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 is a 371 of PCT/US2021/065519 filed 12/29/2021. PCT/US2021/065519 has PRO 63/281,499 filed 11/19/2021, PRO 63/224,722 filed 07/22/2021, PRO 63/217,009 filed 06/30/2021, PRO 63/216,170 filed 06/29/2021, PRO 63/145,859 filed 02/04/2021, and PRO 63/132,304 filed 12/30/2020.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-11, 14-15, 20-22, 27-28, and 30-31 in the reply filed on 07/15/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 67 and 119 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected methods, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/15/2026. Claim 133 is new. Claims 1-11, 14-15, 20-22, 27-28, 30-31, and 133 are pending and under examination.
Specification
The specification is objected to because the use of improperly demarcated trademarks has been noted in this application. Although the use of trademarks is permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner that might adversely affect their validity as trademarks. See MPEP §608. 01(v). 9. Examples of such an improperly demarcated trademarks “HotStart”, “Tapestation”, and “Bioanalyzer” which appear in the present specification in paragraphs [00588], [00589], and [00589], respectively. Examiner notes that the provided examples are not meant to be a complete list of improperly demarcated trademarks found in the present specification. Applicant should review the entire specification and correct all instances of improperly demarcated trademarks. Appropriate corrections required. Each letter of a trademark should be capitalized or otherwise the trademark should be demarcated with the appropriate symbol indicating its proprietary nature (e.g., ™, ©, ®) and accompanied by generic terminology. Applicants may identify trademarks using the USPTO's trademark database. Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS), on the Internet at https://tmsearch.uspto.go
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 – Nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences appearing in the specification are not identified by sequence identifiers in accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(d). See [00125], [00128].
Required response – Applicant must provide:
A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125 inserting the required sequence identifiers, 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.
Specific deficiency – Nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences appearing in the drawings are not identified by sequence identifiers in accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(d). Sequence identifiers for nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences must appear either in the drawings or in the Brief Description of the Drawings. See Fig. 16-18 and 26-27
Required response – Applicant must provide:
Replacement and annotated drawings in accordance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) inserting the required sequence identifiers;
AND/OR
A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125 inserting the required sequence identifiers into the Brief Description of the Drawings, 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 27 recites “the method of claim 1, wherein the method is completed in no more than 4 hours. The only support the applicant points to for this limitation is a bare listing of aspirational timeframes at paragraph [0068] (and repeated in substantially identical form at [0079]):
“[0068] In various aspects of methods herein, the method may be completed in less than one day. In some cases, the method may be completed in less than 8 hours. In some cases, the method may be completed in less than 6 hours. In some cases, the method may be completed in no more than 4 hours. In some cases, the method may be completed in 4-6 hours. In some cases, the method may be completed in 4-8 hours. In some cases, the method may be completed in 3-4 hours. “
This passage is not tied to any specific step or combination of steps of claim 1, does not identify a starting event or ending event for the recited period, and is not correlated with any working examples or experimental data demonstrating that the claimed method was actually achieved, or was reasonably within the possession of the inventor, in 4 hours or less. On the contrary, the specification’s own detailed working protocol, set forth in Examples 1 through 5, affirmatively contradicts the claimed timeframe. The specification provides explicit step-by-step durations for a full working embodiment of the claimed method (obtaining a stabilized sample, transposase mediated cleavage, recombinase-mediated joining via a linker, and downstream processing, stating for each step:
Example 1: sample preparation - “Sample preparation should take 2 hours” (see [00560]).
Example 2: Lysate Quantification - “Lysate quantification should take 2 hours” (see [00566]).
Example 3: Proximity Ligation - “Proximity ligation should take 5.5 hours”(see [00569]).
Example 4: Library preparation – “the library preparation protocol does not require fragmentation and should take about 2 hours” (see [00576]).
Example 5: Ligation Capture and Amplification – “The ligation capture and amplification protocol should take two hours” (see [00581]).
Summing only the steps of the working protocol that correspond to the limitations of claim 1 (Examples 1-3), already totals approximately 9.5 hours, more than double the “no more than 4 hours” recited in claim 27, before the Applicant’s own protocol has even reached library preparation, capture or amplification. Rather than demonstrating possession of a sub-4-hour embodiment of the claimed method, the specification’s sole detailed working example demonstrates the opposite: that the disclosed protocol for practicing the steps of claim 1 requires substantially more than 4 hours.
Because the specification never identifies what interval is being measures by the “4 hours” limitation, nor provides not worked example, date, or other objective evidence that the claimed method can be completed within that timeframe, and includes a detailed working protocol whose own disclosed step durations are inconsistent with the claimed upper bound, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not conclude that the inventor was in possession of the full scope of claim 27 as of the filing date and therefore the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-11, 14, 20, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lai et al. (“Trac-looping measures genome structure and chromatin accessibility,” Nature Methods, 15, 741-747, 2018, on IDS 11/27/2024).
Claim construction - Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the term “recombinase” is not limited to site-specific recombinases of the tyrosine or serine integrase families (e.g., Cre, Flp, PhiC31, Bxb1) but extends to any enzyme that catalyzes the site-specific rearrangement, insertion, or joining of DNA segments via defined recognition sequences, including transposases. This construction is supported by claim 20 itself, which recites that “the first recombinase sites and the second recombinase sites comprise transposase mosaic ends,” a limitation that presupposes mosaic end sequences are properly characterized as recombinase sites, and correspondingly that the enzyme acting at those sites is properly characterized as a recombinase.
Under this construction, Lai discloses every limitation of claims 1 and 20. Lai discloses a method comprising “(a) obtaining a stabilized sample comprising a nucleic acid molecule complexed to at least one nucleic acid binding protein.” Lai discloses formaldehyde crosslinking of human CD4+ T cells producing nucleic acids complexed to histones and other nucleic acid binding proteins (see Lai p. 748 left col. last para.). Lai further discloses “(b) cleaving the nucleic acid molecule into a plurality of segments comprising at least a first segment and a second segment, wherein the cleaving is effected by a transposase.” Lai discloses fragmentation of crosslinked chromatin using a hyperactive Tn5 transposase (see Lai p. 748 right col. 1st para.). Lai further discloses “(c) attaching first recombinase sites to the first segment and the second segment.” Lai discloses that the bivalent mosaic end (ME) linker, comprising a pair of 19 bp mosaic end transposase recognition sequences, is inserted onto the ends of the fragmented chromatin segments by the transposase (see Lai p. 741 left col. 2nd para. disclosing “a ‘bivalent ME linker’ containing a pair of MEs with a 30-bp oligonucleotide spacer… favors formation of a tetramer complex through the bivalent MEs”). Lai further discloses “(d) contacting the first segment and the second segment with a linker comprising second recombinase sites in the presence of a recombinase, thereby generating a linked nucleic acid comprising sequence from the first segment, a linker sequence from the linker and sequence from the second segment.” Lai discloses that the same bivalent ME linker, inserted “in trans” into two spatially interacting but genomically distant chromatin regions, crosslinks the two interacting regions via the shared oligonucleotide linker, producing a segment-linker-segment product that directly encodes the chromatin interaction (see Lai p. 741 para. spanning left and right col.).
In regards to claim 2, Lai discloses that the transposase is a Tn5 transposase (see Lai p. 748 left col. 1st para., and throughout).
In regards to claim 6, Lai teaches circularizing the linked nucleic acids (see Lai Fig. 1, p. 748 right col. 3rd para.).
In regards to claim 7-10, Lai teaches sequencing the linked nucleic acids (see Lai Fig. 1, p. 748 right col. 3rd -4th para.). Lai further discloses that the sequences form the first and second segment is compared to genomic data to determine the proximity interactions (see Lai Fig. 1, p. 748 right col. 3rd -4th para.).
In regards to claim 11 and 30, Lai teaches using formaldehyde cross-linked samples (see Lai p. 742 para. spanning left and right col.). Formaldehyde is known-in the art to permeate nuclei and crosslink nucleic acids in the nuclei, resulting in the stabilized nuclei of claim 30.
In regards to claim 14, Lai discloses using there method to examine chromatin accessibility and histone modifications (see Lai p. 742 left col. last para.).
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, 14-15, 20-22, and 133 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai et al. (“Trac-looping measures genome structure and chromatin accessibility,” Nature Methods, 15, 741-747, 2018, on IDS 11/27/2024), as applied to claims 1-2, 6-11, 14, 20, and 30, included here for reasons supra and further in view of Robinson et al. (US 2015/0133317 A1, published May 14, 2015).
In regards to claims 4 and 5, as described above, Lai teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Lai does not teach that the recombinase is an integrase.
Robinson discloses a method for physically joining two DNA segments, a target segment and a barcode/linker segment, via a recombinase-mediated reaction employing complementary attB and attP recognition sites, disclosing that “polynucleotide sequences of interest can be linked by recombination… Suitable recombinase systems include Flp recombinase with a variety of FRT sites, Cre recombinase with a variety of lox sites, integrase φC31 which carries out recombination between the attP site and the attB site, the β-recombinase-six system as well as the Gin-gix system” (see Robinson [0294]). Thus, Robinson discloses contacting segments bearing a first recombinase site with a linker bearing a second, complementary recombinase site, in the presence of a recombinase (phiC31 integrase), to generate a linked nucleic acid product, precisely the reaction recited in claim 1, step (d).
A person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to build a proximity capture assay as disclosed by Lai would have recognized that Lai’s transposes joining chemistry could be replaced or supplemented with a well-characterized recombinase mediated joining step, as independently taught by Robinson for joining two nucleic acid segments via complementary recombination sites and a linker. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this substitution because separating the fragmentation/tagging step from the segment-joining step offers predictable engineering benefits recognized in the art, including greater control over joining specificity and orientation and the ability to select defined, well-characterized recombination chemistry (e.g., phiC31 attB x attP) for the joining reaction, independent of and downstream from the transposase mediated fragmentation. This is a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). MPEP 2143(I)(A).
In regards to claim 15 and 133, Robinson explicitly discloses using phiC31 recombinase with attB and attP recombinase sites (see Robinson [0294]).
In regards to claims 21 and 22, Robinson discloses that the linker used for recombinase mediated joining includes a barcoded identification region that uniquely associates the joined sequence with the cell sample of origin (see Robinson [0091]-[0092]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate a barcode into the linker of Lai as taught by Robinson to obtain the well-recognized benefit of enabling pooled, multiplexed processing of samples while retaining the ability to computationally trace each sequencing read back to its cell or sample of origin, a predictable and desirable extension of the base combination using known barcode incorporation techniques.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, 14-15, 20-22, 27-28, 30-31 and 133 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai et al. (“Trac-looping measures genome structure and chromatin accessibility,” Nature Methods, 15, 741-747, 2018, on IDS 11/27/2024) in view of Robinson et al. (US 2015/0133317 A1, published May 14, 2015). as applied to claims 1-2, 4-11, 14-15, 20-22, 30 and 133, included here for reasons supra and further in view of Giresi et al. (US 2016/0060691 A1, published Mar. 3, 2016, on IDS 11/27/2024 as WO 2014189957-A2).
In regards to claims 28 and 31, Lai discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 for which claims 28 and 31 depend, however, Lai does not expressly disclose that the stabilized sample comprises no more than 50,000 cells (or nuclei) as recited in claim 28 (or claim 31). Giresi discloses this limitation. Giresi discloses cell population sizes squarely within and in multiple instances coextensive with, the claimed upper bound. Giresi discloses “the population of cells can be composed of about 500 to 100,000 cells” (see Giresi [0007]), “The population of cells used in the assay may be composed of any number of cells, e.g., about 500 to about 106 or more cells, about 500 to about 100,000 cells, about 500 to about 50,000 cells” (see Giresi [0108]) “In some cases, the cell sample can consist of less than about 1000… about 50,000… about 60,000… about 1,000,000 cells” (see Giresi [0108]). Giresi further discloses working examples using exactly 50,000 cells as starting material, disclosing “ATAC-seq captures open chromatin sites using a simple 2-step protocol from 500 to 50,000 cells,” (see Giresi [0154]). Giresi further teaches using isolated nuclei “In some instances, the treating step (a) can comprise: isolating nuclei from the population of cells; and combining the isolated nuclei with the insertional enzyme complex” (see Giresi [0009]), reading on claim 31.
Lai and Giresi are both directed to transposase-based methods of interrogating chromatin structure using hyperactive Tn5 transposase to insert sequencing adapters into chromatin isolated from a population of cells, and are therefore analogous art, directed to the same field of endeavor and reasonably pertinent to the same problem, generating transposase tagged chromatin fragments form a defined starting cell population for sequencing. A person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to apply Lai’s chromatin proximity capture method to biological samples of limited size, such as clinical specimens, sorted rare cells populations, or other context in which only a limited number of cells or nucleic are available (motivation expressly articulated by Giresi in [0003]), would have had a reason to scale down the number of cells or nuclei processed in Lai’s protocol to “about 500 to about 50,000 cells”, as informed by Giresi’s express teaching that transposase based chromatin assays of the same general type remain effective and sensitive using populations of “about 500 to about 50,000 cells” or nuclei. This is particularly true because both references employ the same enzyme, acting on the same substrate, to accomplish similar transposition-based tagging of accessible or targeted genomic regions, such that Giresi’s teachings regarding cell/nuclei input ranges for Tn5 based transposition are directly transferable and applicable to Lai’s method. The combination of Lai’s disclosed method with Giresi’s disclosed, operable ranges for cell/nuclei input number is therefore the combination of known prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claims 1-11, 14-15, 20-22, 27-28, 30-31 and 133 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai et al. (“Trac-looping measures genome structure and chromatin accessibility,” Nature Methods, 15, 741-747, 2018, on IDS 11/27/2024) in view of Robinson et al. (US 2015/0133317 A1, published May 14, 2015) and Giresi et al. (US 2016/0060691 A1, published Mar. 3, 2016, on IDS 11/27/2024 as WO 2014189957-A2) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-11, 14-15, 20-22, 30 and 133 above, and included here for reasons supra and further in view of Hartley et al. (US Pat. 6,143,557, published Nov. 7, 2000)
In regards to claim 3, Lai discloses each limitation of claim 1, as set forth above. Robinson discloses the use of a recombinase, specifically phiC31 integrase acting at attB and attP sites, to physically join two polynucleotide segments via a linker, as set for above with respect to claims 4, 5, 15, and 133, thereby supplying the recombinase-mediated joining step of claim 1(d) using a linker bearing a pair of recombinase sites (e.g., attP sites) distinct from the transposase mosaic ends used for cleavage. Neither Lai nor Robinson expressly discloses the relative orientation, direct repeat versus inverted repeats, of the pair of recombinase sites borne by the linker.
Hartley discloses site-specific recombination based nucleic acid engineering using integrase recombination sites (e.g., attB, attP, attL, attR), and discloses that a linker or construct bearing two recombination sites can be designed with those sites in either an inverted-repeat or direct-repeat orientation, and that this choice of orientation has a recognized functional consequence.
“For example, transcription of a desired DNA segment flanked by attB sites in inverted orientation could yield a single stranded RNA molecule that might form a hairpin Structure, thereby inhibiting translation. Inverted orientation of Similar recombination sites can be avoided by placing the Sites in direct repeat arrangement att Sites.” (see Hartley col. 26 lines 18-24).
Hartly thus establishes that, in the art of site-specific recombination based nucleic acid construction generally, placing a pair of recombination sites in inverted-repeat orientation within a nucleic acid construct is understood to risk formation of a hairpin secondary structure in the resulting single-stranded product, and placing the same pair of recombination sites in direct-repeat orientation instead is an art-recognized design choice for avoiding that hairpin formation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to integrate the direct repeat integrase sites as taught by Hartley into the recombinase mediated linker as taught by Robinson in order to avoid the art recognized problem of hairpin formation using recombinase sites with an inverted architecture, resulting in a linker construct with reduced susceptibility to hairpin formation. This constitutes nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar method in the same way. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew H Raymonda whose telephone number is (703)756-5807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Heather Calamita can be reached at 571-272-2876. 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.
/MATTHEW HAROLD RAYMONDA/Examiner, Art Unit 1684
/AARON A PRIEST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1681
