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 . 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 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.
DETAILED NON-FINAL ACTION
This is the initial Office Action (OA), on the merits, based on the 18/246,301 application filed on March 22, 2023. Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 20, 23, 24, 36, 38, 50, 53, 55, 57, 58 and 68 are pending. Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 20, 23, 24, 36, 38, 50, 53, 55 and 57 are examined, on the merits, in this Office action. The examined claims are directed to a method.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 20, 23, 24, 36, 38, 50, 53, 55 and 57, in the reply filed on November 6, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 58 and 68 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informality: The comma after the ‘(a)’ appears unnecessary. Please carefully review all claim language for any other similar issues.
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, 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 20, 23, 24, 36, 38, 50, 53, 55 and 57 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1: The phrase “. . . wherein the method reduces one or more impurities of an EV preparation” is unclear. An EV preparation suggests that it could be any EV preparation although the claim specifies only one such method.
Also, “low aluminum (LA) media grade depth filter” and “SP media grade depth filter” are not terms of art. Applicant does not state how these are produced or obtained and the specification is not helpful in this regard. Thus, one of ordinary skill would be unclear how these filters differ from a standard depth filter such that one could readily practice the invention.
Claim 3: The claim recites in part “. . . wherein the one or more impurities of the EV preparation is decreased by at least about 1-fold, at least about 2-fold, at least about 3-fold, at least about 4-fold, at least about 5-fold, at least about 6-fold, at least about 7-fold, at least about 8-fold, at least about 9-fold, at least about 10-fold, at least about 15-fold, at least about 20-fold, at least about 30-fold, at least about 40-fold, or at least about 50-fold or more, compared to the reference EV preparation.”
At least 1-fold means a minimum of a 1-fold decrease, and at least 50-fold means a minimum of 50-fold decrease. Thus, the scope of the claim is ambiguous and unclear regarding which of the recited decreases is most pertinent. That is, there is no clear delineation or range regarding what is claimed with respect to the decrease in the one or more impurities of the EV preparation, which ambiguity could confuse one or ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 5: The language in this claim has a similar issue to claim 3.
Claims 8, 20 and 24: These claims recite “ . . . and a combination thereof” or “and any combination thereof” at the end, which is confusing. Does the claim require each recited constituent, plus a combination of these constituents? Compare this language to “or any combination thereof,” in claims 16, 17, 50 etc.
Claim 10: The language “. . . a pore size of less than about 2 µm, less than about 1.9 µm, . . . less than about 0.1 µm, or less than about 0.05 µm” has issues similar to the claim 3 discussion.
Claim 11: The language “. . . at least about 10%, at least about 15% . . . at least about 99%, or about 100% . . .” and “at least about 1-fold, at least about 2-fold, . . . or at least about 50-fold or more, . . .” has issues similar to claim 3.
Claim 24: The language “at least 2 times, at least 3 times, at least 4 times, or at least 5 times” confuses the scope of the claim, which is similar to the issue discussed with respect to claim 3.
Claim 38: There is a similar issue to claim 3 with respect to the language “at least about 1-fold, at least about 2-fold . . .” as well as the language “. . . at least about 10%, at least about 20%, . . . at least about 80%, or at least about 90% or more . . .”
Claim 55: The language “. . . at least two times, at least three times, . . . at least 24 times, or at least 25 times . . .” has issues similar to the claim 3 discussion.
Claims 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 20, 23, 24, 36, 38, 50, 53, 55 and 57 depend on claim 1.
The meaning of every term or phrase used in a claim should be apparent from the prior art or from the specification and drawings at the time the application is filed. See MPEP §2173.05(a). According to MPEP §2173, "The primary purpose of this requirement of definiteness of claim language is to ensure that the scope of the claims is clear so the public is informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent . . . If the language of a claim is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement, a rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, would be appropriate. See Morton Int 'l, Inc. v. Cardinal Chem. Co., 5 F.3d 1464, 1470, 28 USPQ2d 1190, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See MPEP §2173.02.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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. The inventive entity for a particular application is based on some contribution to at least one of the claims made by each of the named inventors. MPEP §2137.01.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 20, 23, 24, 36, 38, 50, 53, 55 and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Dooley et al. (US20190117792; Dooley) in view of Woo et al. (US20160114272; Woo) and 3M (Zeta-Plus-Depth-Filters-Brochure; 2020).
In the patentability analysis below, the bolded portions represent structural aspects of the claim. The italicized portions represent one or more portions of the manipulative steps. If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation necessarily performs a manipulative step or the method claimed, then Examiner will consider the particular manipulative step to be disclosed by the prior art device. That is, when the prior art device is the same as a device described in Applicant’s specification for carrying out the claimed method, one may assume that the device will inherently perform the claimed process. MPEP §2112.02.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 20, 23, 24, 36, 38, 50, 53, 55 and 57, Dooley discloses a method of preparing purified extracellular vesicles (EVs) from a sample which comprises EVs and one or more impurities (Abstract, [0046], [0095], [0097]), the method comprising
(i) contacting the sample with a filter; and
(ii) collecting a filtrate from the filter,
wherein the method reduces one or more impurities of an EV preparation ([0167], [0168], [0187]).
Therefore, Dooley discloses the claimed invention, except for the use of a depth filter selected from a low aluminum (LA) media grade depth filter, a SP media grade depth filter, or both.
Woo discloses a depth filtration device for the clarification of biological fluids including a composite depth filter media having a nonwoven first layer integral with a second layer containing a polyaeryionitrile (PAN) fibers, a filter aid, and a wet-strength resin, where the depth filter media exhibits increased creased binding capacity for soluble impurities (Abstract). In some cases, high levels of aluminum ions in the final product can have a neurotoxic effect on the human nervous system ([0007]). Woo’s device avoids extensive preflushing needs and release of organic, inorganic and bioburden extractables by providing a depth filter media having a reduced amount of extractables in the filters, thereby reducing the amount of water required for pre-use flushing, and exhibits an increased binding capacity for host cell proteins and other soluble impurities within a cell culture/biological feedstream during a flow through adsorption process for harvested cell culture fluids ([0017]).
3M discloses high performance filter media in it’s Zeta Plus line, including SP Media with a wide nominal pore size range and LA Media that provides a low level of extractables, including aluminum (page 2).
When the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ an appropriate depth filter and in particular one suitable for the filtered material and the desired outcome, as suggested by Woo, including ones with a broad nominal pore size range or ones with low levels of extractables such as aluminum, including filters such as SP Media and LA Media in the 3M Zeta Plus series.
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 3: The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more impurities of the EV preparation is decreased compared to one or more impurities of a reference EV preparation,
wherein the reference EV preparation was obtained from a corresponding sample that was not contacted with the depth filter prior to a chromatography,
wherein the one or more impurities of the EV preparation is decreased by at least about 1-fold, at least about 2-fold, at least about 3-fold, at least about 4-fold, at least about 5-fold, at least about 6-fold, at least about 7-fold, at least about 8-fold, at least about 9-fold, at least about 10-fold, at least about 15-fold, at least about 20-fold, at least about 30-fold, at least about 40-fold, or at least about 50-fold or more, compared to the reference EV preparation (Woo, [0043]; also Examiner interprets the reduction as implicit to the use of the particular media and following the noted steps); Claim 5: In the method, a dynamic binding capacity of a chromatography resin is increased compared to a reference dynamic binding capacity, by at least about 1-fold, at least about 2-fold, at least about 3-fold, at least about 4-fold, at least about 5-fold, at least about 6-fold, at least about 7-fold, at least about 8-fold, at least about 9-fold, at least about 10-fold, at least about 15-fold, at least about 20-fold, at least about 30-fold, at least about 40-fold, or at least about 50-fold or more (Dooley, [0169], [0180] ;Woo, [0002], where the increase is considered implicit, or merely the result achieved from carrying out the recited prior steps); Claim 8: The method comprises subjecting the sample to a pre-treatment prior to contacting the sample with the depth filter, wherein the pre-treatment is capable of increasing the filterability of the sample,
wherein the pre-treatment comprises an agent selected from an acid selected from acetic, acid, citric acid, carboxylic acid, sialic acid, polyaspartic acid, and polyglutamic acid, a salt selected from[NH4]2SO4, K2S04, and KH2PO4, a cationic polymer selected from chitosan, pDADMAC, and PEI, an ethylene glycol, a propylene glycol, a polyethylene glycol, a polypropylene glycol, an urea, an arginine-HCl, a lysine, a glycine, a histidine, a calcium, a sodium, a lithium, a potassium, an iodide, a magnesium, an iron, a zinc, a manganese, an aluminum, an ammonium, guanidium polyethylene glycol, a protease inhibitor selected from EDTA and EGTA, an anti-oxidant selected from cysteine and N-acetyl cysteine), a detergent, a chloride, a sulfate, a phosphate, an acetate, a borate, a formate, a perchlorate, a bromine, a nitrate, a dithiothreitol, a beta mercaptoethanol, a tri-n-butyl phosphate, a polyanion, a polyarginine, a polylysine, a polyhistidine, and a combination thereof (Woo, [0012]); Claim 10: The depth filter has a pore size of less than about 2 µm, less than about 1.9 µm, less than about 1.8 µm, less than about 1.7 µm, less than about 1.6 µm, less than about 1.5 µm, less than about 1.4 µm, less than about 1.3 µm, less than about 1.2 µm, less than about 1.1 µm, less than about 1 µm, less than about 0.9 µm, less than about 0.8 µm, less than about 0.7 µm, less than about 0.6 µm, less than about 0.5 µm, less than about 0.4 µm, less than about 0.3 µm, less than about 0.2 µm, less than about 0.1 µm, or less than about 0.05 µm (it would have been obvious to choose a suitable pore size); Claim 11: The method of claim 1, wherein:
(a) the filtrate comprises at least about 10%, at least about 15%, at least about 20%, at least about 25%, at least about 30%, at least about 35%, at least about 40%, at least about 45%, at least about 50%, at least about 55%, at least about 60%, at least about65%, at least about 70%, at least about 75%, at least about 80%, at least about 85%, at least about 90%, at least about 91%, at least about 92%, at least about 93%, at least about 94%, at least about 95%, at least about 96%, at least about 97%, at least about 98%, at least about 99%, or about 100% of the EVs present in the sample following the contacting,
(b) a turbidity of the filtrate is reduced by at least about 1-fold, at least about 2-fold, at least about 3-fold, at least about 4-fold, at least about 5-fold, at least about 6-fold, at least about 7-fold, at least about 8-fold, at least about 9-fold, at least about 10-fold, at least about 15-fold, at least about 20-fold, at least about 30-fold, at least about 40-fold, or at least about 50-fold or more, compared to a reference filtrate that was not contacted with the depth filter, and
(c) the amount of the one or more impurities present in the filtrate is reduced by at least about 1-fold, at least about 2-fold, at least about 3-fold, at least about 4-fold, at least about 5-fold, at least about 6-fold, at least about 7-fold, at least about 8-fold, at least about 9-fold, at least about 10-fold, at least about 15-fold, at least about 20-fold,at least about 30-fold, at least about 40-fold, or at least about 50-fold or more, compared to the amount of the one or more impurities present in the sample prior to the contacting with the depth filter (Woo, [0030], [0106]; this is viewed as implicit or the result achieved from carrying out the recited prior steps); Claim 14: The one or more impurities comprise a nucleic acid molecule, a protein, or both, and wherein the nucleic acid molecule and the protein are not associated with the EVs (Woo, [0002]); Claim 16: (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more impurities comprise a histone aggregate, a scaffold moiety aggregate, a beta-actin binding protein, or any combination thereof (Woo, [0002], [0016]); Claim 17: The method further comprising (iii) contacting the filtrate with a chromatography resin (Woo, [0043]),
wherein the contacting results in one or more EVs of the filtrate to attach to the chromatography resin, wherein the chromatography resin comprises a cation exchange (CEX) chromatography resin, an anion exchange (AEX) chromatography resin, a mixed mode chromatography (MMC) resin, an affinity chromatography resin, a pseudo affinity chromatography resin, a hydrophobic interaction resin, a hydrophobic charge induction resin, an immobilized metal affinity resin, a ceramic hydroxyapatite resin, a fluoro hydroxyapatite resin, or any combination thereof (Woo, [0043]); Claim 20: The filtrate is contacted with the chromatography resin in a loading buffer, which comprises a salt selected from NaCl, KCI, PO4, CaCl2, MgCI2, Mg2SO4, ZnCl2, MnCl2, MnSO4, NaSCN, KSCN, LiCI, NaPO4, K2HP04, Na2SO4, K2S04, NaAcetate, sodium bromide, lithium chloride, sodium iodide, potassium bromide, lithium bromide, sodium fluoride, potassium fluoride, lithium fluoride, lithium iodide, sodium acetate, potassium acetate, lithium acetate, potassium iodide, calcium sulfate, sodium sulfate, chromium trichloride, chromium sulfate, sodium citrate, iron (III) chloride, yttrium (III) chloride, potassium phosphate, potassium sulfate, sodium phosphate, ferrous chloride, calcium citrate, magnesium phosphate, ferric chloride, arginine-HCI, and any combination thereof (Woo, [0043], [0104]).; Claim 23: The method further comprises (iv) contacting the chromatography resin with a wash buffer, wherein (iv) occurs after (iii) (Woo, [0104]; Dooley, [0153]-[0158]); Claim 24: The wash buffer comprises:
(a) a nuclease, wherein the nuclease comprises an endonuclease, exonuclease, or both, wherein the endonuclease comprises a salt active nuclease (SAN), Benzonase, Denarase, Kryptonase, or any combination thereof;
(b) a cation, wherein the cation comprises a monovalent cation, a divalent cation, or both;
(c) an anion;
(d) an excipient, wherein the excipient is selected from an acid selected from acetic, acid, citric acid, carboxylic acid, sialic acid, polyaspartic acid, and polyglutamic acid, a salt selected from [NH4]2SO4, K2S04, and KH2PO4, a cationic polymer selected from chitosan, pDADMAC, and PEI), an ethylene glycol, a propylene glycol, a polyethylene glycol, a polypropylene glycot, an urea, an arginine-HCI, a tysine, a glycine, a histidine, a calcium, a sodium, a lithium, a potassium, an iodide, a magnesium, an iron, a zinc, a manganese, an aluminum, an ammonium, guanidium polyethylene glycol, a protease inhibitor selected from EDTA and EGTA), an anti- oxidant selected from cysteine and N-acetyl cysteine, a detergent, a chloride, a sulfate, a phosphate, an acetate, a borate, a formate, a perchiorate, a bromine, a nitrate, a dithiothreitol, a beta mercaptoethanol, a tri-n-butyl phosphate, a polyanion, a polyarginine, a polylysine, a polyhistidine, and a combination thereof; or
(e) any combination of (a) to (d); and
wherein the chromatography resin is contacted with the wash buffer at least 2 times, at least 3 times, at least 4 times, or at least 5 times (Dooley, [0153], [0158], where it would have been obvious to employ an appropriate wash buffer); Claim 36: The method further comprises (v) contacting the chromatography resin with an elution buffer (Dooley, [0158]),
wherein (v) occurs after (iv),
wherein the contacting of the chromatography resin with the elution buffer releases one or more of the attached EVs from the chromatography resin (Dooley, [0158]; in view of the limited choices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to experiment with the order of application to achieve a predicable solution and a reasonable expectation of success); Claim 38: The method further comprises (vi) collecting an eluent after (v),
wherein the eluent comprises EVs, wherein a concentration of the EVs present in the eluent is increased by at least about 1-fold, at least about 2-fold, at least about 3-fold, at least about 4-fold, at least about 5-fold, at least about 6-fold, at least about 7-fold, at least about 8-fold, at least about 9-fold, at least about 10-fold, at least about 15-fold, at least about 20-fold, at least about 30-fold, at least about 40-fold, or at least about 50-fold or more, compared to a reference concentration,
wherein a mean particle size of the eluent is reduced by at least about 1-fold, at least about 2-fold, at least about 3-fold, at least about 4-fold, at least about 5-fold, at least about 6- fold, at least about 7-fold, at least about 8-fold, at least about 9-fold, at least about 10-fold, at least about 15-fold, at least about 20-fold, at least about 30-fold, at least about 40-fold, or at least about 50-fold or more, compared to a reference mean particle, wherein the mean particle size of the eluent is between about 20 nm to about 300 nm, and
wherein a polydispersity index of the eluent is reduced by at least about 10%, at least about 20%, at least about 30%, at least about 40%, at least about 50%, at least about 60%, at least about 70%, at least about 80%, or at least about 90% or more, compared to a reference polydispersity index (claim 36 analysis; the results are considered implicit, or the results achieved from carrying out the previously recited prior steps); Claim 50: The method further comprises contacting the eluent with one or more additional chromatography resins,
wherein the one or more additional chromatography resins comprise an anion exchange chromatography (AEX) resin, a cation exchange chromatography (CEX) resin, a mixed mode chromatography (MMC) resin, a hydrophobic charge induction chromatography resin, an immobilized metal affinity resin, an affinity resin, a pseudo affinity resin, a hydrophobic interaction chromatography resin, or any combination thereof (Dooley, [0169], [0180]); Claim 53: The method comprises a first chromatography step
wherein the first chromatography step comprises contacting the filtrate with a AEX chromatography resin,
wherein the second chromatography step comprises contacting the eluent from the first chromatography step with a MMC chromatography resin, and
wherein the third chromatography step comprises contacting the eluent from the second chromatography step with an additional MMC chromatography resin (Woo, [0043], [0045], where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ suitable chromatography resins for the desired purpose); Claim 55: The sample is contacted with the chromatography resin and/or the additional chromatography resin at least two times, at least three times, at least four times, at least five times, at least six times, at least seven times, at least eight times, at least nine times, at least eight times, at least nine times, at least ten times, at least 11 times, at least 12 times, at least 13 times, at least 14 times, at least 15 times, at least 16 times, at least 17 times, at least 18 times, at least 19 times, at least 20 times, at least 21 times, at least 22 times, at least 23 times, at least 24 times, or at least 25 times, and
wherein the sample is contacted with:
a. an AEX resin;
b. a CEX resin;
c. a MMC resin;
d. an affinity chromatography resin;
e. a HIC resin;
f. a ceramic hydroxyapatite resin;
g. an IMAC resin;
h. a HCIC resin; or
i. any combination thereof (Dooley, [0180]; Woo, [0043], [0078]; where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to contact the sample an appropriate number of times with a suitable resin, or combination of resins); and Claim 57: The EV is an exosome (Dooley, [0009]).
Conclusion
Examiner recommends that Applicant carefully review each identified reference and all objections/rejections before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the pertinent objections/rejections and the prior art. With respect to the patentability analysis, Examiner has attempted to claim map to one or more of the most suitable structures or portions of a reference. However, with respect to all OAs, Examiner notes that citations to specific pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, figures or reference numerals, in any prior art or evidentiary reference, and any interpretation of such references, should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably disclosed and/or suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. The use of publications and patents as references is not limited to what one or more applicant/inventor/patentee describes as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain. MPEP §2123.
Examiner further recommends that for any substantive claim amendments made in response to this Office Action, or to otherwise advance prosecution, or for any remarks concerning support for added subject matter or claim priority, that Applicant include either a pinpoint citation to the original Specification (i.e. page and/or paragraph and/or line number and/or figure number) to indicate where Applicant is drawing support for such amendment or remarks, or a clear explanation indicating why the particular limitation is implicit or inherent to the original disclosure.
Electronic Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or an earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hayden Brewster whose telephone number is (571) 270-1065. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9 AM - 4 PM.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, Applicant may send a communication, via e-mail or fax. Examiner’s direct fax number is: (571) 270-2065. Examiner's official e-mail address is: "Hayden.Brewster@uspto.gov." However, since e-mail communication may not be secure, Examiner will not respond to a substantive e-mail unless Applicant’s communication is in accordance with the provisions of MPEP §502.03 & related sections that discuss the required Authorization for Internet Communication (AIC). Nonetheless, all substantive communications will be made of record in Applicant’s file.
To facilitate the Internet communication authorization process, Applicant may file an appropriate letter, or may complete the USPTO SB439 fillable form available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf, preferably in advance of any substantive e-mail communication. Since one may use an electronic signature with this particular form, Applicant is encouraged to file this form via the Office’s system for electronic filing of patent correspondence (i.e., the electronic filing system (Patent Center)). Otherwise, a handwritten signature is required. In addition to Patent Center, Applicant can submit their Internet authorization request via US Postal Service, USPTO Customer Service Window, or Central Fax. Examiner can also provide a one-time oral authorization, but this will only apply to video conferencing. It is improper to request Internet Authorization via e-mail.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and via 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) form available at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice, or Applicant may call Examiner, if preferable. Applicant can access a general list of patent application forms at either https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012 (applications filed on or after September 16, 2012) or https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms (applications filed before September 16, 2012). Note that the language in an AIR form is not a substitute for the requirements of an AIC, where appropriate. The mere filing of an Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form (PTOL-413A) or a Letter Requesting Interview with Examiner, in EFS-Web, may not apprise Examiner of such a request in a timely manner.
If attempts to reach the Examiner are unsuccessful, Applicant may reach Examiner’s supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie at 571-270-3240. The central 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.
/HAYDEN BREWSTER/Examiner, AU 1779
'No Matter Where You Come from, So Long as You Are a Black Man [Woman], You Are an African' -- Peter Tosh.'No Matter Where You Come from, So Long as You Are a Black Man [Woman], You Are an African' -- Peter Tosh.