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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14-16, 19, 25 and 27-33 are pending currently under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The submission of the Information Disclosure Statement on 05/05/2024 is in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97. The information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner and signed copies have been placed in the file.
Claim Objections
Claims 15, 19 and 28 are objected to because they improperly refer to sequences in tables. MPEP 2173.05(s) states in part “ [w]here possible, claims are to be complete in themselves. Incorporation by reference to a specific figure or table is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a drawing or table into the claim”. Applicant is required to refer to the sequences, in the claims, by the appropriate sequence identifier.
Claim Rejections – Improper Markush
Claims 1, 2, 7, 15, 19, 25 and 28 is rejected on the judicially-created basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). The improper Markush grouping includes species of the claimed invention that do not share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. The members of the improper Markush grouping do not share a substantial feature and/or a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature for the following reasons: The claims are directed to a large multitude of lncRNA and sequences that have no common searchable structure and a large genus of respiratory virus as in claim 7 that do not have any common property or activity and a common structure.
When the Markush grouping is for alternatives of chemical compounds, they shall be regarded as being of a similar nature where the following criteria are fulfilled:
(A) All alternatives have a common property or activity; and
(B) (1) A common structure is present, i.e., a significant structural element is shared by all of the alternatives; or
(B) (2) In cases where the common structure cannot be the unifying criteria, all alternatives belong to a recognized class of chemical compounds in the art to which the invention pertains.
In paragraph (B)(1), above, the words “significant structural element is shared by all of the alternatives” refer to cases where the compounds share a common chemical structure which occupies a large portion of their structures, or in case the compounds have in common only a small portion of their structures, the commonly shared structure constitutes a structurally distinctive portion in view of existing prior art, and the common structure is essential to the common property or activity. The structural element may be a single component or a combination of individual components linked together.
In paragraph (B)(2), above, the words “recognized class of chemical compounds” mean that there is an expectation from the knowledge in the art that members of the class will behave in the same way in the context of the claimed invention. In other words, each member could be substituted one for the other, with the expectation that the same intended result would be achieved.
In order for the members of the Markush group to belong to “recognized class of chemical compounds” there must be an expectation that the members of the class will behave in the same way in the context of the claimed invention. In other words, each member of the class could be substituted one for the other with the expectation that the same intended result would be achieved. In the instant case, activity of any specific lncRNA or oligonucleotide sequence is dependent upon the specific sequence of nucleotides.
There is no expectation that any one of the nucleotide sequences as claimed can be substituted for any of the other with a completely different sequence with the expectation of the same activity. The prior art of He et al ("LncRNA DGCR5 plays a tumor-suppressive role in glioma via the miR-21/Smad7 and miR-23a/PTEN axes." Aging (Albany NY) 12.20 (2020)) teach the lncRNA DGCR5 plyas a tumor suppressive role in glioma brain cancer (see abstract and page 20290). The prior art of Liu et al. ("Long non-coding RNA prostate cancer-associated transcript 7 (PCAT7) induces poor prognosis and promotes tumorigenesis by inhibiting mir-134-5p in non-small-cell lung (NSCLC)." Medical science monitor: international medical journal of experimental and clinical research 23 (2017)) teach the lncRNA PCAT7 has been revealed to participate in tumorigenesis of various cancers such as Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)(see abstract and background pages 6089-6090). The prior art of Boncristiani, H. F., M. F. Criado, and E. Arruda. "Respiratory viruses." Encyclopedia of microbiology (2009)) lists many different types of different respiratory virus such as respiratory syncytial virus, parainfluenza viruses, metapneumovirus, and coronaviruses, including the agents of SARS, respiratory adenoviruses, rhinovirus, and bocavirus and teach the currently known respiratory viruses still do not account for all clinically relevant human viral respiratory illnesses (page 500).
Thus the prior art describes some of lncRNA are involved in completely different process in the cell. With respect to SEQ ID Nos. 1-244, Table 1 in the instant specification describes groups of gRNA oligonucleotide sequences targeting different lncRNAs. There is no expectation that any one of the nucleotide sequences as claimed can be substituted for any of the other with a completely different sequence with the expectation of the same activity given the lncRNAs have been described in the art at having different functions in cells. The prior art of Boncristiani, H. F., M. F. Criado, and E. Arruda describes many different respiratory virus that are structurally different and cause different types of infections in subjects.
In response to this rejection, Applicant should either amend the claim(s) to recite only individual species or grouping of species that share a substantial structural feature as well as a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature, or present a sufficient showing that the species recited in the alternative of the claims(s) in fact share a substantial structural feature as well as a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. This is a rejection on the merits and may be appealed to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 134 and 37 CFR 41.31(a)(1).
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 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.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu, Shuangmei, et al. "LncRNA NONRATT021972 siRNA regulates neuropathic pain behaviors in type 2 diabetic rats through the P2X7 receptor in dorsal root ganglia." Molecular brain 9.1 (2016): 44. (hereinafter Liu 2016).
Claim 19 is drawn to an engineered nucleic acid comprising an inhibitory oligonucleotide that targets any lncRNA. Liu et al. teach and siRNA targeted to a lncRNA NONRATT0211972 (see page 2 last para).
Thus Liu et al. anticipates the instant claim.
Claim(s) 19, 29, 30, 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vaidya, Amita M., et al. ("Systemic delivery of tumor-targeting siRNA nanoparticles against an oncogenic LncRNA facilitates effective triple-negative breast cancer therapy." Bioconjugate chemistry 30.3 (2019): 907-919).
Claims 19, 29, 30, 31 and 32 are drawn to an engineered nucleic acid comprising an inhibitory oligonucleotide that targets any lncRNA. Vaidya et al. teach and siRNA targeted to a lncRNA DANCR (see page 909). Vaidya et al. teach the siRNA is formulated in a pharmaceutical composition and delivered via a nanoparticle to mice (see page 912-915).
Thus Vaidya et al. anticipates the instant claims.
Claim(s) 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patent No. 7,901,882.
Patent ‘822 teach an ooligonucleotide sequence comprising 90% of SEQ ID NO. 3 and thus anticipates the instant claim.
Patent No. 7901882
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Yan Cao
APPLICANT: Shivani Nautiyal
APPLICANT: Garry Miyada
APPLICANT: Chris Davies
APPLICANT: Gangwu Mei
APPLICANT: Alan Williams
APPLICANT: Eric Schell
APPLICANT: John E. Blume
TITLE OF INVENTION: Analysis of Methylation Using Nucleic Acid Arrays
FILE REFERENCE: 3791.1
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/11/695,599
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2007-04-02
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: 60/788,520
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2006-03-31
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 743256
SEQ ID NO 55423
LENGTH: 25
TYPE: DNA
ORGANISM: Homo sapien
Query Match 90.0%; Score 18; Length 25;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 18; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
SEQ 3 3 GGTACCGAGAGTAGGTGG 20
SEQ 55423 1 GGTACCGAGAGTAGGTGG 18
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14-16, and 32-33 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification,
while being enabling for methods of inhibiting infection of influenza virus in A549 cells in vitro using a siRNA targeted to the lncRNA DGCR5,
does not reasonably provide enablement for methods of inhibiting any respiratory virus in a subject comprising administering any inhibitory nucleic acid targeted to the vast number of lncRNA claimed. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The following factors have been considered in the analysis of enablement: (1) the breadth of the claims, (2) the nature of the invention, (3) the state of the prior art, (4) the level of one of ordinary skill, (5) the level of predictability in the art, (6) the amount of direction provided by the inventor, (7) the existence of working examples, (8) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
The breadth of the claims and the nature of the invention:
The claims are broadly drawn to methods of using any inhibitory nucleic acid to target a vast number of different lncRNA and treat a broad genus of respiratory virus in a subject.
Whether the specification would have been enabling as of the filing date involves consideration of the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, and the level of skill in the art. The state of the prior art is what one skilled in the art would have known, at the time the application was filed, about the subject matter to which the claimed invention pertains. The relative skill of those in the art refers to the skill of those in the art in relation to the subject matter to which the claimed invention pertains at the time the application was filed. See MPEP § 2164.05(b). The state of the prior art provides evidence for the degree of predictability in the art and is related to the amount of direction or guidance needed in the specification as filed to meet the enablement requirement. The state of the prior art is also related to the need for working examples in the specification.
The state of the prior art:
The prior art of Jiao, Hanwei, et al. "MicroRNA expression profiles from HEK293 cells expressing H5N1 avian influenza virus non-structural protein 1." Innate Immunity 25.2 (2019): 110-117) teach long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) play an important role in many cancers and tumor pathogenesis, e.g., lncRNA digeorge syndrome critical region gene 5 (DGCR5) inhibits expression of hsa-miR-22-3p, which promotes the development of lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) (see discussion).
The prior art of Boncristiani, H. F., M. F. Criado, and E. Arruda. "Respiratory viruses." Encyclopedia of microbiology (2009)) lists many different types of different respiratory virus such as respiratory syncytial virus, parainfluenza viruses, metapneumovirus, and coronaviruses, including the agents of SARS, respiratory adenoviruses, rhinovirus, and bocavirus and teach the currently known respiratory viruses still do not account for all clinically relevant human viral respiratory illnesses (page 500).
A review of the prior art does not provide a correlation between administration of any inhibitory agent targeted to a vast number of lncRNA such as DGCR5 that inhibits any respiratory infection.
The level of one of ordinary skill:
While the level of one of ordinary skill practicing said invention would be high, the level of predictability is considered variable as evident in the prior art discussed above and is not considered to provide sufficient enablement to practice the claimed invention.
Because the state of the prior art does not provide evidence of the degree of predictability that methods of inhibiting any respiratory virus in a subject can occur by administering to the subject any type of inhibitory oligonucleotide that inhibits any respiratory virus, one of ordinary skill in the art would look for guidance or direction in the instant specification.
The level of predictability in the art:
“The “predictability or lack thereof” in the art refers to the ability of one skilled in the art to extrapolate the disclosed or known results to the claimed invention. If one skilled in the art can readily anticipate the effect of a change within the subject matter to which the claimed invention pertains, then there is predictability in the art. On the other hand, if one skilled in the art cannot readily anticipate the effect of a change within the subject matter to which that claimed invention pertains, then there is lack of predictability in the art. Accordingly, what is known in the art provides evidence as to the question of predictability.” (MPEP 2164.03).
The amount of direction provided by the inventor:
The amount of guidance or direction needed to enable the invention is inversely related to the amount of knowledge in the state of the art as well as the predictability in the art. In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970). The “amount of guidance or direction” refers to that information in the application, as originally filed, that teaches exactly how to make or use the invention. The more that is known in the prior art about the nature of the invention, how to make, and how to use the invention, and the more predictable the art is, the less information needs to be explicitly stated in the specification. In contrast, if little is known in the prior art about the nature of the invention and the art is unpredictable, the specification would need more detail as to how to make and use the invention in order to be enabling. >See, e.g., Chiron Corp. v. Genentech Inc., 363 F.3d 1247, 1254, 70 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The existence of working examples:
The working embodiment in the instant application describes methods of inhibiting infection of influenza virus in A549 cells in vitro using a single siRNA targeted to the lncRNA DGCR5. The working embodiments do not describe using any type of inhibitory oligonucleotide that targets any lncRNA that would inhibit infection of any type of respiratory virus.
The standard of an enabling disclosure is not the ability to make and test if the invention works but one of the ability to make and use with a reasonable expectation of success. A patent is granted for a completed invention, not the general suggestion of an idea (MPEP 2164.03 and Chiron Corp. v. Genentech Inc., 363 F.3d 1247, 1254, 70 USPQ2d 1321, 1325-26 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The instant invention suggests administration of any inhibitory oligonucleotide to a subject that target any lncRNA and inhibits expression of any respiratory virus without an enabling disclosure or guidance in the prior art.
While the MPEP 2164.02 states the specification need not contain an example if the invention is otherwise disclosed in such manner that one skilled in the art will be able to practice it without an undue amount of experimentation. In re Borkowski, 422 F.2d 904, 908, 164 USPQ 642, 645 (CCPA 1970), the lack of a working example, however, is a factor to be considered, especially in a case involving an unpredictable and undeveloped art.
The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure:
The prior art is undeveloped for the role lncRNAs play in respiratory virus infections and without further guidance, one of skill in the art would have to practice a substantial amount of trial and error experimentation, an amount considered undue and not routine, to practice the instantly claimed invention.
Written Description
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14-16, 19, 25 and 27-33 are 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The MPEP states that the purpose of the written description requirement is to ensure that the inventor had possession, as of the filing date of the application, of the specific subject matter later claimed by him. The courts have stated:
To fulfill the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe an invention and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that "the inventor invented the claimed invention." Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Gostelli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("[T]he description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed."). Thus an applicant complies with the written description requirement "by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious" and by using "such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that set forth the claimed invention." Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966; Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 43 USPQ2d 1398.
The fundamental factual inquiry is whether the specification conveys with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, applicant was in possession of the invention as now claimed. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, Inc., 935 F.2d at 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d at 1117.
The MPEP lists factors that can be used to determine if sufficient evidence of possession has been furnished in the disclosure of the application. These include: (1) Actual reduction to practice, (2) Disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas, (3) Sufficient relevant identifying characteristics (such as: i. Complete structure, ii. Partial Structure, iii. Physical and/or chemical properties, iv. Functional characteristics when coupled with a known or disclosed structure, and v. Correlation between function and structure), (4) Method of making the claimed invention, (5) Level of skill and knowledge in the art, and (6) Predictability in the art.
Moreover, the written description requirement for a genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by “…disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between functional and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus.” Thus when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus.
The claims are drawn to a genus of engineered nucleic acid molecules, lncRNA and respiratory virus wherein the engineered nucleic acids have the function of targeting any lncRNA and inhibiting expression of any respiratory virus.
The specification describes methods of inhibiting infection of influenza virus in A549 cells in vitro using a single siRNA sequence targeted to the lncRNA DGCR5 with the function of reducing expression of influenza virus in cells.
The specification and claims do not indicate what distinguishing characteristics of the single siRNA sequence described in the specification that is concisely shared by the members of the broad genus of inhibitory nucleic acid sequence identical to the claimed sequences or having 90% identity, that would bind to any lncRNA and inhibit any respiratory virus, that represent the entire genus. The specification and claims do not indicate what distinguishing characteristics of a single lncRNA DGCR5 that is concisely shared by the members of the broad genus, with the function of being associated with any respiratory virus, that represents the entire genus.
A review of the specification shows that it provides no description or guidance that would allow one of skill to distinguish the functional species of the recited structural genus from the non-functional members without empirical determination.
The prior art of Jiao, Hanwei, et al. "MicroRNA expression profiles from HEK293 cells expressing H5N1 avian influenza virus non-structural protein 1." Innate Immunity 25.2 (2019): 110-117) teach long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) play an important role in many cancers and tumor pathogenesis, e.g., lncRNA digeorge syndrome critical region gene 5 (DGCR5) inhibits expression of hsa-miR-22-3p, which promotes the development of lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) (see discussion).
The prior art of Boncristiani, H. F., M. F. Criado, and E. Arruda. "Respiratory viruses." Encyclopedia of microbiology (2009)) lists many different types of different respiratory virus such as respiratory syncytial virus, parainfluenza viruses, metapneumovirus, and coronaviruses, including the agents of SARS, respiratory adenoviruses, rhinovirus, and bocavirus and teach the currently known respiratory viruses still do not account for all clinically relevant human viral respiratory illnesses (page 500)
It is clear from the prior art that the specification does not describe a representative number of species of inhibitory nucleic acid sequences, lncRNA and respiratory virus to represent the entire species claimed with the function as claimed.
Since the disclosure and the prior art fail to describe the common attributes and characteristics concisely identifying members of the proposed genus, and because the claimed genus is highly variant comprising a vast number of inhibitory sequences, lncRNA and respiratory viruses, one of skill in the art would reasonably conclude that the disclosure fails to provide a representative number of species to describe the genus claimed.
"A sufficient description of a genus . . . requires the disclosure of either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can "visualize or recognize" the members of the genus" (AbbVie, 759 F.3d at 1297, reiterating Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568-69) (emphasis added).
Further, “Possession may not be shown by merely describing how to obtain possession of members of the claimed genus or how to identify their common structural features.” Ex parte Kubin, 83 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007) citing University of Rochester, 358 F.3d at 927, 69 USPQ2d at 1895. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 19USPQ2d 1111, clearly states that “applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention. The invention is, for purposes of the ‘written description’ inquiry, whatever is now claimed.” (See page 1117.) The specification does not “clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed.” (See Vas-Cath at page 1116).
The MPEP further states that if a biomolecule is described only by a functional characteristic, without any disclosed correlation between function and structure of the sequence, it is “not sufficient characteristic for written description purposes, even when accompanied by a method of obtaining the claimed sequence.” MPEP 2163. The MPEP does state that for generic claim the genus can be adequately described if the disclosure presents a sufficient number of representative species that encompass the genus. MPEP 2163. If the genus has a substantial variance, the disclosure must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within that genus. See MPEP 2163. Although the MPEP does not define what constitute a sufficient number of representative, the Courts have indicated what do not constitute a representative number species to adequately describe a broad generic. In Gosteli, the Court determined that the disclosure of two chemical compounds within a subgenus did not describe that subgenus. In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d at 1012, 10 USPQ2d at 1618.
Thus the specification and claims lack written description because it is clear that Applicant did not have possession of every engineered nucleic acid, lncRNA and respiratory virus with the function claimed.
The description requirement of the patent statute requires a description of an invention, not an indication of a result that one might achieve if one made that invention. See In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516, 1521,222 USPQ 369,372-372 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (affirming rejection because the specification does "little more than outlin[e] goals appellants hope the claimed invention achieves and the problems the invention will hopefully ameliorate."). Accordingly, it is deemed that the specification fails to provide adequate written description for the genus of the claims and does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the entire scope of the claimed invention.
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 3, 7, 14-16, 19, 27-30 and 32 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.
The claims recite the word "optionally" which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In the interest of compact prosecution, and given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the word “optionally” will be interpreted as merely indicating an example that is encompassed by the claims but which does not specifically limit the claim to that example.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kimberly Chong at (571)272-3111. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday between M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful please contact the SPE for 1636 Neil Hammell at 571-272-5919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Patent applicants with problems or questions regarding electronic images that can be viewed in the Patent Application Information Retrieval system (PAIR) can now contact the USPTO’s Patent Electronic Business Center (Patent EBC) for assistance. Representatives are available to answer your questions daily from 6 am to midnight (EST). The toll free number is (866) 217-9197. When calling please have your application serial or patent number, the type of document you are having an image problem with, the number of pages and the specific nature of the problem. The Patent Electronic Business Center will notify applicants of the resolution of the problem within 5-7 business days. Applicants can also check PAIR to confirm that the problem has been corrected. The USPTO’s Patent Electronic Business Center is a complete service center supporting all patent business on the Internet. The USPTO’s PAIR system provides Internet-based access to patent application status and history information. It also enables applicants to view the scanned images of their own application file folder(s) as well as general patent information available to the public. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov.
For all other customer support, please call the USPTO Call Center (UCC) at 800-786-9199.
/KIMBERLY CHONG/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 1636