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 .
Drawings
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 bioreactor that continually produces a population of minicells with the claimed OUR and yield must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-13, 15-23, and 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabbadini et al. (US 2011/0281330) in view of Koskinen et al. US 2018/0171371) and further in view of Amano et al. (US 2009/0081723).
Regarding claims 1 and 56 Sabbadini discloses a bioprocessing system for minicell production, comprising: (a) at least one bioreactor that continually produces a population of minicells; (b) a minimal medium for minicell production; and (c) at least one bacterial cell strain capable of producing a population of achromosomal minicells; (See Sabbadini Abstract and [0370] wherein a bioprocess produces minicells by providing a bioreactor with a minimal medium and a bacterial cell strain capable of producing achromosomal minicells and said minicells are produced continually for some amount of time.)
Sabbadini discloses that bioreactor conditions may be controlled and include production of minicells to any desired concentration ,i.e. yield of 60% or more, and also include purification of minicells, i.e. such that minicells represent more that 60% of total cells in a product concentration. (See Sabbadini [0374]-[384]) Sabbadini does not specifically disclose the bioreactor being arranged for continuous bioprocess and wherein said bioreactor is set with a fermentation parameter selected from the group of a feed rate, temperature, ingredients, dissolved oxygen, agitation speed, airflow rate, oxygen, pH, inoculum, and fermentation length.
Koskinen discloses a bioprocessing system wherein a bioreactor is provided and arranged for continuous production and the bioreactor is set with a fermentation parameters including temperature, pH, flow rate, etc. ((See Koskinen Abstract [0007] and [0082]-[0084])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a continuous and controlled bioreactor as described by Kasinen in the bioprocessing system of Sabbadini because such bioreactors allow control of production process variables as well as high productivity as would be desirable in the system of Sabbadini and such a bioreactor system fulfills the need for a bioreactor as espoused by Sabbadini and one would have a reasonable expectation of success in so doing.
In regards to the bioreactor set to control oxygen uptake rate being between 100 to 200 mmol/L/hr it is noted that the bioreactor of modified Sabbadini is configured to control oxygen delivery rate and culture growth rate and thus can control oxygen uptake rate to at least 100 mmol/L/Hr. The specific oxygen uptake rate to which the bioreactor is used is an intended use and functional limitation, which does not define a structural element which differentiates the claimed invention from the cited prior art. See MPEP 2114 and 2115. The bioreactor of modified Sabbadini is fully capable of being provided with large amounts of oxygen and log growth bacteria such that oxygen uptake rate is between 100 to 200 mmol/L/hr. Such a functional limitations does not require any additional structure than the device of the bioreactor of modified Sabbadini.
Furthermore even assuming arguendo with respect to the level oxygen uptake rate being an intended use it is noted that as the amount of oxygen added as well as amount of microorganism growth are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said oxygen uptake rate, with said amount of oxygen added and microorganism growth both increasing as the oxygen uptake rate increased, the precise oxygen uptake rate would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed oxygen uptake rate cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, oxygen uptake rate to obtain the desired balance between the the amount of oxygen added and microorganism growth rate. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Additionally the prior art of Amano discloses providing a bioreactor and controlling said bioreactor so that it has an oxygen uptake rate of 150 mmol/L/Hr to effectively grow bacterial cells therein. (See Amano Abstract and [0037] wherein a bioreactor is set to have an OUR of 150 mmol/L/Hr)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling provide a bioreactor capable of providing an oxygen uptake rate of 150 mmol/L/Hr and controlling said bioreactor to have such a rate as described by Amano in the device of modified Sabbadini because such an oxygen uptake rate is known to be set in a bioreactor so that materials are effectively grown throughout an entire bioreactor volume as would be desirable in the device of modified Sabbadini.
In regards to minicell production yield being 60% it is noted that the bioreactor system of modified Sabadini is fully configured and capable of producing a product yield of greater than 60% minicells of total cells without additional structure, (using controlled production and/or purification) and such a limitation is directed to functional language and materials worked on by the bioreactor which do not define structural elements which differentiate the claimed invention from the cited prior art as the cited prior art is fully capable of producing such yields given proper conditions and materials. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Regarding claim 3 modified Sabbadini discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the device wherein said temperature is from about 100C to about 70°C. (See Koskinen [0122] wherein temperature is set to between 27 and 37 C and also Sabbadini [1041] wherein production occurs at 37 C)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claims 2, and 4-11 it is noted that modified Sabbadini discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and claims 2 ad 4-11 recite non-positively recited alternatives and do not limit the temperature parameter selected by the examiner.
Regarding claim 12 modified Sabbadini discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the device wherein said minicell is about 150 nm to about 950 nm in length. (See Sabbadini [0243] wherein the minicells are 100 to 300 nm, i.e. 01 to 0.3 microns in diameter, i.e. length.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 13 modified Sabbadini discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and it is noted that a carbon source a glycerol or a glucose is a material worked on which does not structurally limit the device and differentiate the claimed invention from the cited prior art. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Regarding claims 15-20 modified Sabbadini discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the device wherein said minicell is capable of encapsulating an agricultural agent comprising a biologically active compound wherein said biologically active compound is a nucleic acid wherein the nucleic acid is selected from the group consisting of an antisense nucleic acid, a double-stranded RNA (dsRNA), a short-hairpin RNA (shRNA), a small-interfering RNA (siRNA), a microRNA (miRNA), a ribozyme, an aptamer, and combination thereof. (See Sabbadini [0666] wherein the minicell encapsulates ribozymes.)
Regarding the alternatives of an agrochemical compound the prior art teaches the alternative of a biologically active compound and thus need not teach the non-required alternatives.
Regarding claim 21 modified Sabbadini discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the device wherein minicell ratio after bioprocessing is fully capable of being controlled and the percentage of parental bacterial cells in the bioreactor is directed to an intended use and material worked on by the device which does not differentiate the claimed device from the cited prior art. (See MPEP 2114 and 2115)
Regarding claim 22 modified Sabbadini discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the device wherein said bioprocessing system is a controlled continuous bioprocessing system capable of continuously producing a population of minicells. (See Koskinen Abstract [0007] and [0082]-[0084] wherein the system is a controlled continuous bioprocess system capable of continuous produciton)
Regarding claims 23 modified Sabbadini discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the device wherein the device is fully capable of partially harvesting minicells to any percentage of total cells and being continuously run and supplied with parental bacterial cells to produce another population of minicells if one so wished and such limitations are directed to intended uses and materials worked on by the device which do not differentiate the claimed device from the cited prior art. See MPEP 2114 and 2115
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite an oxygen uptake rate (OUR) between about 100 mmol/L/Hr and about 200 mmol/L/Hr. This recitation is fully supported by the originally filed specification and figures, including FIGs. 3 and 4A, which disclose OUR data within the claimed range. Because the originally filed drawings already illustrate the OUR data corresponding to the claimed invention, no changes to the drawings are necessary”
Applicant’s claim amendments are not sufficient to negate the examiner’s requirements for drawings showing every claim element. Applicant’s claims are directed to a bioprocessing system and require “a bioreactor” among other structural features. Applicant argues that a generic bioreactor does not read on the claims because the functional language reflects “specific structural” limitations. Applicant’s drawings do not show any structural elements of any bioreactor. Since such a bioreactor and specific structure thereof is required for proper understanding of the claimed invention the examiner requires such a bioreactor and all structure required for understanding of the claims be shown in the drawings.
Applicant argues that “the claim further recites that the bioreactor is configured to constantly maintain an oxygen uptake rate (OUR)…” It is noted that this is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. The claims merely require a bioreactor which “has an oxygen uptake rate” it does not require any maintenance of such a rate nor and specific configuration to create such a rate.
This is an important distinction and specifically relates the structural elements of the claimed device. Since applicant utilizes functional language without reciting explicit structural features a bioreactor which “constantly maintains” an oxygen uptake rate may have a wholly different structure than a bioreactor structure which is inherently capable of merely having an oxygen uptake rate as is currently claimed.
Applicant also argues that “While Sabbadini generically lists various media as possible growth media” and “only rich media were used to grow bacterial cells for minicell production”. The examiner disagrees with this limited characterization of Sabbadini. While Sabbadini may give specific examples which utilize only rich media the reference specifically discloses a bioprocessing system for growing minicells and notes that that minimal media may be provided along with cells in a bioreactor to do such. Thus Sabbadini clearly teaches using such minimum media and one of ordinary skill in the art would be well appraised of following such a teaching.
Applicant also argues that “At most, Koskinen provides general teachings regarding continuous fermentation systems and cascades of bioreactors for unrelated products. Importing these teachings into Sabbadini's minicell system in the specific, claimed manner requires impermissible hindsight. The mere existence of continuous bioreactor system does not, by itself, render obvious a particular configuration of such system for a different biological objective, absent a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (obviousness requires "an articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness").”
The examiner notes that while Koskinen may not specifically disclose minicell production it is directed to bioreactors for effectively growing cells including e. coli, which are cell types which may produce minicells, and the examiner did not specifically rely on it for minicell production.
Applicant argues that the examiner has not provided any teaching, suggestion, or motivation, to combine the references. The examiner specifically pointed to a suggestion and motivation in Koskinen for utilizing such a bioreactor, i.e. that is allows control over a bioprocessing process and high productivity. Applicant has not addressed this motivation or explained why it is specifically in error and as such applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Furthermore In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case the combination takes into account knowledge that some form of bioreactor is required to produce minicells by growing e. coli bacteria under controlled conditions, i.e. the teachings of Sabbidini, and that a continuous bioreactor grows e. coli under controlled conditions at higher productivity. Thus there is no knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s specification or impermissible hindsight.
Applicant also argues that “Amano provides no experimental data or teaching that this OUR setting yields any improved or enhanced cell growth, let alone enhanced minicell production. Amano does not address minicells at all, nor does it discuss minicell yield as a fraction of total cells.
Thus, Amano neither teaches nor suggests that maintaining the OUR between about 100- 200 mmol/L/hr would be critical or optimal for achieving a high minicell production. The Examiner cannot simply assume that the claimed OUR range is an obvious optimization of prior art conditions.
Here, Applicant has identified a specific parameter range tied to a significant improvement (>60% minicells of total cells), that range is critical. MPEP § 2144.05(III)(c) states that "Applicants may rebut a prima facie case of obviousness based on optimization of a variable disclosed in a range in the prior art by showing that the claimed variable was not recognized in the prior art to be a result-effective variable." It further states that "discovery of an optimum value of a result-effective variable is ordinarily within the skill of the art,"but this does not apply where applicant shows unexpected results (see section III below).”
It is noted that Amano specifically discloses that a bioreactor with controlled OUR does in fact allow for effective cell growth of bacterial cells including e. coli. (See Amano [0004]) Amano also notes that a OUR of 150mmol/L/hr is provide in the bioreactor (See Amano [0037]) and thus clearly and unmistakably demonstrates that the bioreactor described if fully capable of such a rate. As has been pointed out numerous times applicant’s claimed OUR and yield are functional language that describe a device by what it does . Since the bioreactor is inherently capable, as specifically described by Amano, of providing such a claimed OUR and thus yield, the cited prior art teaches all claim limitations both structural and functional to meet the claimed limitations. The examiner once more notes that fact that applicant has discovered a new use, i.e. that increasing OUR leads to enhanced minicell yield, does not make an old product, i.e. bioreactor capable of continuous production and OUR control, patentable.
Applicant also argues that “The Examiner has not explained why a POSITA would modify Sabbadini's minicell system (which uses rich media and is not described as a continuous, high-yield minicell process) to incorporate Koskinen's teachings regarding continuous production of biosynthetic oils/lipids in bioreactor cascades, and/or Amano's mere teaching on OUR setting for dissolved oxygen concentration in order to arrive at a continuous minicell bioprocess employing a minimal medium and a specific OUR range (100-200 mmol/L/Hr) to achieve >60% minicells of total cells.
The Examiner simply puts together elements from different references after reading Applicant's specification, which is hindsight reconstruction. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074-75 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ("One cannot use hindsight reconstruction to pick and choose among isolated disclosures in the prior art to deprecate the claimed invention."). “
It is noted that the examiner explicitly provided reasons explaining why one of ordinary skill in the art would combine the teachings of Koskinen and Amano in the device of Sabbadini. Sabaddini teaches that minicells may be produced from parental cells, i.e. e. coli cells, which are placed in a bioreactor along with a media which may be a minimal media. (See Sabbadini [00371]) Sabbadini also notes that culture conditions including , temperature, oxygen, etc. are required to be controlled but is completely silent as to any structure in a bioreactor to accomplish this. Thus a POSITA must look to outside sources or other knowledge in order to accomplish the explicitly stated goals, i.e. providing a bioreactor with controlled conditions. Both Koskinin and Amano disclose bioreactors which include such structures allowing such control while also specifically producing enhanced yields of cells and cell products when culturing microorganisms including e. coli. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would be motivated to provide such bioreactors in the system of Sabbadini because they fulfill the explicit need for such bioreactors and control structures espoused by Sabbadini and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefits, i.e. increased production yield and more controlled conditions, from utilizing such bioreactors.
Applicant also argues “Nothing in Sabbadini, Koskinen, or Amano suggests that replacing Sabbadini's rich media with a minimal medium in a continuous bioprocess would maintain constant cell growth and yield >60% minicells or selecting an OUR range of 100-200 mmol/L/hr (e.g., 150 mmol/L/hr) in a continuous system using minimal medium would produce markedly enhanced minicell yield recited in claim 1.
To the contrary, Sabbadini actually uses rich media (e.g., LB) for minicell production, and uses complex minimal media only for other purposes (e.g., protein synthesis assays), which tends to discourage a POSITA from relying on minimal medium as the production medium for minicells in a high-yield, continuous process.
Koskinen provides no guidance to use the continuous bioreactor system for minicell production as it focuses on production of biosynthetic oil/lipid products. Amano merely sets OUR to control dissolved oxygen in a bioreactor, without any indication that such settings would be beneficial, let alone critical, for minicell production yield.
Thus, any teaching or suggestion of the cited references would have given a POSITA a reasonable expectation of success that combining these references in the claimed manner would produce a continuous, minimal-medium-based minicell process with >60% minicells of total cells.
Without Applicant's disclosure, there is no apparent reason for a POSITA to (1) select minicells (rather than oil/lipid products) as the target output; (2) choose a minimal medium (rather than the rich media used in Sabbadini and Koskinen) for minicell production; and (3) configure the bioreactor to maintain OUR in the specific claimed range to reach >60% minicell yield. For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant submits that a case of obviousness has not been established and respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.”
The examiner notes that the applicant has previously explicitly stated that the claimed OUR and minicell production are functional limitations which define a device by what it is capable of rather than define the specific structure thereof. The examiner notes that the claimed bioreactors of the prior art are fully capable of and configured to produce such OUR values and minicell yield.
The bioreactors of the prior art are inherently capable of providing the claimed OUR and are explicitly recited as providing such an OUR, (See citations of Amano above). The bioreactors of the cited prior art are also inherently capable of providing a minicell yield of at least 60% of total cells in a bioreactor by providing proper culture conditions, i.e. OUR, and/or by purification and removal of cells which are not minicells. Neither of these functional limitations require additional structure which is not explicitly and inherently recited in the bioreactors of the prior art. As such the examiner has addressed the functional limitations claimed and specifically described how the cited prior art meets such functional language.
Applicant has not pointed to any structure that the bioreactors of the cited prior art lack that the claimed invention requires. Applicant has also not argued why the bioreactors of the cited prior art are not inherently structurally configured to provide the claimed OUR and minicell yield.
Applicant has not claimed new bioreactor structure or provided functional language which requires additional structure, different from the bioreactor structure described by the prior art.
The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant also argues that even if, for the sake of arguendo, the Examiner's proposed combination of references was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, then Applicant's unexpected results would rebut the presumption of obviousness, making the presently claimed method patentable over the cited art.
For the Examiner's convenience, the results shown in the previously submitted Declaration are presented below (see page 15). Table 1 demonstrates that the bioreactors-BR1, BR2, and BR3-set to OURs of 20, 50, and 75 mmol/L/Hr, which were outside of the claimed range, had about 33 to 42% of minicells production from the parental bacterial cells. These results correspond to what Sabbadini teaches-high levels of minicell production were about 4004
However, Applicant respectfully submits that there was about 1.5 to about 2.5 times higher yield in minicell production from the bioreactors-BR4, BR5, BR6-set to the claimed OUR range of 100, 150, 200 mmol/L/Hr, each of which reached at least about 60% of minicell production. These results-OUR between about 100 mmol/L/Hr and about 200 mmol/L/Hr giving rise to at least 60% minicell production yield in the bioreactor-are unexpected and superior over the known prior art's results (i.e., about 40% minicell yield)5.
Here, Applicant respectfully submits the Declaration with supplemental data to support the unexpected results in the specification described in FIG. 4A, thereby presenting enhanced minicell production-between about 100 mmol/L/Hr and about 200 mmol/L/Hr of oxygen uptake rate (OUR) set in the controlled bioprocessing system-at least 60% minicells of total cells (i.e., less than 40% of parental bacterial cells).
For the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims are fully supported by evidence of unexpected results that are commensurate in scope. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.”
Firstly the examiner maintains that applicant has not provided evidence of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See MPEP 716.02(d) “Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support."
Applicant has only shown evidence that such unexpected results occur with an unnamed and specific strain of bacteria while the claims are agnostic and can include any ”parental bacterial cell strain”. Applicant has also only shown evidence that such results occur when maintaining a OUR throughout an entire process run not simply by providing a bioreactor capable of having such an OUR at any point in time.
As such it is suggested that applicant either provide evidence of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention or narrow the claim language so that the evidence of unexpected results provided is commensurate in scope with the said claims.
Furthermore applicant’s own data appear and arguments within the declaration appear disclose that unexpected results appear to occur at a range of OUR between 100 and 300 mmol/L/Hr and not only within the claimed range of 100 to 200 mmol/L/Hr. Thus the more limited range claimed by applicant does not provide for unexpected results over OUR having a level greater than 200 mmol/L/Hr.
Secondly even assuming arguendo that applicant has demonstrated unexpected results these results relate to unexpected results of running a specific process and not unexpected results as a result the device structure. In other words it is not the claimed structure which results in the claimed unexpected results but such unexpected results occur only by carrying out a specifically envisioned and non-claimed process in already known bioreactors. Thus any evidence of unexpected results does not rebut the examiner’s combination of structural elements but may rebut carrying out a non-claimed and non-limiting process within the bioreactors of the cited art.
It is suggested that applicant claims specific structural elements which differentiate the claimed invention from the cited prior art or provide evidence/argument showing why the structure of the bioreactors is not capable of meeting the functional limitations claimed by applicant and as specifically stated by the examiner.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M HURST whose telephone number is (571)270-7065. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7AM-4PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Marcheschi can be reached on 571-272-1374. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN M HURST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799