DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119 (e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/229,268, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
The preliminary amendment filed in the instant US application introduces new matter into the claims. Claim 1 was amended to include some of the subject matter of original claim 8 (first embodiment), which was previously depended on claim 1, not claims 2-7 (second embodiment). Applicant’s specification is directed to a method of making a three-dimensional patterned substrate by providing a planar substrate, defining/creating/forming a plurality of nanowells in an array which are recessed below a top surface of the planar substrate and defining/creating/forming a binding surface in each nanowell comprising a surface chemistry configured to bind to (template?) nucleic acid molecules. Applicant’s application says prior art planar sequencing substrates have a density limit because closely spaced sites can allow DNA material to spread and interfere with nearby sites. That spreading creates cross-talk, under-loading, and corrupted signal detection. It also limits how many sites fit in a field of view, which reduces throughput and raises cost (see prior art embodiments in Figs. 1A-C and para [0021]-[0024]). Applicant’s inventive concept seeks to increase site density while reducing contamination between neighboring sequencing sites, improve signal detection, and lower sequencing cost, by using/forming recessed nanowells in a patterned substrate that physically confine nucleic acid templates within the individual nanowells. Applicant discloses that by placing the binding chemistry at the bottom of each nanowell, the system keeps DNA clusters contained even as they flatten or grow. Hence, the nanowells can be made very small and closely spaced, which increases the number of readable sites per imaging frame, see para [0023] et seq. Applicant’s disclosure also provides distinct embodiments in which the nanowells formed in the substrate may further include either (i) reflective portions (layers/ surface/walls, see para [0035]) or (ii) plasmonic structures. Both embodiments are disclosed as distinct options designed to increase detected brightness of DNBs in each nanowell during bioassay imaging. The specification states that the embodiments including reflective layer may result in the detected brightness of the DNBs increasing 2-3 fold relative to substrates without reflective surfaces (see para [0035]), whereas the embodiments directed to including plasmonic enhancement structures/coatings in the planar substrate may result in at 4X brightness increase (see para [0036]). It is noted that the specification does not disclose how these plasmonic enhancement structures are part of the claimed method of making the three-dimensionally patterned substrate. In other words, the preliminary amendment, filed March 04, 2024 introduced new matter into the claims that does not find support in applicant’s instant or priority applications.
Drawings
Figures 1A-1C should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “plasmonic enhance member structures” in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Note that the specification defines these plasmonic enhance member structures as metal grains in an oxide layer below the nanowells. These structures should be shown in the figures with a reference number. Furthermore, the drawings do not show an embodiment where “the substrate” contains plasmonic enhancement structures (metal grains) and a reflective portion as currently recited in claims 1-7.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: para [0036] of the specification recites “photos”. The examiner believes this should be amended to ---photons--. In addition, para [0026] refers to “Fig 1D”, however the disclosure does not include a “Fig. 1D”. Appropriate correction is required. Please note that any attempt to amend the specification to include a new embodiment where the method of prepare/making the substate includes both a reflective portion and plasmonic enhancement structures will be considered 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.
Claims 1-7, 9-20, 22, 24 and 25 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 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.
As discussed above, applicant’s preliminary amendment filed March 04, 2024 introduces new matter into the claims. Claim 1 was amended to include some of the subject matter of original claim 8 (first embodiment), which previously depended on claim 1, not claims 2-7 (second embodiment). Applicant’s specification is directed to a method of preparing/making a three-dimensional patterned substrate by providing a planar substrate, defining/creating/forming a plurality of nanowells in an array recessed below a top surface of the planar substrate and defining/creating/forming a binding surface in each nanowell comprising a surface chemistry configured to bind to (a template?) of nucleic acid molecules. As discussed above, applicant’s inventive concept seeks to increase site density while reducing contamination between neighboring sequencing sites, improve signal detection, and lower sequencing cost by creating/preparing/using recessed nanowells in a patterned substrate which physically confine nucleic acid templates in each of the plurality of nanowells. The formation/use/creation of nanowells in a three-dimensionally patterned substate results in small and closely spaced so as to increase the number of readable sites per imaging frame, see para [0023] et seq.
The specification does disclose two distinct embodiments in which a three-dimensional patterned substrate be prepared/created/formed using (i) reflective portions (layers/ surface/walls, see para [0035]) or (ii) plasmonic structures (para [0036]) designed to increase detected brightness of the DNBs in each nanowell during bioassay imaging. For example, with respect to the first embodiment the substrate includes a reflective layer which may result in an increase in the detected brightness of the DNBs 2-3 fold compared to substrates without reflective surfaces (see para [0035]). The specification discloses a second embodiment where the substrate includes plasmonic enhancement structures/coatings that may result in a 4X and 14X increase in brightness of the DNBs, presumably as compared to substrates without plasmonic enhancement structures/coatings, (see para [0036] et seq.) The specification as filed does not support creating/providing/ forming in a single substate both the plasmonic enhancement structures and reflective portion (layer). Nor does the specification disclose the any improvement in brightness results the plasmonic enhancement structures and reflective portion in a single substrate would produce during DNBs image detection. Therefore, at least claims 2-7 are considered new matter.
In addition, the specification does not disclose a step in the method directed to positioning the plasmonic enhancement structures such that they are “contained” in the substrate that includes positioning plasmonic enhancement structures “at least in a portion of the substrate below the nanowells”. The specification does not include any method step directed to positioning plasmonic enhancement structures in the planar substrate, much less positioning metal grains in an oxide layer of the substrate.
Furthermore, the specification does not support embodiments where the method of making the three-dimensional patterned substrate contains plasmonic enhancement structures and the steps corresponding to claims 11-18. For example, claim 14 recites the substrate includes a base substrate and a layer of organic material on a top surface of the base substrate. The specification does not define in which of these layers and substrates the plasmonic enhancement structures (metal grains) are positioned. Thus for at least the reasons delineated above the preliminary amendment introduced new matter into the claims which does not find support in applicant’s specification as filed.
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 1-7, 9-20, 22, 24 and 25 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Respectfully, all of the claims are generally narrative and indefinite. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
For example, the method of preparing a three-dimensionally patterned substrate for nucleic acid sequencing is confusing and definite. It is not clear from the claim or the specification what applicant means by “a patterned substrate”. It is not clear how the patterned substrate differs a planar substrate that already includes nanowells.
The method of preparing the substrate includes the step of providing a planar substrate. It is not clear if the planar substrate provided already includes the plasmonic enhancement structures. Also, the step of “defining a plurality of nanowells recess below a top surface of the planar substrate” is confusing since the surfaces of the substrate have not established. Also the step in claim 1 to “defining” nanowells below a top surface is vague. The limitation “defining” a plurality of nanowells recessed below a top surface of the planar substrate can be interpreted as locating/recording/noting existing nanowells already formed in the planar substate. Similarly, the step of “defining a surface chemistry so that each nanowell comprises a binding surface comprising surface chemistry configured to bind to (a) template (of) nucleic acid molecules” is confusing and indefinite. It is not clear from the claim what applicant means by the step of “defining a surface chemistry” and “template of nucleic acid molecules”. It is not clear if this a step of preparing an existing substrate. It is not clear if the second recitation of “surface chemistry” is the same or different from the previously “defined” surface chemistry. The examiner recommends applicant disclose what, if any structures are included in the provided planar substrate. Looking to the specification for clarity, it is not clear if the invention replaces or supplements existing flat binding spots on planar substrate with recessed nanowells such that wells physically confine the DNA clusters even as they flatten or grow. In claim 1 it is not clear if “positioning the plasmonic enhancement structures in the substate” is a step in the method of preparing/making the patterned substrate.
Similarly, claim 2 recites the planar substrate comprises a reflective portion. It is not clear if the planar substrate provided in claim 1 already includes a reflective portion or the step of preparing including attaching or forming a reflective portion on the planar substate. Also, the term “portion” is not a structure and it is not clear what applicant means by a reflective portion. This term “portion” is further defined an aluminum, chromium or titanium portion. It is not clear what a portion of the reflective portion includes these metals as recited in claim 3. Similar deficiency was found in claims 5-7.
Claim 4 recites the reflective portion is a reflective layer positioned between bottom surfaces of the plurality of nanowells and a layer of the planar substrate comprising silicon. The bottom of wells are recesses below a top surface of the planar substrate. However, the bottom of the wells and layers of the planar substrate have not been established. Nor it is clear how the method of preparing a substrate provides the plasmonic structures in the layer of silicon. In fact, the plasmonic structures are not shown in any of the substrate layers. Same deficiency was found in claim 6, 7 and 9.
Claim 10 recites the plasmonic structures which are defined in parent claim 9 as metal grains in an oxide layer are “configured to be tuned to couple photons into surface plasmons”. It is not clear how metal grains in a oxide layer can be “configured to be tuned”. This is confusing and indefinite. Also, it is not clear how this is a method step in preparing a substrate.
Claim 11 recites the substrate comprises a base substrate and a layer of organic material on a top surface of the base substrate, wherein “defining the plurality of nanowells comprises removing portions of the organic material”. It is not clear where the base substrate (and top surface thereof) or the layer of organic material are structurally related to the top surface of the planar substrate. The top surface of the planar surface only element the substrate positively recites. Same deficiency was found in claim 14
Claim 12 is confusing and indefinite. It is not clear how the method of providing includes a method of removing portions of a resist (organic material) using a photolithography process. The phrase “performing a photolithography process to the photoresist” is confusing and indefinite.
Claim 13 depends on claim 12 which already appears to remove portions of the organic layer to create nanowells. Also, it is not clear how the method of preparing related to a method of performing photolithography wherein removing portions of the organic material form a lattice where voids in the lattice “define” the nanowells. Note: the term “define/defining/defined” has been interpreted by the examiner as form/forming/formed/create/creating/created.
Claim 15 recites the organic material which is already removed by photolithography in claim 14 comprises a photoresist. This is confusing and indefinite. How does the process of photolithography.
Claims 16-18 recite “each of the nanowells are defined to comprise”. Again, it is not clear what “defined” means in the process of preparing a substrate.
Claim 24 recites the plurality of nanowells each “define” a depth of less than 100 nm. Claim 25 depends on claim 24. Claim 25 recites “the plurality of nanowells each define a depth between 60-100 nm”. It is not clear how a depth can be both less than 100 as recited in claim 24 and also equal to a depth of 100 nm, as recited within the scope of claim 25. There is no recitation in claim 24 that the depth is equal or less than 100 nm, so the scope of claim 25 is confusing and indefinite.
For the reasons delineated above, the scope of the claims cannot be reasonably determined in this case. As applicant appreciates, the definiteness of claim language is to ensure that the scope of the issued claims are clear so the public is informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the issued patent.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-20, 22, 24 and 25, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rothberg et al., (US 2015/0141268; hereinafter “Rothberg”).
Regarding claim 1, Rothberg teaches a method of preparing a three-dimensionally patterned substrate for nucleic acid sequencing,
the method comprising:
providing a planar substrate 3-100;
“defining” (interpreted as creating or forming) a plurality of nanowells 3-210 recessed below a top surface of the planar substrate ([0028] Rothberg teaches the "nano-scale" wells refer to having at least one dimension or minimum feature size on the order of 150 nanometers (nm) or less, but not greater than approximately 500 nm),
wherein the nanowells are arranged in an array and wherein the planar substrate contains plasmonic enhancement structures positioned at least in a portion of the substrate below the nanowells (see claim 127 and para [0354] et seq.); and
defining a surface chemistry so that each nanowell comprises a binding surface configured to bind to a template nucleic acid molecules (see para [0232] et seq.)
The examiner interprets the claimed direction references ("above," "below," "top," "bottom," "left," "right," "horizontal," "vertical," etc.) as merely as an aid to the reader viewing the drawings. These directional references are not intended to describe any orientation of the three-dimensional patterned substrate, which may be embodied in other orientations. It is noted that the claims do not claim any elements external to the substrate itself, such as a means to provide image the nanowells.
Regarding claim 2, this is considered an intended result rather than a step in the method of preparing a substrate. Nevertheless, Rothberg teaches the planar substrate comprises a reflective portion 3-720 (see para [0222] et seq.)
Regarding claim 3, this is considered an intended result rather than a step in the method of preparing a substrate. Nevertheless, Rothberg teaches the reflective portion comprises an aluminum, chromium, or titanium portion (see para [0227] et seq.)
Regarding claim 4, this is considered an intended result rather than a step in the method of preparing a substrate. Nevertheless, Rothberg reflective portion comprises a reflective layer positioned between bottom surfaces of the plurality of nanowells (see para [0229] et seq.) and a layer of the planar substrate comprising silicon (see para [0227] et seq.); and wherein the plasmonic enhancement structures are located in the layer of the planar substrate comprising silicon (see para [0230] et seq.)
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Rothberg this is considered an intended result rather than a step in the method preparing a substrate. Nevertheless, Rothberg the reflective portion comprises reflective walls (metalized walls) of each of the nanowells (see Fig. 3-7A-F and para [0222] et seq.)
Regarding claim 7, this is considered an intended result rather than a step in the method of preparing a substrate. Nevertheless, Rothberg teaches the reflective portion is configured to reflect excitation light into the nanowells, and reflect emission light from the nanowells upwardly (see Fig. 3-7A-F and para [0222] et seq.)
Regarding claim 9, this is considered an intended result rather than a method step of preparing a substrate. Nevertheless, Rothberg teaches the plasmonic enhancement structures comprise metal grains in an oxide layer of the planar substrate “below” the nanowells (see claim 92-94).
Regarding claim 10, this is considered an intended result rather than a method step of preparing a substrate. Nevertheless, Rothberg teaches the plasmonic enhancement structures are configured to be tuned to couple photons into surface plasmons (see para [0412] et seq.)
Regarding claim 11, this is considered an intended result rather than a method step of preparing a substrate. Nevertheless, Rothberg teaches a base substrate and a layer of organic material on a top surface of the base substrate. Rothberg teaches “defining” (interpreted as forming) the plurality of nanowells comprising removing portions of the organic material (see para [0314] et seq.)
Regarding claim 12, this is considered an intended result rather than a method step of preparing a substrate. Rothberg teaches the organic material comprises photoresist, and removing portions of the organic material comprising performing a photolithography process to the photoresist (see para [0234] et seq.)
Regarding claim 13, Rothberg teaches removing the portions of the organic material comprises forming a lattice of the organic material, and wherein voids in the lattice define the nanowells (see para [0367] et seq.)
Regarding claim 14, this is considered an intended result rather than a step in the method preparing a substrate. Nevertheless, Rothberg teaches the substrate comprises a base substrate and a layer of organic material on a top surface of the base substrate. Rothberg teaches defining (interpreted as forming/creating) the plurality of nanowells comprises removing portions of the organic material and the base substrate (see, para [0214] and [0367] et seq.)
Regarding claim 15, this is considered an intended result rather than a method step of preparing a substrate. Nevertheless, Rothberg teaches the base substrate comprises silicon or glass and the organic material comprises photoresist (see para [0242] et seq.)
Regarding claim 16, this is considered an intended result rather than a method step of preparing a substrate. Nevertheless, Rothberg teaches each of the plurality of nanowells are (“define/defines/defining” has been interpreted “comprises”) a flat bottom surface (3-216, see Fig 3-12).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, this is considered an intended result rather than a method step of preparing a substrate. Nevertheless, Rothberg teaches each of the plurality of nanowells are (“define/defines/defining” has been interpreted “comprises”) a curved bottom surface, parabolic, (see para [0215] et seq). Note: the recitation wherein each of the curved bottom surfaces are configured to focus emissions “upwardly” out of the nanowells is considered an intended result which does not limit the claimed method.
Regarding claim 19, this is considered an intended result rather than a method step of preparing a substrate. Nevertheless, Rothberg teaches each nanowell (“define/defines/defining” has been interpreted “comprises”) a diameter of less than 300 nm, the nanowells satisfy at least one condition of:
each nanowell (“define/defines/defining” has been interpreted “comprises”) a diameter of less than 300 nm;
a center-to-center spacing of the plurality of nanowells in the array being less than 500 nm; and
plurality of nanowells each (“define/defines/defining” has been interpreted “comprises”) a depth of less than 200 nm (see para [0210] et seq.)
Regarding claim 20, this is considered an intended result rather than a method step of preparing a substrate. Nevertheless, Rothberg teaches each nanowell (“define/defines/defining” has been interpreted “comprises”) a diameter of less than 150 nm (see para [0210] et seq.)
Regarding claim 22, this is considered an intended result rather than a method step of preparing a substrate. Nevertheless, Rothberg teaches a center-to-center spacing of the plurality of nanowells in the array is less than 350 nm (see claim 130).
Regarding claim 24, this is considered an intended result rather than a step in a method of preparing a substrate. Nevertheless, Rothberg teaches the plurality of nanowells each (“define/defines/defining” has been interpreted “comprises”) a depth of less than 100 nm (see para [0210] et seq.)
Regarding claim 25, this is considered an intended result rather than a step in a method of preparing a substrate. Nevertheless, Rothberg teaches the plurality of nanowells each (“define/defines/defining” has been interpreted “comprises”) a depth between 60 nm and 100 nm (see para [0210] et seq.)
Citations to art
In the above citations to documents in the art, an effort has been made to specifically cite representative passages, however rejections are in reference to the entirety of each document relied upon. Other passages, not specifically cited, may apply as well.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure include:
i. Hinz et al., (US 2018/0217092) which teach a method of fabricating a chemical detection device. The method may comprise forming a microwell above a CMOS device. The microwell may comprise a bottom surface and sidewalls. The method may further comprise applying a first chemical to be selectively attached to the bottom surface of the microwell, forming a metal oxide layer on the sidewalls of the microwell, and applying a second chemical to be selectively attached to the sidewalls of the microwell. The second chemical may lack an affinity to the first chemical; and
ii. Li et al., (US 2021/0399030) which teach a biosensor with a complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) image sensor that includes an electronic circuit layer and a photo sensing layer over the electronic circuit layer. The photo sensing layer includes a plurality of photodiodes overlying the electronic circuit layer. Each of the photodiodes has a light sensing junction adjacent to the electronic circuit layer and a light receiving surface is defined by a surface of the plurality of photodiodes opposite to the electronic circuit layer. The light receiving surface includes a concave surface covering a recessed region in a backside of the photodiodes. A protective layer above the light receiving surface that is sized and functionalized to contain a plurality of nucleic acid macromolecules.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to P. Kathryn Wright whose telephone number is (571)272-2374. The examiner can normally be reached between 9:30am-7pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
E-mail communication Authorization
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi can be reached on 571-270-3638. 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.
/P. Kathryn Wright/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights