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 .
Application Status
In response to Non-Final Office Action mailed on 09/112025, applicants’ response and amendments dated 03/11/2026 is acknowledged; in said amendment applicants’ have amended claims 1, 6, 37 and 46, cancelled claims 13, 42 and 44 and added new claims 47-49. Thus, amended claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-11, 14, 18-20, 37, 39 and 45-49 are pending in this application and is now under consideration for examination. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office action are hereby withdrawn.
Maintained-Priority
Applicants’ claim for the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. This application is a 371 of PCT/US2021/063344 filed on 12/14/2021, which claims the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) to the US Provisional application: 63/125,039 filed on 12/14/2020. Note only SEQ ID NO: 1 is granted the priority US Provisional application: 63/125,039 filed on 12/14/2020; however, SEQ ID NOs: 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are granted the priority date of 371 of PCT/US2021/063344 filed on 12/14/2021, as support for SEQ ID NOs: 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are found only in PCT/US2021/063344 filed on 12/14/2021.
Information disclosure statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/11/2026 and 04/09/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS statements are considered and initialed by the examiner.
Withdrawn-Claim Rejections: 35 USC § 112(a)
Previous rejection of claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-11, 13-14, 18-20, 37, 39, 42 and 44-46 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for written-description and enablement, is being withdrawn due to claim amendments.
Withdrawn-Claim Rejections: 35 USC § 101
Previous rejection of claims 37, 39, 42 and 46 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, is being withdrawn due to claim amendments.
Withdrawn-Claim Rejections: 35 USC § 102 (AIA )
Previous rejection of claims: 1-2,4-5, 7-8, 10-11, 14, 18-20, 37, 39 and 44-46 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by (i) Callen1 et al., (US 7,273,740; 100% sequence identity with SEQ ID NO: 1; 99.8% sequence identity with SEQ ID NO: 3; 99.8% sequence identity with SEQ ID NO: 4; 99.8% sequence identity with SEQ ID NO: 5; 99.8% sequence identity with SEQ ID NO: 6; 89.2% sequence identity with SEQ ID NO: 7 and variants); (ii) Callen2 et al., (US 7,407,677; 98.6% sequence identity with SEQ ID NO: 1); and (iii) Zhang et al.. (US 10,808,234; 85.0% sequence identity with SEQ ID NO: 1 and comprising S23E mutation, and 82.7% sequence identity with SEQ ID NO: 7 and comprising G23E mutation, of the instant application; see provided sequence alignments), is being withdrawn due to claim amendments.
Withdrawn-Claim Rejections: 35 USC § 103
Previous rejection of claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, 18-20, 37, 39, 42 and 44-46 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over: (i) Callen1 et al., (US 7,273,740); (ii) Callen2 et al., (US 7,407,677); and (iii) Zhang et al.. (US 10,808,234) as applied to claims 1-2,4-5, 7-8, 10-11, 14, 18-20, 37, 39 and 44-46 and further in view of Power et al., (US 7,541,036), is being withdrawn due to claim amendments.
Withdrawn-Double Patenting rejection
Previous rejection of claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-11, 13-14, 18-20, 37, 39, 42 and 44-46 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over amended claims 1-11, 17 and 19 (dated 05/24/2024) of co-pending Application No. 18/713,373 (US 2025/0019681 A1), is being withdrawn due to claim amendments.
New-Claim Rejections: 35 USC § 103
Necessitated by claim amendments
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
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(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10-11, 14, 18-20, 37, 39, and 45-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over: (i) Callen1 et al., (US 7,273,740); (ii) Callen2 et al., (US 7,407,677) and further in view of Steinberg et al., (US 9,668,501) and Paulson et al., (US 8,507,243 B2).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10-11, 14, 18-20, 37, 39 and 45-46 (i) Callen1 et al., (US 7,273,740; 100% sequence identity with SEQ ID NO: 1; 99.8% sequence identity with SEQ ID NO: 3; 99.8% sequence identity with SEQ ID NO: 4; 99.8% sequence identity with SEQ ID NO: 5; 99.8% sequence identity with SEQ ID NO: 6; 89.2% sequence identity with SEQ ID NO: 7 and variants, including variant at amino acid position 23; transformed host cells comprising the encoding polynucleotide, method of making and method of use said reference mutant alpha-amylase; active at temperatures ranging from 800C-1000C, pH 4-5-6.5 and comprising a second alpha-amylase for processing starch and resulting in low viscosity (see Abstract; col. 1, lines 49-67; col. 2, lines 1-23; col. 6, lines 1-67 to col. 7, lines 1-2; col. 7, lines 10-20 and 55-60; col. 13, lines 32-37 Example 1, col. 53; and entire document).
(ii) Callen2 et al., (US 7,407,677; 98.6% sequence identity with SEQ ID NO: 1 including variant at amino acid position 23); transformed host cells comprising the encoding polynucleotide, method of making and method of use said reference mutant alpha-amylase; active at temperatures ranging from 800C-1000C, pH 6.0 and comprising a second alpha-amylase for processing starch and resulting in low viscosity (see Abstract; Fig. 5 & 12; col. 2 lines 10-29; col. 14, lines 12-18; col. 40, lines 23-37; Example 1, col. 54; and entire document).
The disclosures of (i) Callen1 et al., (US 7,273,740); and (ii) Callen2 et al., (US 7,407,677); is described above. However, Callen1 et al., and Callen2 et al., are silent regarding wherein the process is performed along with a genera of second alpha-amylase is an alpha-amylase from Geobacillus stearothermophilus comprising an amino acid sequence which is at least 90% identical to the amino acid sequence according to SEQ ID NO: 2 and compositions comprising said alpha-amylase from Geobacillus stearothermophilus (as in claims 1 and 37); wherein the weight ratio of the first alpha-amylase to the second alpha-amylase is between about 20:1 to about 1:10; wherein the weight ratio of the first alpha-amylase to the second alpha-amylase is between about 5:1 to about 1:5 (as in claims 48-49).
Regarding claims 1 and 37, Steinberg et al., (US 9,668,501) disclose a reference polypeptide having 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2 of the instant application (see provided sequence alignment) and annotated as thermostable alpha-amylase and in the use of hydrolysis of polysaccharides, active at a temperature range of 750C-850C, pH 5.0-6.5; see col. 2, lines 35-67, col. 4, lines 60-67; col. 9, lines 11-14; and entire document.
Regarding claims 48-49, Paulson et al., (US 8,507,243 B2), provide motivation for optimization of alpha-amylase blends regarding starch slurry concentration, weight ratio of the alpha-amylases in the enzyme blends and to produce low viscosity liquefact; see Abstract; Fig. 5-14, 16; col. 2, lines 34-47; col. 3, lines 46-67 to col. 5, lines 1-32; and entire document.
As such, disclosure of compositions comprising an alpha-amylase from Geobacillus stearothermophilus, thermostable variants of said reference alpha-amylase, such as that of Steinberg et al., clearly suggests to a skilled artisan to modify the teachings of (i) Callen1 et al., (US 7,273,740) and (ii) Callen2 et al., (US 7,407,677) and incorporate the alpha-amylase from Geobacillus stearothermophilus, thermostable alpha-amylase of Steinberg et al., as the second alpha-amylase in the claimed compositions and method of use as claimed in the instant invention and additional teaching, suggestion and motivation is provided by Paulson et al., for optimization of alpha-amylase blends regarding starch slurry concentration, weight ratio of the alpha-amylases in the enzyme blends and to produce low viscosity liquefact. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success, since alpha-amylase from Geobacillus stearothermophilus, thermostable variants and method of making and using said polypeptide and for optimization of alpha-amylase blends regarding starch slurry concentration, weight ratio of the alpha-amylases in the enzyme blends and to produce low viscosity liquefact are well known in the art.
Therefore, claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10-11, 14, 18-20, 37, 39, and 45-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over: (i) Callen1 et al., (US 7,273,740); (ii) Callen2 et al., (US 7,407,677) and further in view of Steinberg et al., (US 9,668,501) and Paulson et al., (US 8,507,243 B2).
Applicants’ have traversed the above 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection following claim amendments and said arguments are relevant to the new rejection (see pages 22-24 of Applicants’ REMARKS dated 03/11/2026).
Applicants’ argue: “…Solely to expedite prosecution and not in acquiescence to any rejections, and for the same reasons discussed above, Applicant submits that amended claims 1 and 37, and all remaining claims incorporating the limitations thereof, are patentably distinct from the teaching of (i) Callen 1; (ii) Callen 2; and (iii) Zhang taken alone or in combination with the teaching of Power as Power does not cure the deficiencies of Callen 1, Callen 2, and Zhang…The Examiner has not provided reasoning beyond mere conclusory statements as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the cited references in order to arrive at the presently claimed invention.”
Reply (A): Applicants’ arguments have been fully considered but are not deemed persuasive for the following reasons. Contrary to applicants’ arguments and assertions, (i) Callen1 et al., (US 7,273,740) and (ii) Callen2 et al., (US 7,407,677) disclose 100% sequence identity with SEQ ID NO: 1; 99.8% sequence identity with SEQ ID NO: 3; 99.8% sequence identity with SEQ ID NO: 4; 99.8% sequence identity with SEQ ID NO: 5; 99.8% sequence identity with SEQ ID NO: 6; 89.2% sequence identity with SEQ ID NO: 7 and variants, including variant at amino acid position 23; method of making and method of use said reference mutant alpha-amylase; active at temperatures ranging from 800C-1000C, pH 4-5-6.5 and said reference compositions comprising a second alpha-amylase for processing starch and resulting in low viscosity and additionally examiner has provided new references i.e., disclosure of compositions comprising an alpha-amylase from Geobacillus stearothermophilus, thermostable variants of said reference alpha-amylase, such as that of Steinberg et al., clearly suggests to a skilled artisan to modify the teachings of (i) Callen1 et al., (US 7,273,740) and (ii) Callen2 et al., (US 7,407,677) and incorporate the alpha-amylase from Geobacillus stearothermophilus, thermostable alpha-amylase of Steinberg et al., as the second alpha-amylase in the claimed compositions and method of use as claimed in the instant invention and additional teaching, suggestion and motivation is provided by Paulson et al., for optimization of alpha-amylase blends regarding starch slurry concentration, weight ratio of the alpha-amylases in the enzyme blends and to produce low viscosity liquefact.
Therefore, examiner continues to take the position that each and every element of the instant invention is taught in the combination of cited references and that the combined teachings in the cited prior art provides a reasonable expectation of success and predictability for the claimed method herein and the claimed benefits are very much expected and predictable.
The Supreme Court has acknowledged: When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation...103 likely bars its patentability...if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person's skill. A court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions ...... the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 U.S. 2007) (emphasis added).
Examiner continues to hold the position that the cited references render claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10-11, 14, 18-20, 37, 39, and 45-49 prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when one applies the Teaching, Suggestion and Motivation (TSM) test under the rationale for arriving at a conclusion of obviousness as suggested by the KSR ruling. The rationale applied for this rejection is as follows:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try”–choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
The combined teachings in the cited prior art provides a reasonable expectation of success and predictability for the claimed invention. 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.
New-Double Patenting rejection
Necessitated by claim amendments
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-11, 14, 18-20, 37, 39 and 45-49 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over: (i) amended claims 29-43 and 47-48 (dated 03/16/2023) of co-pending Application No. 18/026,807 (US 2023/0323327 in IDS; priority 09/22/2020); and (ii) amended claims 1-11, 17 and 19 (dated 05/24/2024) of co-pending Application No. 18/713,373 (US 2025/0019681 A1, priority 12/14/2021) in view of Steinberg et al., (US 9,668,501) and Paulson et al., (US 8,507,243 B2). This is a provisional double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the referenced co-pending applications and would be covered by any patent granted on that co-pending applications: (i) amended claims 29-43 and 47-48 (dated 03/16/2023) of co-pending Application No. 18/026,807 (US 2023/0323327 in IDS; priority 09/22/2020); and (ii) amended claims 1-11, 17 and 19 (dated 05/24/2024) of co-pending Application No. 18/713,373 (US 2025/0019681 A1, priority 12/14/2021) in view of Steinberg et al., (US 9,668,501) and Paulson et al., (US 8,507,243 B2), since the referenced co-pending applications and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: “method of starch processing, comprising the steps of:(a) providing a first alpha-amylase according to any one of SEQ ID NOs:1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 or a variant thereof having comprising an amino acid sequence which is at least 80% identical to the amino acid sequence according to any one of SEQ ID NOs: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7; (b) providing a second alpha-amylase; (c) adding (a) and (b) to a slurry comprising a starch, thereby forming a mixture; and (d) incubating said mixture…” as claimed in claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-11, 13-14, 18-20, 37, 39, 42 and 44-46 (dated 06/13/2023) of the instant application and falls entirely within the scope of: (i) amended claims 29-43 and 47-48 (dated 03/16/2023) of co-pending Application No. 18/026,807 (US 2023/0323327 in IDS; priority 09/22/2020); and (ii) amended claims 1-11, 17 and 19 (dated 05/24/2024) of co-pending Application No. 18/713,373 (US 2025/0019681 A1, priority 12/14/2021) in view of Steinberg et al., (US 9,668,501) and Paulson et al., (US 8,507,243 B2) and said reference alpha-amylases having 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NOs: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the instant invention (see provided sequence alignments. Additionally the following references of prior art provides Teaching, Suggestion and Motivation for the use of second alpha-amylase such as an alpha-amylase obtained from Geobacillus stearothermophilus comprising an amino acid sequence which is at least 90% identical to the amino acid sequence according to SEQ ID NO: 2, see Steinberg et al., (US 9,668,501) discloses a reference polypeptide having 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2 and annotated as thermostable alpha-amylase of the instant application and in the use of hydrolysis of polysaccharides, also see col. 2, lines 35-67, col. 4, lines 60-67 and entire document; and Paulson et al., (US 8,507,243 B2) provide motivation for optimization of alpha-amylase blends regarding starch slurry concentration, weight ratio of the alpha-amylases in the enzyme blends and to produce low viscosity liquefact; see Abstract; Fig. 5-14, 16; col. 2, lines 34-47; col. 3, lines 46-67 to col. 5, lines 1-32; and entire document. This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Applicants’ have traversed the above ODP rejection with the following arguments following claim amendments: (see pages 24-26 of Applicants’ REMARKS dated 02/27/2026).
Applicants’ argue: “…Applicant respectfully asserts that the above-described amendments, remarks, and arguments overcome all of the outstanding objections and rejections such that all that remains are the provisional rejections under obviousness-type double patenting. Applicant respectfully requests that the provisional rejections be removed SO that the claimed invention can proceed to allowance.
Reply: Applicants’ arguments have been fully considered but are not deemed persuasive for the following reasons. Examiner is maintaining the rejection for reasons made of record in the Office-action dated 09/11/2026 and the reasons provided in the rejection above, as none of the claims are allowed.
Summary of Pending Issues
The following is a summary of issues pending in the instant application
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10-11, 14, 18-20, 37, 39, and 45-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over: (i) Callen1 et al., (US 7,273,740); (ii) Callen2 et al., (US 7,407,677) and further in view of Steinberg et al., (US 9,668,501) and Paulson et al., (US 8,507,243 B2).
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-11, 14, 18-20, 37, 39 and 45-49 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over: (i) amended claims 29-43 and 47-48 (dated 03/16/2023) of co-pending Application No. 18/026,807 (US 2023/0323327 in IDS; priority 09/22/2020); and (ii) amended claims 1-11, 17 and 19 (dated 05/24/2024) of co-pending Application No. 18/713,373 (US 2025/0019681 A1, priority 12/14/2021) in view of Steinberg et al., (US 9,668,501) and Paulson et al., (US 8,507,243 B2)
Conclusion
None of the claims are allowable. Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-11, 14, 18-20, 37, 39 and 45-49 are rejected for the reasons identified in the Rejections and Summary sections of this Office Action. Applicants’ must respond to the rejections in each of the sections in this Office Action to be fully responsive for prosecution.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Regarding filing an After Final amendment, Applicants are directed to MPEP 714.13, which states:
II. ENTRY NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT
It should be kept in mind that applicant cannot, as a matter of right, amend any finally rejected claims, add new claims after a final rejection (see 37 CFR 1.116) or reinstate previously canceled claims. Except where an amendment merely cancels claims, adopts examiner suggestions, removes issues for appeal, or in some other way requires ONLY A CURSORY REVIEW by the examiner (e.g., typographical errors), compliance with the requirement of a showing under 37 CFR 1.116(b)(3) is expected in all amendments after final rejection. An affidavit or other evidence filed after a final rejection, but before or on the same date of filing an appeal, may be entered upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why the affidavit or other evidence is necessary and was not earlier presented in compliance with 37 CFR 1.116(e). See 37 CFR 41.33 and MPEP § 1206 for information on affidavit or other evidence filed after appeal. (Examiner's emphasis) If more than a cursory review is required, Applicants are referred to CFR §1.114.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GANAPATHIRAMA RAGHU whose telephone number is (571)272-4533. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5pm 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, Robert Mondesi can be reached on 408-918-7584. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GANAPATHIRAMA RAGHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1652
Prosecution Insights