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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Application Status
This application is a Non-Provisional patent application, filed on 02/23/2023.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the instant application.
The claims set filed on 02/23/2023 is acknowledged.
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Claims 1-12 and 14-19, drawn to a composition, comprising: A) at least one lipase selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NO: 1 and a homologue having at least 95% amino acid identity to SEQ ID NO: 1, B) at least one biosurfactant, and C) optionally, at least one non-bio surfactant in the response filed on 04/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Arguments: The traversal is on the ground(s) that on the grounds that the Examiner has failed to provide adequate evidence to support the restriction under MPEP § 806.05(h). The Examiner asserts that "protein/lipase can be used for the materially different process of inducing an antibody." However, this conclusory statement lacks the required evidentiary support. The Examiner must provide specific prior art references or technical evidence
demonstrating that the claimed composition of Group I can actually be used in the materially different process of inducing an antibody. Mere speculation that alternative implementations could exist is insufficient to establish the required distinctness under MPEP § 806.05(h).
Furthermore, the method claims of Group II are not independent inventions but merely use the composition of Group I. Claim 13 and Claim 20 explicitly recite "the composition according to Claim 1," demonstrating that these process claims depend from and include all limitations of the product claims in Group I. Under MPEP § 806.05(h), process claims that depend from or otherwise include all the limitations of a product claim generally should not be restricted from that product claim. The Examiner has also failed to demonstrate that examining both groups together would impose a serious search burden on the Office. Without such a showing, the restriction requirement is improper. Withdrawal of the Restriction Requirement is respectfully requested. Rejoinder- Upon the finding of an allowable elected claim, under MPEP § 821.04, Applicant respectfully requests rejoinder of any non-elected claims that depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable claim.
Response: This is not found persuasive because the word “Technical” is only used as “Shared Technical Feature”, when traversing an application filed under 35 USC 371, but this application is not an application filed under 35 USC 371, but an application filed under 35 USC 111/120 as US Non-Provisional patent application and the restriction practice should follow US restriction practice. Thus, applicants all the arguments are directed with wrong assumptions. As discussed previously-
I. Claims 1-12, and 14-19, drawn to a composition, comprising: A) at least one lipase selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NO: 1 and a homologue having at least 95% amino acid identity to SEQ ID NO: 1, B) at least one biosurfactant, and C) optionally, at least one non-bio surfactant, classified in CPC C12N 9/20.
II. Claims 13 and 20, drawn to a method, comprising: removing fat and/or an oil-containing stain from a surface, with the composition according to Claim 1, classified in CPC C11D 3/38627.
The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons:
2. Inventions I and II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product (MPEP § 806.05(h)). In the instant case protein/lipase can be used for the materially different process of inducing an antibody.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve 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 restriction 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 invention.
If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions 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 inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Applicant is advised the reply to this requirement to be complete must include an election of the invention to be examined even though the requirement be traversed (37 CFR 1.143).
Regarding the arguments of evidence of the claimed lipase is answered in the art rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103 (see, 102 and 103 rejections).
Applicants request for rejoinder is noted. However, current claims of elected Group I are not allowable at this time. When Group I would be allowable, rejoinder request would be evaluated at that time.
Claims 13 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-12 and 14-19 are present for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicants claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) to a foreign patent application European Patent Office (EPO) 22158413.9, filed on 02/24/2022 (GERMANY) without English translation.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 02/23/2023, 05/12/2023, and 06/20/2023 are acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are considered by the examiner. The signed copies of 1449 are enclosed herewith.
Specification Objections
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code (see, pg 5.and 16) Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Drawings
There are no Drawings submitted with this 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.
The claimed invention is directed to a naturally-occurring nucleic acid or fragment thereof, whether isolated or not, that is not patent-eligible pursuant to the Supreme Court decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., -- U.S. -- (June 13, 2013).
Claims 1, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The instant rejection is issued because of recent "Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility of Claims Reciting or Involving Laws of Nature, Natural Phenomena, & Natural Products" (see, MPEP 2106, and updated Guidance of 2019-PEG).
In the instant case, when a claim is determined to recite or involve one or more judicial exceptions, the key inquiry becomes whether the claim as a whole recites something significantly different than the judicial exception. The Guidance provides weighing factors for determining whether a claim recites something that is significantly different than the judicial exception. If the totality of the relevant factors weighs toward eligibility, the claim qualifies as eligible subject matter. However, if the totality of the relevant factors weighs against eligibility, the claim should be rejected.
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, the factors weigh against something that is significantly more than a law of nature or product of nature and therefore the claims do not qualify as eligible subject matter. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Claim 1 is drawn to under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) – .
In this case, the recited “at least one lipase selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NO: 1”, is not markedly different in structure from a naturally occurring polypeptide” molecule because the word “SEQ ID NO: 1” does not add anything unless provided with a mutation or substitution at a specific position of said lipase polypeptide for making a composition, wherein said lipase, which is 100% identical to SEQ ID NO: 1 which is in fact derived from a naturally occurring fungus Stachybotrys chlorohalonatus. See Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Genetics Inc. 106 USPQ2d 1972 (U.S. Supreme Court 2013). As such, the claimed recited “polypeptide” molecule is not markedly different in structure from a naturally occurring product and thus the claimed “a lipase selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NO: 1” molecule is not patent eligible subject matter.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the following analysis:
Step 1) Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claims are drawn to a composition of matter or manufacture (a product).
Step 2a, Prong 1) Does the claim recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes, the claim 1 is drawn to a Natural Phenomenon and Law of Nature, “a lipase polypeptide”. Thus, a lipase of SEQ ID NO: 1 would meet the defined claim and render it non-patent eligible.
Step 2a, Prong 2) Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application?
No, the claimed composition doesn’t improve any technology or technical field, apply or use the JE to effect to a particular application or apply/use the JE in some other meaningful way.
Step 2B) Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception?
The answer is No, therefore, the recited “a lipase of SEQ ID NO: 1” molecule, is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 is also not patent eligible for the same reason as discussed above for claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
According to MPEP 2143:
“Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable
results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products)
in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready
for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “ Obvious to try ” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in
either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market
forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art
reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Note that the list of rationales provided is not intended to be an all-inclusive list. Other rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness may be relied upon by Office personnel.”
Claim 1-12, 14-18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Semeiks et al. (Comparative genome sequencing reveals chemotype-specific gene clusters in the toxigenic black mold Stachybotrys. BMC Genomics (2014), 15: 590), in view of Parry et al. (Detergent composition comprising biosurfactant and lipase. EP2596089B1, publication 12/17/2014, see IDS), and Dudgeon et al. (Engineered Escherichia coli with estA Gene Produces an Esterase to Break Ester Bonds Between Fatty Acids and 4-Nitrophenol. BioTreks (2019), 4(1), page 1-6).
The Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) of claim 1, which is drawn to “a composition, comprising: A) at least one lipase selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NO: 1 and a homologue having at least 95% amino acid identity to SEQ ID NO: 1, B) at least oneand C) optionally, at least one non-bio surfactant”.
Regarding claim 1-12, 14-18 and 19, Semeiks et al. teach a fungal genus Stachybotrys produces several diverse toxins that affect human health, wherein its strains comprise two mutually-exclusive toxin chemotypes, one producing satratoxins, which are a subclass of trichothecenes, and the other producing the less-toxic atranones, wherein the chemotype-specific differences in toxin production, wherein the genomes of four Stachybotrys strains were sequenced and assembled de novo, wherein two of these strains produce atranones and two produce satratoxins, wherein said satratoxin genes clusters (SC) comprises three gene clusters such as SC1, Sc2 and SC3, but SC1 gene cluster comprises 10 genes including Sat 1, Sat 2, Sat 6, which contains a secretory lipase, domain and is similar to the Fusarium trichothecene C-15 esterase Tri8, and furthermore, wherein the adjacent gene Sat5 encodes an acyltransferase, which are functionally similar, and having lipolytic activity, which is 100% identical to SEQ ID NO: 1 of the instant application (see, sequence alignments as shown below).
RESULT 1
A0A084QG10_STAC4
ID A0A084QG10_STAC4 Unreviewed; 347 AA.
AC A0A084QG10;
DT 29-OCT-2014, integrated into UniProtKB/TrEMBL.
DT 29-OCT-2014, sequence version 1.
DT 05-FEB-2025, entry version 31.
DE RecName: Full=Fungal lipase-type domain-containing protein {ECO:0000259|Pfam:PF01764};
GN ORFNames=S40285_02264 {ECO:0000313|EMBL:KFA62895.1};
OS Stachybotrys chlorohalonatus (strain IBT 40285).
OC Eukaryota; Fungi; Dikarya; Ascomycota; Pezizomycotina; Sordariomycetes;
OC Hypocreomycetidae; Hypocreales; Stachybotryaceae; Stachybotrys.
OX NCBI_TaxID=1283841 {ECO:0000313|EMBL:KFA62895.1, ECO:0000313|Proteomes:UP000028524};
RN [1] {ECO:0000313|EMBL:KFA62895.1, ECO:0000313|Proteomes:UP000028524}
RP NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE [LARGE SCALE GENOMIC DNA].
RC STRAIN=IBT 40285 {ECO:0000313|EMBL:KFA62895.1,
RC ECO:0000313|Proteomes:UP000028524};
RX PubMed=25015739; DOI=10.1186/1471-2164-15-590;
RA Semeiks J., Borek D., Otwinowski Z., Grishin N.V.;
RT "Comparative genome sequencing reveals chemotype-specific gene clusters in
RT the toxigenic black mold Stachybotrys.";
RL BMC Genomics 15:590-590(2014).
CC -!- CATALYTIC ACTIVITY:
CC Reaction=a diacylglycerol + H2O = a monoacylglycerol + a fatty acid +
CC H(+); Xref=Rhea:RHEA:32731, ChEBI:CHEBI:15377, ChEBI:CHEBI:15378,
CC ChEBI:CHEBI:17408, ChEBI:CHEBI:18035, ChEBI:CHEBI:28868;
CC Evidence={ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00047591};
CC -!- CATALYTIC ACTIVITY:
CC Reaction=a monoacylglycerol + H2O = glycerol + a fatty acid + H(+);
CC Xref=Rhea:RHEA:15245, ChEBI:CHEBI:15377, ChEBI:CHEBI:15378,
CC ChEBI:CHEBI:17408, ChEBI:CHEBI:17754, ChEBI:CHEBI:28868;
CC Evidence={ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00048461};
CC -!- SIMILARITY: Belongs to the AB hydrolase superfamily. Lipase family.
CC Class 3 subfamily. {ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00043996}.
CC ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC Copyrighted by the UniProt Consortium, see https://www.uniprot.org/terms
CC Distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) License
CC ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR EMBL; KL660774; KFA62895.1; -; Genomic_DNA.
DR AlphaFoldDB; A0A084QG10; -.
DR STRING; 1283841.A0A084QG10; -.
DR HOGENOM; CLU_032957_1_0_1; -.
DR InParanoid; A0A084QG10; -.
DR OMA; CTRCECT; -.
DR OrthoDB; 426718at2759; -.
DR Proteomes; UP000028524; Unassembled WGS sequence.
DR GO; GO:0006629; P:lipid metabolic process; IEA:InterPro.
DR CDD; cd00519; Lipase_3; 1.
DR Gene3D; 3.40.50.1820; alpha/beta hydrolase; 1.
DR InterPro; IPR029058; AB_hydrolase_fold.
DR InterPro; IPR002921; Fungal_lipase-type.
DR InterPro; IPR051218; Sec_MonoDiacylglyc_Lipase.
DR PANTHER; PTHR45856; ALPHA/BETA-HYDROLASES SUPERFAMILY PROTEIN; 1.
DR PANTHER; PTHR45856:SF11; FUNGAL LIPASE-LIKE DOMAIN-CONTAINING PROTEIN; 1.
DR Pfam; PF01764; Lipase_3; 1.
DR SUPFAM; SSF53474; alpha/beta-Hydrolases; 1.
PE 3: Inferred from homology;
KW Reference proteome {ECO:0000313|Proteomes:UP000028524};
KW Signal {ECO:0000256|SAM:SignalP}.
FT SIGNAL 1..15
FT /evidence="ECO:0000256|SAM:SignalP"
FT CHAIN 16..347
FT /note="Fungal lipase-type domain-containing protein"
FT /evidence="ECO:0000256|SAM:SignalP"
FT /id="PRO_5012475128"
FT DOMAIN 113..241
FT /note="Fungal lipase-type"
FT /evidence="ECO:0000259|Pfam:PF01764"
SQ SEQUENCE 347 AA; 36006 MW; 499D384A27318911 CRC64;
Query Match 100.0%; Score 1788; Length 347;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 347; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 MLGYILLSFAALAAAAPLSATDYVNAFKARSLDGRAAVTEQVLADFRIYAEYAGAAYCNS 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 MLGYILLSFAALAAAAPLSATDYVNAFKARSLDGRAAVTEQVLADFRIYAEYAGAAYCNS 60
Qy 61 EVAPGTAITCGGSAGPCPSVEGNAATVLQSFEGLLTGIGGYVAVDHARSEIIISIRGSNN 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 EVAPGTAITCGGSAGPCPSVEGNAATVLQSFEGLLTGIGGYVAVDHARSEIIISIRGSNN 120
Qy 121 LRNFLTDVVFIRQGCDLFSGCQVHAGFGTAWKEIESRATAAVAAAVAANPGYSVVATGHS 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 121 LRNFLTDVVFIRQGCDLFSGCQVHAGFGTAWKEIESRATAAVAAAVAANPGYSVVATGHS 180
Qy 181 LGGAVATIAAGYLRRSHAVDIYTFGAPRVGNAAFSQFITDQAGGEFRVTHVDDPVPRLPP 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 181 LGGAVATIAAGYLRRSHAVDIYTFGAPRVGNAAFSQFITDQAGGEFRVTHVDDPVPRLPP 240
Qy 241 MIFGYRHISPEYWLSTGDGENLEFAVGDVIVCQGISTTGCNAGTNVGLNIPAHLNYIVEI 300
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 241 MIFGYRHISPEYWLSTGDGENLEFAVGDVIVCQGISTTGCNAGTNVGLNIPAHLNYIVEI 300
Qy 301 SSCGPAFSFRQASEVSNEDLAVRLHEWALADQEYAAAINGAAAAPAA 347
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 301 SSCGPAFSFRQASEVSNEDLAVRLHEWALADQEYAAAINGAAAAPAA 347
Semeiks et al. do not teach that the composition comprises biosurfactant in addition to lipase (for claims 1) wherein the biosurfactants are rhamnolipids, sophorolipid, glycolipid or glucolipid (for claim 2), 4-nitrophenym octanoate from 0.0015-0.15, or 3 to 60-2250 or 1050 units/g 4-nitrophenyloctanoite units (for claim 3, 11, 16), 0.1-5 to 25-80%, or 25-60% biosurfactant (for claim 4, 12, 17), 1%, 5% to 20% or 50% non-biosurfactant (for claim 5, 18), non-biosurfactant includes cationic, anionic, non-ionic, semipolar surfactant, Zwitterion (for claim 6), all surfactants are 5-90% (for claim 7), sum of total biosurfactants are 1-90% (for claim 8, 19), composition contains water (for claim 9), composition is laundry or dishwashing formulation (for 10).
However, Parry et al. teach using biosurfactants including rhamnose, and non-ionic surfactants in making a composition (see, abstract, para 14, and claims 1-6).
Parry et al. do not teach using 4-nitrophenyloctanoate (for claims 3, 11 and 16).
However, Dudgeon et al. teach using lipase and 4-nitrophenyl octanoate in making a washing solution (see, whole document).
While claims 3-5, 7-8, 11-12, and 16-19 recite products composition comprising different amounts of biosurfactant rhamnolipids, 4-nitrophenyl octanoate, non-biosurfactant in product by process form, patentability of a product by process claim is determined by the characteristics, of the product only (composition). As there is no evidence that the different amounts of biosurfactant, 4-nitrophenyl octanoate, non-biosurfactant as recited in claims 3-5, 7-8, 11-12, and 16-19 would be any different from the biosurfactant, 4-nitrophenyl octanoate, non-biosurfactant recited by the Parry et al. and Dudgeon et al. see, MPEP 2113:
2113 Product-by-Process Claims [R-08.2017]
I. PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE MANIPULATIONS OF THE RECITED STEPS, ONLY THE STRUCTURE IMPLIED BY THE STEPS
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Therefore, before, the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention as a whole by combining the teachings of Semeiks et al. Parry et al. and Dudgeon et al. to biosurfactant rhamnolipids and non-ionic surfactant as taught by Parry et al., and using 4-nitrophenyl octanoate as Dudgeon et al. and modify Semeiks et al. in view of the teachings of Parry et al. and Dudgeon et al. to make a detergent composition to arrive the claimed invention.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to use surfactants with lipase in order to enhance washing capability, which is commercially, industrially and economically important.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because Parry et al. and dudgeon et al. could successfully produce a detergent composition with lipase.
Thus, the above references render the claims prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Status of the claims:
Claims 1-12, 14-19 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IQBAL H CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-8137. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, at 9:00-5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Manjunath N. Rao, can be reached on 571-272-0939. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Iqbal H. Chowdhury, Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1656 (Recombinant Enzymes and Protein Crystallography)
US Patent and Trademark Office
Ph. (571)-272-8137 and Fax (571)-273-8137
/IQBAL H CHOWDHURY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1656
Prosecution Insights