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 .
This action is responsive to papers filed 06/08/2026.
Claims 13 and 22 have been amended. No claims have been newly canceled and claim 23 has been newly added.
Claims 13, 15-20 and 22-23 are currently pending.
Claim 16 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected specie (skeletal muscle myoblasts-SMBs), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/14/2024.
Claims 13, 15, 17-20 and 22-23 have been examined on their merits.
Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn due to amendment. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 13, 15, 17-20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhee et al (BMC Biotechnology 2009) in view of Teng et al (eLIFE 2016, from IDS filed 07/07/2023), Sadick et al (Scientific Reports 2016), Walev et al (PNAS 2001-from IDS filed 07/07/2023) and Tsuruo et al (US 2003/0022878-previously cited).
Regarding claims 13, 15, 17-20, Rhee teach a method of detecting protein stem markers in live stem cells, specifically human induced pluripotent stem cells, and isolating these cells from a mixed population by targeting intracellular stem cell markers with a combination of molecular beacons and dye-labeled antibodies through flow cytometry (abstract, pages 6-7 Discussion and Figure 5). Although they use carcinoma cells as a model, the same approach is taught to be applicable to detecting iPS (induced pluripotent stem cells) (page 6 Discussion). Detection of stem cell markers in undifferentiated cells is performed by treating the cells with streptolysin O (SLO) and then treating them with fluorescent dye-conjugated antibodies followed by flow cytometric analysis (page 4, column 2, page 5, column 2-page 6, Figure 5). FACS is a specific type of flow cytometry used for the analysis (page 9 column 2). Detecting multiple stem cell markers for the isolation of iPS cells is suggested as necessary and includes Oct-4 and Nanog (page 7 column 1).
Rhee teach that it is very attractive to use iPS cells derived from a patient’s adult cells to differentiate into specialized cells (culture the isolated cells) for treating specific diseases or repairing injured tissue and that it is necessary to have an efficient method to isolate iPS cells from mixed cell populations (page 2, column 1).
Rhee teach that detecting stem cells using multiple mRNA markers in combination with surface protein markers could increase both detection specificity and sensitivity (page 6 column 2 to page 7 column 1). The combination of intracellular markers and cell surface markers to isolate live cells, such as iPS cells, is specifically suggested and discussed (page 6 Discussion). Rhee states that this has the potential to provide a powerful tool for stem cell research and the isolation of iPSC cells (page 8 Conclusion).
Rhee do not specifically exemplify their method using a primary antibody against a target intracellular protein of the target cells and a secondary antibody that is fluorescent and dye-conjugated. Rhee are silent with regard to the size of the fluorescent dye-conjugated antibody and do not teach the claimed fluorescent dye.
Teng disclose a method for labeling proteins inside living mammalian cells using external fluorophores and Streptolysin O. The Streptolysin O forms temporary pores in the cell membrane and allows delivery of virtually any fluorescent probes ranging from labeled IgGs to small ligands, with high efficiency, and with probes ranging in size from small molecules to large proteins up to 150 kDa (abstract, pages 1-2 Introduction). Alexa and FITC are both indicated as fluorescent dyes that are suitable for use (page 4 and page 6). This general method allows for the targeting of intracellular proteins (page 2). A variety of cell viability tests are performed after treatment with SLO to ensure that the antibody labeled cells have intact membranes, are able to divide (such as in culture), respond normally to signaling molecules and maintain healthy organelle morphology (abstract).
Sadick disclose methods for protein characterization of intracellular target-sorted cell populations and prepare samples for FACS by fluorescently labeling intracellular proteins that are characteristic of the target cell type. This allows subpopulations to be targeted more specifically with a broad array of available antibodies (page 2 first paragraph). Immunolabeling and sorting based on intracellular markers provides investigators with vastly more cell type specific targets and by taking advantage of commercially available antibodies this can be applied to any cell or animal model of interest (paragraph spanning pages 5-6). While mRNA abundance has been used as a proxy for protein abundance, which assumes that mRNA presence is the major factor determining the amount of protein made, overall mRNA abundance has a low correlation with protein synthesis. Thus, protein characterization provides the most concrete representation of cell phenotype (page 6). Suitable antibodies for sorting studies include those with a secondary antibody conjugated to Alexa Fluor 488 (page 8, Materials and Methods).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use antibody labeled probes to detect intracellular proteins in the method of Rhee because Teng and Sadick teach and suggest that it is beneficial to detect intracellular proteins in a desired cell type using antibody probes. Teng suggest that doing this in a manner that allows the cells to remain viable is beneficial and desirable and does not require the fixation step that was previously thought to be required. Sadick specifically points out the benefits and advantages of detecting intracellular protein rather than mRNA as protein characterization provides the most concrete representation of cell phenotype (page 6). The use of a secondary antibody conjugated with a fluorescent dye up to about 150 kD, such as Alexa Fluor 488, would have been motivated by Sadick as they teach that these are suitable antibodies for sorting with FACS and Teng also suggest that Alexa dyes are beneficial for use with fluorescent antibody probes up to 150 kD when used with SLO and FACS as well. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Teng teach that variety of cell viability tests are performed after treatment with SLO to ensure that the antibody labeled cells have intact membranes, are able to divide, respond normally to signaling molecules and maintain healthy organelle morphology (abstract).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated with a reasonable expectation of success to use the method of Rhee to detect and isolate human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells) because Rhee specifically state that although they use carcinoma cells as a model, that the same approach is applicable to detecting iPS (induced pluripotent stem cells) (page 6 Discussion). The use of an antibody probe to labeled to detect Nanog would have been obvious as suggested above by Teng and Sadick and because this is the protein expressed by iPS cells.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to culture the isolated iPS cells obtained in the method of Rhee because Rhee teach that it is very attractive to use iPS cells derived from a patient’s adult cells to differentiate into specialized cells (culture the isolated cells) for treating specific diseases or repairing injured tissue and that it is necessary to have an efficient method to isolate iPS cells from mixed cell populations (page 2, column 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Teng suggest that detecting intracellular proteins in a desired cell type using antibody probes in a manner that allows the cells to remain viable is beneficial and desirable and does not require the fixation step that was previously thought to be required.
Rhee do not teach wherein streptolysin O is used at a treatment concentration of 2.5 U/mL or more and 5 U/mL or less.
Walev teach a method of delivering proteins into living cells by reversible membrane permeabilization with streptolysin-O (SLO) to deliver biologically active molecules to intracellular targets (Title, page 3185, column 2, Materials and Methods- page 3186-column 1, second paragraph). Walev teach that low doses of SLO are used to provide efficient membrane repair in cells in order that the cells remain viable (live)(page 3186, column 1). Walev teach that the goal is to identify the concentration that effects permeabilization of 60-80% of the cells within 10-15 minutes and that the required concentration varies depending on cell target and must be determined by titration (page 3186, column 1). Resealing of the cells after treatment with SLO is by addition of medium with Ca2+ (page 3186, column 2).
Tsuruo disclose a method of permeabilizing cells with 5 U/mL to enable desired substances to be incorporated into cells (page 4 para 57).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the concentration of SLO in the method of Rhee with a reasonable expectation of success using the value provided by Tsuruo as a starting point to arrive at the claimed concentrations because Walev teach that the optimal SLO concentration varies depending on cell target and must be determined by titration.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
The selection of specific concentrations clearly would have been a routine matter of optimization and experimentation on the part of the artisan of ordinary skill, said artisan recognizing that the amount and viability of the cells permeabilized would have been affected by these concentrations as suggested by Walev.
Regarding claim 23, Rhee teach that detecting stem cells using multiple intracellular markers in combination with surface protein markers (extracellular membrane protein markers) could increase both detection specificity and sensitivity (page 6 column 2 to page 7 column 1). The combination of intracellular markers and cell surface markers to isolate live cells, such as iPS cells, is specifically suggested and discussed (page 6 Discussion). Rhee states that this has the potential to provide a powerful tool for stem cell research and the isolation of iPSC cells (page 8 Conclusion). Detection of stem cell markers in undifferentiated cells is performed by treating the cells with streptolysin O (SLO) and then treating them with fluorescent dye-conjugated antibodies followed by flow cytometric analysis (page 4, column 2, page 5, column 2-page 6, Figure 5).
Therefore, the combined teachings of Rhee et al, Teng et al, Sadick et al, Walev et al and Tsuruo et al render obvious Applicant’s invention as claimed.
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhee et al (BMC Biotechnology 2009) in view of Teng et al (eLIFE 2016, from IDS filed 07/07/2023), Sadick et al (Scientific Reports 2016), Walev et al (PNAS 2001-from IDS filed 07/07/2023) and Tsuruo et al (US 2003/0022878-previously cited) as applied to claims 13, 15, 17-20, and 23 above, and further in view of Sayre et al (US 2005/0170506-from IDS filed 07/07/2023).
Regarding claim 22, the combined teachings of Rhee, Teng, Sadick, Walev and Tsuruo render obvious the claimed method as described above, but do not specifically include wherein the target cells are suspended in calcium chloride-added cell culture to regenerate the cell membrane. Between steps 3 and 4.
Sayre teach wherein cells treated with SLO are then resuspended in a solution of calcium chloride in preparation media (culture media) (page 11-12 para 132).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to resuspend the SLO- treated cells of Rhee with a culture media containing calcium chloride because Sayre indicate that this is suitable and beneficial for the culture of SLO-treated cells. Rhee teach that it is very attractive to use iPS cells derived from a patient’s adult cells to differentiate into specialized cells (culture the isolated cells) for treating specific diseases or repairing injured tissue and that it is necessary to have an efficient method to isolate iPS cells from mixed cell populations (page 2, column 1). Thus, Rhee indicates the intention to further culture their isolated cells. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Teng specifically indicate that a complete supplemented medium can be used to reseal cells treated with SLO (page 2) and Rhee indicate that it is desirable to isolate the iPS cells in a live, viable form. Additional motivation and a reasonable expectation of success are provided by Walev as they also disclose resealing of cells after treatment with SLO is by addition of medium with Ca2+ (page 3186, column 2).
Therefore, the combined teachings of Rhee et al, Teng et al, Sadick et al, Walev et al, Tsuruo et al and Sayre et al render obvious Applicant’s invention as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Rhee, Teng, Sadick, Walev and Tsuruo do not teach or suggest the criticality of the SLO treatment concentration of 2.5 to 5 U/mL. Applicant argues that a skilled artisan would not have any motivation to combine the teachings of Rhee, Teng, Sadick, Walev and Tsuruo to arrive at the presently claimed invention. Applicant crucially points to the criticality of the SLO treatment concentration of 2.5 to 5 U/mL. Applicant disagrees with the Examiner’s contention that a difference in concentration is inherently unpatentable without evidence of criticality. Applicant asserts that their specification contains evidence that the claimed concentration range of SLO satisfies the criticality standard articulated in In re Aller. Applicant points to Figs 2A and 2B for evidence that concentrations above 5 U/mL show viability of the target cells deteriorates precipitously. Applicant points to Fig. 1B to detail the criticality of the lower limit of the SLO concentration range. Applicant points to Figs. 3A and 3B for evidence of the benefits of SLO treatment at 5 U/mL.
This is not found persuasive. Tsuruo disclose a method of permeabilizing cells with 5 U/mL to enable desired substances to be incorporated into cells (page 4 para 57). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the concentration of SLO in the method of Rhee with a reasonable expectation of success using the value provided by Tsuruo as a starting point to arrive at the claimed concentrations because Walev teach that the optimal SLO concentration varies depending on cell target and must be determined by titration.
Applicant argues that Tsuruo does not provide a skilled person with a reasonable expectation of success at using the claimed SLO concentration as in the present invention. Applicant asserts that the use of 5 U/mL in Tsuruo is entirely incidental to a radically different technical objective and cannot constitute a meaningful starting point for optimization due to the fundamental differences between Tsuruo and the present invention as set forth in their table at page 10 of their arguments. Applicant asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art reading Tsuruo would have no motivation or reasonable expectation of success in applying 5 U/mL value for optimizing SLO in human induced pluripotent stem cells in a living state.
This is not found persuasive. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
The obviousness rejection is based on the modification of the Rhee method which does not require high SLO concentrations. In addition, the teachings of Walev and Tsuruo provide the motivation to optimize the SLO concentrations to around 5 U/mL as described above.
Applicant argues that Walev lacks a reasonable expectation of success and affirmatively teaches away from macromolecular antibody delivery. Applicant asserts that Walev’s titration rationale supports non-obviousness. Applicant asserts that Walev’s teaching that FITC- IgG and FITC-dextran with a Mr of greater than or equal to 260,000 did not enter cells is a direct affirmative teaching that IgG antibodies of approximately 150 kDa cannot permeate SLO-treated cells. Applicant asserts that a reference that teaches away from a result cannot simultaneously provide a reasonable expectation of success in achieving a result. Applicant asserts that the Examiner’s reliance on Walev as a basis for anticipating successful delivery to an antibody against a target intracellular protein using SLO treatment is internally contradictory and self-defeating. Applicant asserts that Walev itself forecloses the very expectation of success the Examiner presupposes.
This is not found persuasive. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In the current case, Walev is drawn to a method using different cell types, not the iPS cells used in Rhee, and thus provides a teaching that motivates the optimization of the SLO concentration based on the cell type. Tsuruo disclose a method of permeabilizing cells with 5 U/mL to enable desired substances to be incorporated into cells (page 4 para 57).
The obviousness rejection is based on the modification of the Rhee method which does not require high SLO concentrations. In addition, the combined teachings of Walev and Tsuruo provide the motivation to optimize the SLO concentrations to around 5 U/mL as described above.
Applicant argues that Walev’s 100 kDa limit and the 150 kDa antibodies against a target intracellular protein teaches away from the present invention. Applicant asserts that Walev affirmatively teaches that the approach of the present invention would not work.
This is not found persuasive. While Walev’s method might not work with human induced pluripotent stem cells as recited in the claimed method, the obviousness rejection is based on the modification of the Rhee method and does not require the bodily incorporation of the Walev method into the method of Rhee. Walev is relied upon in the obviousness rejection for the teaching that the optimal SLO concentration is dependent on the cell type and must be determined by titration (page 3186, column 1). Walev also teach and suggest that resealing of the cells after treatment with SLO is by addition of medium with Ca2+ (page 3186, column 2).
Applicant argues that with regard to Walev that if the result for a given cell type is unpredictable in advance that the optimization required is by definition not routine. Applicant asserts that the fact that the optimal SLO concentration had to be determined empirically for human induced pluripotent stem cells is evidence of an unpredictable and non-obvious result.
This is not found persuasive. The concentration of SLO is a result effective variable as it is taught by Walev to affect the cell permeability for specific cell types and optimizable through routine methods of titration as described above. Tsuruo disclose a method of permeabilizing cells with 5 U/mL to enable desired substances to be incorporated into cells (page 4 para 57) and this provides a starting point for optimization of SLO concentration for other cell types.
"It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). (MPEP 2144.05)
Applicant argues that Sadick pertains exclusively to a method of analyzing dead cells.
This is not found persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Also, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In the current case, the Sadick reference is relied upon for the teaching of the benefits and advantages of using suitable antibodies for sorting studies including those with a secondary antibody conjugated to Alexa Fluor 488 (page 8).
Applicant argues that Sadick is affirmatively incompatible with the newly added culturing step (s4). Applicant asserts that the skilled artisan would recognize that Sadick’s formalin-fixation approach destroy the very property- the viability of the cells that the culturing step presupposes. Applicant asserts that Sadick cannot serve as a proper basis for the obviousness of the step (s4).
This is not found persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Also, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In the current case, the Sadick reference is relied upon for the teaching of the benefits and advantages of using suitable antibodies for sorting studies including those with a secondary antibody conjugated to Alexa Fluor 488 (page 8).
Applicant argues that the combination of Rhee, Teng, Sadick, Walev and Tsuruo do not disclose the combination of the key elements of the present invention as shown in the table on page 13 of their arguments.
This is not found persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The obviousness rejection is based on the modification of the Rhee method which does not require high SLO concentrations. In addition, the teachings of Walev and Tsuruo provide the motivation to optimize the SLO concentrations to around 5 U/mL as described above.
Applicant argues that the Examiner’s combination of five references to reconstruct the present invention is a textbook example of impermissible hindsight reconstruction.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In the current case the obviousness rejection is based on the modification of the Rhee method with the secondary references addressing each and every claim limitation as described above.
Applicant argues that the teaching of Ayre does not remedy the deficiencies of the Rhee, Teng, Sadick, Walev and Tsuruo. Applicant asserts that the amendments to claim 22 has overcome the prior rejections.
This is not found persuasive. Rhee teach that it is very attractive to use iPS cells derived from a patient’s adult cells to differentiate into specialized cells (culture the isolated cells) for treating specific diseases or repairing injured tissue and that it is necessary to have an efficient method to isolate iPS cells from mixed cell populations (page 2, column 1). Thus, Rhee indicates the intention to further culture their isolated cells.
In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Abraham et al., "Single cell biology beyond the era of antibodies: relevance, challenges, and promises in biomedical research", Cell. Mol. Life Sci. (2017) 74:1177–1189.
Discloses and discusses the use of intracellular molecular markers for cell isolation and study.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA J SCHUBERG whose telephone number is (571)272-3347. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 EST.
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, James (Doug) Schultz can be reached on 571-272-0763. 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.
LAURA J. SCHUBERG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1631
/LAURA SCHUBERG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1631
Prosecution Insights