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 02/24/2023 claims priority from Provisional Application 63268547, filed 02/25/2022. The claims are therefore examined as filed on 02/25/2022, the effective filing date. In future actions, the effective filing date of one or more claims may change, due to amendments to the claims, or further review of the priority application(s).
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 11, 17, and 20 are objected to.
Claims 1-20 are examined.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, all references have been considered.
Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Disclosures
REQUIREMENTS FOR PATENT APPLICATIONS CONTAINING NUCLEOTIDE AND/OR AMINO ACID SEQUENCE DISCLOSURES
Items 1) and 2) provide general guidance related to requirements for sequence disclosures.
37 CFR 1.821(c) requires that patent applications which contain disclosures of nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences that fall within the definitions of 37 CFR 1.821(a) must contain a "Sequence Listing," as a separate part of the disclosure, which presents the nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences and associated information using the symbols and format in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825. This "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure may be submitted:
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system (see Section I.1 of the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System (https://www.uspto.gov/PatentLegalFramework), hereinafter "Legal Framework") as an ASCII text file, together with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file in a separate paragraph of the specification as required by 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) identifying:
the name of the ASCII text file;
ii) the date of creation; and
iii) the size of the ASCII text file in bytes;
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) on read-only optical disc(s) as permitted by 37 CFR 1.52(e)(1)(ii), labeled according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(5), with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(8) and 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) in a separate paragraph of the specification identifying:
the name of the ASCII text file;
the date of creation; and
the size of the ASCII text file in bytes;
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(2) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF file (not recommended); or
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(3) on physical sheets of paper (not recommended).
When a “Sequence Listing” has been submitted as a PDF file as in 1(c) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(2)) or on physical sheets of paper as in 1(d) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(3)), 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1) requires a computer readable form (CRF) of the “Sequence Listing” in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.824.
If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the PDF copy and the CRF copy (the ASCII text file copy) are identical.
If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed on paper or read-only optical disc, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the paper or read-only optical disc copy and the CRF are identical.
Specific deficiencies and the required response to this Office Action are as follows:
Specific deficiency - This application fails to comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825 because it does not contain a "Sequence Listing" as a separate part of the disclosure or a CRF of the “Sequence Listing.”.
Required response - Applicant must provide:
A "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure; together with
An amendment specifically directing its entry into the application in accordance with 37 CFR 1.825(a)(2);
A statement that the "Sequence Listing" includes no new matter as required by 37 CFR 1.821(a)(4); and
A statement that indicates support for the amendment in the application, as filed, as required by 37 CFR 1.825(a)(3).
If the "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure is submitted according to item 1) a) or b) above, Applicant must also provide:
A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125 inserting the required incorporation-by-reference paragraph, consisting of:
A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version);
A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and
A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter.
If the "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure is submitted according to item 1) c) or d) above, applicant must also provide:
A CRF in accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1) or 1.821(e)(2) as required by 1.825(a)(5); and
A statement according to item 2) a) or b) above.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 11 and 17 should both read “using a sequencing device to incorporate nucleobases into oligonucleotides” (There appears to be a missing word, which is assumed to be “nucleobases” as this is the phrasing used in claim 1)
Claim 20 should read “wherein receiving the nucleotide-sample slide comprises receiving the nucleotide-sample slide comprising
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 11 are unclear as claim 1 recites a system comprising at least one processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium that cause the system to perform steps, one of which is to “perform one or more calibration cycles using a sequencing device…” while claim 11 similarly recites a non-transitory computer readable medium that causes a system to perform the same step. It is therefore unclear if the sequencing device is intended to be part of the system in these claims based on the wording of the claims, as a system comprising only a processor and readable medium cannot perform the sequencing steps. The Examiner recommends amending the claims to clearly include the sequencing device as part of the system (for example, processor coupled to a sequencing device).
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-16 do not resolve the issue above, and are therefore also indefinite due to lack of clarity.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of mental processes and mathematical concepts, without significantly more.
The MPEP at MPEP 2106 sets forth steps for identifying eligible subject matter:
(1) Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
(2A)(1) Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
(2A)(2) Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
(2B) If the claims recite a judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception, do the claims recite additional elements that provide an inventive concept and amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
With regard to step (1) (Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?): Yes. The claims are directed to one of the statutory classes. Claims 1-10 are directed to a product (a computer system comprising at least one processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium), claims 11-16 are also directed to a product (a non-transitory computer readable medium), and claims 17-20 are directed to a process (a method).
With regard to step (2A)(1) (Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception?): Yes. The claims recite the abstract ideas of processing data using mental steps and mathematical concepts. Claims that recite nothing more than abstract ideas, natural phenomena, or laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection (see MPEP 2106.04).
Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, (mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes (including procedures for collecting, observing, evaluating, and organizing information (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). In particular, these abstract ideas include but are not limited to:
Determining a sequencing parameter corresponding to the sequencing device based on the one or more calibration cycles and the calibration sequences (mental process/mathematical concept; the human mind is capable of determining a parameter based on data from calibration cycles, and doing so is equivalent to performing a calculation, as it can involve applying a coefficient or other mathematical process; claims 1, 11, 17)
Determining the sequencing parameter corresponding to the sequencing device by estimating the sequencing parameter based on the initial sequencing parameters (mental process/mathematical concept; the human mind is capable of estimating a parameter based on other parameters, and doing so is equivalent to performing a calculation; claim 4)
Determining a base-call difference from a comparison between the nucleobase call for the given nucleobases incorporated into the set of growing oligonucleotides and known complimentary nucleobases for the one or more calibration sequences (mental process/mathematical concept; the human mind is capable of comparing two bases and counting the number of different bases; doing so it a mathematical process; claim 6)
Adjusting the initial sequencing parameter corresponding to the sequencing device based on the base-call difference (mental process/mathematical concept; the human mind is capable of adjusting a parameter based on a calculated value, and doing so is equivalent to performing a calculation; claim 6)
Dependent claims 3 and 5 further limit the abstract ideas recited in the independent claims, and do not change their characterization as abstract ideas.
Therefore, the claims recite elements that constitute one or more judicial exceptions.
With regard to step (2A)(2) (Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?): No. Claim 1 and its dependents recite the additional elements of a system comprising at least one processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium for performing the steps in the claims, receiving a nucleotide-sample slide comprising calibration sequences of nucleobases; and performing calibration cycles using a sequencing device. Claim 11 and its dependents similarly recite the additional elements of a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions executed by a processor, receiving a nucleotide-sample slide, and performing calibration cycles using a sequencing device. Claim 17 and its dependents also recite the additional elements of receiving a nucleotide-sample slide, and performing calibration cycles using a sequencing device.
Claims 2, and 12-16 further describes the calibration sequences, claims 7-8 further describes the sequencing process, and claims 9-10, and 18-20 further describe the received data of the independent claims.
While the claims recite the additional element of receiving data, such steps that only amount to necessary data gathering , without any technical details of how the data is obtained that integrate the judicial exception, are insignificant extrasolution activities that do not add a meaningful limitation to the claims (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Similarly, the additional element of using a sequencing device for gathering/generating data in the claims, without further detail on the structure and function of the sequencing device, merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). As a result, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In addition, while the claims recite additional elements related to the use of computers, they do not provide any specific details by which the system, computer-readable storage medium, or processor performs or carries out the judicial exception listed in step (2A)(1), nor do they provide any details of how specific structures of the computer are used to implement these functions. The judicial exception is therefore not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea, as they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Because the claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims as a whole are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to step (2B) (Do the claims recite additional elements that provide an inventive concept and amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?): No. The claims recite an abstract idea with additional elements; however, these additional elements are general computer elements added to abstract ideas, and non-particular instructions to apply the abstract idea by linking it to a field of use or extrasolution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(f-h)). General computer elements used to perform an abstract idea do not provide an inventive concept, and similarly, non-particular instructions to gather or produce data do not provide an inventive concept. Non-particular instructions to gather or output data using general computer elements are also considered well-understood, routine and conventional activities (see MPEP 2106.05(d), which indicates that limitations such as “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” from Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362, and “Storing and retrieving information in memory” from Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, are recognized as conventional activities). Further, non-particular instructions for performing sequencing/use a sequencing device are also recognized as conventional activities (see MPEP 2106.05(d) which also indicates that limitations such as “Analyzing DNA to provide sequence information or detect allelic variants” from Genetic Techs. Ltd., 818 F.3d at 1377; 118 USPQ2d at 1546 and “Amplifying and sequencing nucleic acid sequences” from University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d 755, 764, 113 USPQ2d 1241, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2014) are recognized as conventional activities). The claims therefore do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As a result, the claims as a whole do not provide an inventive concept.
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.
Claim Rejection
Claims 1-5, and 7-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ERLICH 2010 (US 20100160172 A1, as cited on the IDS filed 9/21/2023) in view of TIEDTKE 2017 (WO 2017084998 A1, as cited on the IDS filed 9/21/2023).
Claim Interpretation and Scope and Contents of Prior Art
Claims 1, 11 and 17 recite a system, a computer readable medium, and a method, respectively, comprising the steps of receiving a nucleotide-sample slide comprising calibration sequences of nucleobases; performing one or more calibration cycles using a sequencing device to incorporate nucleobases into oligonucleotides corresponding to the calibration sequences; and determining a sequencing parameter corresponding to the sequencing device based on the one or more calibration cycles and the calibration sequences.
With respect to these limitations, ERLICH teaches methods and system of DNA sequencing (Abstract) implemented on a computer [024] for performing the steps of providing/receiving a training library of known DNA fragments (used as calibration fragments) that can be synthetic [021-25, 39] applying the DNA sample and at least some fragments from the training library to the DNA sequencer to generate a first signal for the sample and control signals for the fragments (performing calibration cycles) [025, 39], and determining a distortion parameter/function (a sequence parameter) based on the difference between the control signals (calibration cycles/sequences) and sample signals [0005, 25-26, 39-41]. ERLICH does not specify that the sequencing device incorporates nucleobases into oligonucleotides corresponding to the calibration sequences. However, TIEDTKE teaches that the sequencing process involves incorporating labelled nucleotides into a growing oligonucleotide chain (pg 1 lines 17-29). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this process occurs in the sequencing steps of ERLICH as well.
Claims 2 and 12 recite the limitation wherein the calibration sequences are part of sample library fragments deposited on the nucleotide-sample slide or part of surface-bound oligonucleotides that are attached to a surface of the nucleotide-sample slide. With respect to this limitation, ERLICH teaches that the calibration sequences are part of library fragments from a training library [025, 39], on a flow cell/nucleotide sample slide [0006].
Claim 3 recites the limitation of determining the sequencing parameter corresponding to the sequencing device by detecting the sequencing parameter from the sequencing device during or after the one or more calibration cycles. With respect to this limitation, ERLICH teaches determining the distortion parameter after the calibration cycles [25-26, 39-41].
Claim 4 recites the limitation of performing the one or more calibration cycles to determine initial sequencing parameters associated with the incorporated nucleobases of the oligonucleotides corresponding to the calibration sequences; and determining the sequencing parameter corresponding to the sequencing device by estimating the sequencing parameter based on the initial sequencing parameters. With respect to this limitation, ERLICH teaches determining an initial parameter associated with expected sequence signals, and estimating the distortion parameter from the expected signals compared to control signals [039], and also teaches inferring parameters that describe a signal by optimizing an objective function that is built upon known exemplars [040].
Claim 5 recites the limitation of determining the initial sequencing parameters or the sequencing parameter by determining one or more of equalizer coefficients, convolutional kernel coefficients, nucleobase centroids for intensity values, intensity-value boundaries for particular nucleobase types, nucleobase-specific-background intensity values, intensity normalization coefficients, gaussian covariance matrices, gaussian mean parameters, gaussian seed parameters, fully functional nucleotide (fFN) specific nucleotide location parameters, non-linear optical distortion parameters, structured illumination microscopy (SIM) parameters, per-cluster normalization parameters for a particular channel, channel-specific normalization parameters, cluster-specific-signal normalization parameters, color-channel-to-color-channel crosstalk parameters, or polycolonality parameters. With respect to this limitation, ERLICH teaches inferring parameters that describe a signal by optimizing an objective function that is built upon known exemplars [040] which is an example of a non-linear optical distortion parameter.
Claim 7 recites the limitation of incorporating nucleobases of one nucleobase type or two nucleobase types into a calibration-sequence position of a set of growing oligonucleotides corresponding to a set of calibration sequences. With respect to this limitation, ERLICH teaches incorporating one or two nucleobase types [0071] and TIEDTKE teaches that the sequencing process involves incorporating labelled nucleotides one at a time into a growing oligonucleotide chain (pg 1 lines 17-29).
Claim 8 recites the limitation of incorporating nucleobases having a proportional distribution of two nucleobase types, a proportional distribution of three nucleobase types, or a proportional distribution of four nucleobase types into a calibration-sequence position of a set of growing oligonucleotides corresponding to a set of calibration sequences. Claim 13 similarly recites that the calibration sequences comprise different sequences of nucleobases having a proportional distribution of four nucleobase types, and claim 14 recites that the different sequences of nucleobases comprise a first calibration sequence including four nucleobase types according to a first order of nucleobases and a second calibration sequence including the four nucleobase types according to a second order of nucleobases. Claim 15 recites that the calibration sequences each comprise a single sequence of nucleobases having a proportional distribution of four nucleobase types and claim 16 recites that calibration sequences comprise different sequences of nucleobases that collectively include, at a given calibration-sequence position, a distribution of a first nucleobase type and a second nucleobase type and collectively include, at a subsequent calibration-sequence position, a distribution of the first nucleobase type and a third nucleobase type or a distribution of the third nucleobase type and a fourth nucleobase type.
With respect to these limitations, ERLICH teaches incorporating nucleobases having a proportional distribution, which can include 1-4 types of nucleobases in the sequence in various orders or proportions to account for noise/error [068-71, 77]. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that known sequences/calibration sequences would include any combination, order, or distribution of nucleobase types to account for noise, as this would be the result of routine optimization or obvious to try.
Claim 9 recites the limitation of receiving the nucleotide-sample slide comprising: the calibration sequences in each well of the nucleotide-sample slide for seeding each cluster of oligonucleotides within each well; the calibration sequences in a subset of wells of the nucleotide-sample slide for seeding each cluster of oligonucleotides within the subset of wells; or the calibration sequences in the subset of wells of the nucleotide-sample slide for seeding a subset of clusters of oligonucleotides within the subset of wells. With respect to this limitation, ERLICH teaches sequencing the libraries on the same flow cell [083]; it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill that the calibration sequences/library sequences can be in each well or a subset of wells.
Claim 10 recites the limitation of receiving a first set of sample library fragments including a first set of calibration sequences for calibrating a first sequencing parameter; and a second set of sample library fragments including a second set of calibration sequences for calibrating a second sequencing parameter. With respect to this limitation, ERLICH teaches receiving fragments of a training library for calibrating and inferring multiple parameters [025, 39-40].
Claim 18 recites the limitation of receiving the nucleotide-sample slide comprising a sample library fragment including a calibration sequence as part or all of a non-genomic and/or non-transcriptomic sequence within the sample library fragment. With respect to this limitation, ERLICH teaches the library fragments can be synthetic or artificially created [021, 0034].
Resolving Ordinary Skill in the Art and Obviousness Rationale
A teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify or combine the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. Specifically, a person of ordinary skill in sequencing methods would have been motivated to combine the teachings of ERLICH with the teachings of TIEDTKE, in order to achieve the claimed invention, because incorporating labelled nucleotides into a growing oligonucleotide chain is a classic and commonly used sequencing technique (pg 1 lines 17-29), as is using library fragments of various orders and proportions of nucleobases. A person of ordinary skill would reasonably expect success from combining these teachings, as both ERLICH and TIEDTKE teach methods of using and calibrating a sequencing device. Therefore, the claims at issue would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as there is both a reason to modify or combine the prior art, and a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP 2143.02 (I)).
Claim Rejection
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ERLICH in view of TIEDTKE as applied to claims 1-5, and 7-18 above, and further in view of BRONNER 2019 “Best Practices for Illumina Library Preparation.”
Claim Interpretation and Scope and Contents of Prior Art
ERLICH in view of TIEDTKE teaches the limitations of claims 1-5, and 7-18 above.
Claim 19 recites the limitation of receiving the nucleotide-sample slide comprising a sample library fragment including a calibration sequence between a binding adapter sequence and an indexing sequence, between the indexing sequence and a read priming sequence, or between the read priming sequence and a sample genomic sequence.
Claim 20 recites the limitation of receiving the nucleotide-sample slide comprising the nucleotide-sample slide comprising a sample library fragment including a calibration sequence as part or all of a non-random unique molecular identifier (UMI) sequence, as part or all of a unique dual index (UDI) sequence, as part or all of an indexing sequence, or as part or all of a binding adapter sequence.
ERLICH in view of TIEDTKE do not teach these limitations, however BRONNER teaches library preparation where the fragments are part of an indexing sequence, a binding adapter sequence, or a unique dual indexing sequence (pg 19, Fig 5-6). One of ordinary skill would understand that the known calibration sequences could be placed between these sequences or part of them.
Resolving Ordinary Skill in the Art and Obviousness Rationale
A teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify or combine the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. Specifically, a person of ordinary skill in sequencing methods would have been motivated to combine the teachings of ERLICH in view of TIEDTKE with the teachings of BRONNER, in order to achieve the claimed invention, because methods such as adapter ligation and indexing are common and well known practices in library preparation for sequencing (Abstract) such that known sequences (that can be used for calibration) can be placed between or within an adapter or indexing sequence. A person of ordinary skill would reasonably expect success from combining these teachings, as ERLICH in view of TIEDTKE and BRONNER teach methods of library preparation for sequencing. Therefore, the claims at issue would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as there is both a reason to modify or combine the prior art, and a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP 2143.02 (I)).
Claims Without an Art Rejection
No art rejection is applied to claim 6. The cited art above, does not teach the limitations of determining a nucleobase call for given nucleobases incorporated into a set of growing oligonucleotides corresponding to one or more calibration sequences and determining a base-call difference from a comparison between the nucleobase call for the given nucleobases incorporated into the set of growing oligonucleotides and known complimentary nucleobases for the one or more calibration sequences, and adjusting the initial sequencing parameter corresponding to the sequencing device based on the base-call difference. No combinable art before the effective filing date could be found to render the claim as obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY C LEVERETT whose telephone number is (571)272-5494. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 5:00pm M-Th.
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, Karlheinz R. Skowronek can be reached at (571) 272-9047. 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.
/MARY C LEVERETT/ Examiner, Art Unit 1687
Prosecution Insights