).
Regarding claim 21, the rejection has been noted above. Additionally, Inaba-2 teaches sfGFP - β-PN (i.e. step (a)) and its localization in the cytoplasm is detected by confocal microscopy (see page 1507, 2nd paragraph lines1-2) and that subsequent to uptake, sfGFP is released from sfGFP - β-PN (i.e. step (b) transfer) (see page 1507, lines 1-2; paragraph 2, last two lines).
Consequently, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the specific teachings in Inaba-1 of a cell penetrating protein (gp5)3 to generate a cell penetrating conjugate with GFP (i.e. functional molecule) as disclosed in Inaba-2. One motivated to do so would have a reasonable expectation of success as both references teach cell penetrating proteins and the potential to use peptide-based needles in drug delivery systems (see Inaba-1 Introduction Col 2; Inaba-2 Abstract). Thus, one would have recognized that applying the teaching of Inaba-2 to generate a (gp5)3 conjugate with GFP would have yielded predictable results and improved the utility of a conjugate (See MPEP § 2143 l(A)(D)).
Regarding claim 22, the rejection is noted above.
Regarding claim 23, the rejection is noted above. Additionally see Fig 3b legend in Inaba-2, HeLa cells (i.e. eukaryotic cells).
Claims 1-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hiroshi Inaba et al., Hiroshi Inaba et al., hereinafter Inaba-1 (Hiroshi Inaba et al., Isr. J. Chem. 2015, 55, 40 – 50) in view of Hiroshi Inaba et al., hereinafter Inaba-2 (Hiroshi Inaba et al., Chem. Lett. 2014, 43, 1505–1507) further in view of Ka Ming Pang et al., hereinafter Pang( Ka Ming Pang et al., Current Biology, Volume 8, Issue 7, 26 March 1998, Pages 405-408).
The teachings of Inaba-1 and Inaba-2 have been set forth above. Additionally, regarding claim 20, Inaba-1 and Inaba-2, do not teach localization to a group comprising actin, golgi, cell membrane and microtubulins.
Pang teaches GFP fusion to actin binding domain(ABD, 27-mer) and localization of the GFP-ABD to F-actin (see Abstract).
Consequently, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fuse an ABD to GFP for localization to actin as specifically disclosed in Pang. One motivated to do so would have a reasonable expectation of success as Inaba-2 teaches GFP fusions. Thus, one would have recognized that applying the teaching of Pang and Inaba-2, to the teachings of Inaba-1 would have yielded predictable results and directed the conjugate to the recited cellular compartments (See MPEP § 2143 l(A)(D)).
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 1-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12331310B2 in view of Hiroshi Inaba et al., Hiroshi Inaba et al., hereinafter Inaba-1 (Hiroshi Inaba et al., Isr. J. Chem. 2015, 55, 40 – 50) in view of Hiroshi Inaba et al., hereinafter Inaba-2 (Hiroshi Inaba et al., Chem. Lett. 2014, 43, 1505–1507), in view of Ka Ming Pang et al., hereinafter Pang( Ka Ming Pang et al., Current Biology, Volume 8, Issue 7, 26 March 1998, Pages 405-408) further in view of Nusrat Sanghamitra J.M (Patent No. 11583589B2).
The teachings of Inaba-1, Inaba-2 and Pang have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 1, reference patent ‘310 teaches β-helical protein linked to a component (i.e. functional molecule). The β-helical protein ranges from 5 to 25 nm in protein length and 1 to 5 nm in width. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection is noted above.
Regarding claim 3, see claim 8.
Regarding claim 4, see claim 9.
Regarding claim 5, see claim 10.
Regarding claim 6, see claim 11.
Regarding claim 7, see claim 12.
Regarding claim 8, see claim 13.
Regarding claim 9 see claim 14.
Regarding claim 10 see claim 1 in view of Patent No. 11583589B2.
Regarding claim 11, see claim 17.
Regarding claim 12, see claim 18.
Regarding claim 13, see claim 19.
Regarding claim 14, see claim 20.
Regarding claim 15, see claim 16 (i.e. nucleic acid).
Regarding claim 16, see claim 21.
Regarding claim 17, see claim 22.
Regarding claim 18, see claim 24.
Regarding claim 19, see claim 21 and claim 23.
Regarding claim 20, reference patent ‘310 does not teach localization to specific organelles. Obviousness rationale has been noted above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claim 20.
Regarding claim 21, reference patent ‘310 teaches genome-editing complex.
Reference patent does not teach the steps for transfer.
Inaba-1 and Inaba-2 teach the steps for transfer.
Consequently, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the specific teachings of the reference patent ‘310 to generate a genome-editing complex comprising a recombinant β helical protein, linker and component generate a cell penetrating conjugate. One motivated to do so would have a reasonable expectation of success as all references teach cell penetrating proteins and the potential to use peptide-based needles in delivery systems (see Inaba-1 Introduction Col 2; Inaba-2 Abstract). Thus, one would have recognized that applying the teaching of reference patent ‘310 to generate a conjugate and release of that functional molecule would improve the utility of a conjugate (See MPEP § 2143 l(A)(D)).
Regarding claim 22, the obviousness rationale has been noted above. In addition, Inaba-2 teaches sfGFP - β-PN (i.e. step (a)) and its localization in the cytoplasm is detected by confocal microscopy (see page 1507, 2nd paragraph lines1-2) and that subsequent to uptake, sfGFP is released from sfGFP - β-PN (i.e. step (b) transfer) (see page 1507, lines 1-2; paragraph 2, last two lines).
Regarding claim 23, in addition to the obviousness rationale noted above, Fig 3b legend in Inaba-2, teaches HeLa cells (i.e. eukaryotic cells).
Regarding claim 24, see claims 1-24.
Regarding claim 25, see claims 1-24.
Claims 1-8, 10-17, 19-25 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 19/212,503 in view of U.S. Patent No. 12331310B2 in view of Hiroshi Inaba et al., Hiroshi Inaba et al., hereinafter Inaba-1 (Hiroshi Inaba et al., Isr. J. Chem. 2015, 55, 40 – 50) in view of Hiroshi Inaba et al., hereinafter Inaba-2 (Hiroshi Inaba et al., Chem. Lett. 2014, 43, 1505–1507), in view of Ka Ming Pang et al., hereinafter Pang( Ka Ming Pang et al., Current Biology, Volume 8, Issue 7, 26 March 1998, Pages 405-408)
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 1, reference application ‘503 teaches β-helical protein linked to a component (i.e. functional molecule). See claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, see claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, see claim 7.
Regarding claim 4, see claim 8.
Regarding claim 5, see claim 9.
Regarding claim 6, see claim 9.
Regarding claim 7, see claim 10.
Regarding claim 8, see claim 11.
Regarding claim 10, see claim 12.
Regarding claim 11, see claim 15.
Regarding claim 12, see claim 16.
Regarding claim 13, see claims 13 and 14.
Regarding claim 14, see claim 17.
Regarding claim 15, see claim 2.
Regarding claim 16, see claim 18.
Regarding claim 17, see claim 19.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, reference application ‘503 does not teach localization to specific organelles.
Teachings of Inaba-1, Inaba-2 and Pang have been noted above.
Consequently, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fuse an ABD to GFP for localization to actin as specifically disclosed in Pang. One motivated to do so would have a reasonable expectation of success as Inaba-2 teaches GFP fusions. Thus, one would have recognized that applying the teaching of Pang and Inaba-2, to the teachings of Inaba-1 would have yielded predictable results and directed the conjugate to the recited cellular compartments (See MPEP § 2143 l(A)(D)).
Regarding claim 21, reference application ‘503 teaches genome-editing complex.
Reference application’503 does not teach the steps for transfer.
Inaba-1 and Inaba-2 teach the steps for transfer.
Consequently, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the specific teachings of the reference application ‘503 to generate a genome-editing complex comprising a recombinant β helical protein, linker and component to generate a cell penetrating conjugate. One motivated to do so would have a reasonable expectation of success as all references teach cell penetrating proteins and the potential to use peptide-based needles in delivery systems (see Inaba-1 Introduction Col 2; Inaba-2 Abstract). Thus, one would have recognized that applying the teaching of reference application ‘503 to generate a conjugate and release of that functional molecule would improve the utility of a conjugate (See MPEP § 2143 l(A)(D)).
Regarding claim 22, the obviousness rationale has been noted above. In addition, Inaba-2 teaches sfGFP - β-PN (i.e. step (a)) and its localization in the cytoplasm is detected by confocal microscopy (see page 1507, 2nd paragraph lines1-2) and that subsequent to uptake, sfGFP is released from sfGFP - β-PN (i.e. step (b) transfer) (see page 1507, lines 1-2; paragraph 2, last two lines).
Regarding claim 23, in addition to the obviousness rationale noted above, Fig 3b legend in Inaba-2, teaches HeLa cells (i.e. eukaryotic cells).
Regarding claims 24-25, see claims 1-20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-25 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.
Examiner acknowledges the Declaration Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 of Dr. Nusrat J.M. Sanghamitra. The declarant, who represents a highly skilled person in the present field with direct responsibility for the work, demonstrates, that cell-penetrating property of peptides is assigned primarily by physicochemical and structural parameters with peptide sequence playing a secondary role.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARCHANA VARADARAJ whose telephone number is (571)272-2366. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00am-5:00pm.
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, Melissa Fisher can be reached at 5712707430. 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.
/ARCHANA VARADARAJ/Examiner, Art Unit 1658
/Melissa L Fisher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1658
Prosecution Insights