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
This Office action is based on the 18/413699 application originally filed January 16, 2024.
Amended claims 53-58, 60-71 and 73-76, filed September 18, 2025, are pending and have been fully considered. Claims 1-52, 59 and 72 have been canceled. Claims 75 and 76 are new.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 18, 2025 has been entered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 53-74 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,246,641. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications are drawn to a process for producing a non-polar lipid derived from a vegetative plant part. The process involves harvesting and processing the plant part physically by rolling, pressing, crushing, or grinding the plant part or by applying heat, chemical, or enzymatic means to the vegetative plant part in order to recover the lipid-based product.
Claims 53-74 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 9,512,438. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of both applications are drawn to a process for producing a non-polar lipid derived from a vegetative plant part. The process involves harvesting and processing the plant part physically by rolling, pressing, crushing, or grinding the plant part or by applying heat, chemical, or enzymatic means to the vegetative plant part in order to recover the lipid-based product.
Claims 53-74 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-33 of U.S. Patent No. 11,913,006. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of both applications are drawn to a process for producing a non-polar lipid derived from a vegetative plant part. The process involves harvesting and processing the plant part physically by rolling, pressing, crushing, or grinding the plant part or by applying heat, chemical, or enzymatic means to the vegetative plant part in order to recover the lipid-based product.
Thus, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious over the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 53-58, 60-71 and 73-76 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Vanhercke et al. (US 2016/0002566 ) hereinafter “Vanhercke”.
Regarding Claims 53-58, 60-71 and 73-76
Vanhercke discloses in the abstract, methods of producing industrial products from plant lipids, particularly from vegetative parts of plants. In particular, the present invention provides oil products such as biodiesel and synthetic diesel and processes for producing these, as well as plants having an increased level of one or more non-polar lipids such as triacylglycerols and an increased total non-polar lipid content. In one particular embodiment, the present invention relates to combinations of modifications in two or more of lipid handling enzymes, oil body proteins, decreased lipid catabolic enzymes and/or transcription factors regulating lipid biosynthesis to increase the level of one or more non-polar lipids and/or the total non-polar lipid content and/or mono-unsaturated fatty acid content in plants or any part thereof. In an embodiment, the present invention relates to a process for extracting lipids. In another embodiment, the lipid is converted to one or more hydrocarbon products in harvested plant vegetative parts to produce alkyl esters of the fatty acids which are suitable for use as a renewable biodiesel fuel.
Vanhercke discloses in paragraph 0115, the cell is a plant cell from or in a vegetative part of a plant and one or more or all of the promoters are expressed at a higher level in the vegetative part relative to seed of the plant. Vanhercke discloses in paragraph 0116, the fatty acid with a medium chain length is at least myristic acid. In a preferred embodiment, the cell comprises a myristic acid content of at least about 8% (w/w dry weight). Vanhercke discloses in paragraph 0117, it is preferred that the cell is in a vegetative part of a plant which is growing in soil or which was grown in soil and the plant part was subsequently harvested, and wherein the cell comprises at least 8% TAG on a weight basis (% dry weight). In these embodiments, it is preferred that the ratio of the TAG content in the leaves to the TAG content in the stems of the plant is between 1:1 and 10:1, and/or the ratio is increased relative to a corresponding cell comprising the first and second exogenous polynucleotides and lacking the first genetic modification. Vanhercke discloses in paragraph 0132-0134, the cell comprises a total fatty acid content which comprises medium chain fatty acids, preferably C12:0 (lauric acid), C14:0 (myristic acid) or both, at a level of at least 5% of the total fatty acid content and optionally an exogenous polynucleotide which encodes an LPAAT which has preferential activity for fatty acids with a medium chain length (C8 to C14), preferably C12:0 or C14:0; the cell comprises a total fatty acid content whose oleic acid level and/or palmitic acid level is increased by at least 2% relative to a corresponding cell lacking the exogenous polynucleotide(s) and/or genetic modification(s), and/or whose .alpha.-linolenic acid (ALA) level and/or linoleic acid level is decreased by at least 2% relative to a corresponding cell lacking the exogenous polynucleotide(s) and/or genetic modification(s); xv) non-polar lipid in the cell comprises a modified level of total sterols, preferably free (non-esterified) sterols, steroyl esters, steroyl glycosides, relative to the non-polar lipid in a corresponding cell lacking the exogenous polynucleotide(s) and/or genetic modification(s).
Vanhercke discloses in paragraph 0252, the cell (including of the second, third, fourth and fifth aspects) is a cell of the following species or genera, or the plant or part thereof of the invention (including of the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth aspects) is Acrocomia aculeata (macauba palm), Arabidopsis thaliana, Aracinis hypogaea (peanut), Astrocaryum murumuru (murumuru), Astrocaryum vulgare (tucuma), Attalea geraensis (Indaia-rateiro), Attalea humilis (American oil palm), Attalea oleifera (andaia), Attalea phalerata (uricuri), Attalea speciosa (babassu), Avena sativa (oats), Beta vulgaris (sugar beet), Brassica sp. such as, for example, Brassica carinata, Brassica juncea, Brassica napobrassica, Brassica napus (canola), Camelina sativa (false flax), Cannabis sativa (hemp), Carthamus tinctorius (safflower), Caryocar brasiliense (pequi), Cocos nucifera (Coconut), Crambe abyssinica (Abyssinian kale), Cucumis melo (melon), Elaeis guineensis (African palm), Glycine max (soybean), Gossypium hirsutum (cotton), Helianthus sp. such as Helianthus annuits (sunflower), Hordeum vulgare (barley), Jatropha curcas (physic nut), Joannesia princeps (arara nut-tree), Lemna sp. (duckweed) such as Lemna aequinoctialis, Lemna disperma, Lemna ecuadoriensis, Lemna gibba (swollen duckweed), Lemna japonica, Lemna minor, Lemna minuta, Lemna obscura, Lemna paucicostata, Lemna perpusilla, Lemna tenera, Lemna trisulca, Lemna turionifera, Lemna valdiviana, Lemna yungensis, Licania rigida (oiticica), Linum usitatissimum (flax), Lupinus angustifolius (lupin), Mauritia flexuosa (buriti palm), Maximiliana maripa (inaja palm), Miscanthus sp. such as Miscanthus.times.giganteus and Miscanthus sinensis, Nicotiana sp. (tabacco) such as Nicotiana tabacum or Nicotiana benthamiana, Oenocarpus bacaba (bacaba-do-azeite), Oenocarpus bataua (pataua), Oenocarpus distichus (bacaba-de-leque), Oryza sp. (rice) such as Oryza sativa and Oryza glaberrima, Panicum virgatum (switchgrass), Paraqueiba paraensis (mari), Persea amencana (avocado), Pongamia pinnata (Indian beech), Populus trichocarpa, Ricinus communis (castor), Saccharum sp. (sugarcane), Sesamum indicum (sesame), Solanum tuberosum (potato), Sorghum sp. such as Sorghum bicolor, Sorghum vulgare, Theobroma grandiforum (cupuassu), Trifolium sp., Trithrinax brasiliensis (Brazilian needle palm), Triticum sp. (wheat) such as Triticum aestivum and Zea mays (corn).
Vanhercke discloses in paragraph 0790, as used herein, the term "non-polar lipid" refers to fatty acids and derivatives thereof which are soluble in organic solvents but insoluble in water. The fatty acids may be free fatty acids and/or in an esterified form. Examples of esterified forms include, but are not limited to, triacylglycerol (TAG), diacylyglycerol (DAG), monoacylglycerol (MAG). Non-polar lipids also include sterols, sterol esters and wax esters. Non-polar lipids are also known as "neutral lipids". Non-polar lipid is typically a liquid at room temperature. Preferably, the non-polar lipid predominantly (>50%) comprises fatty acids that are at least 16 carbons in length. More preferably, at least 50% of the total fatty acids in the non-polar lipid are C18 fatty acids for example, oleic acid. Preferably, at least 5% of the total fatty acids in the non-polar lipids are C12 or C14 fatty acids, or both. In an embodiment, at least 50%, of the fatty acids in non-polar lipid of the invention can be found as TAG.
Vanhercke discloses in paragraph 0793, as used herein, the term " fatty acid" refers to a carboxylic acid with an aliphatic tail of at least 8 carbon atoms in length, either saturated or unsaturated. Preferred fatty acids have a carbon-carbon bonded chain of at least 12 carbons in length. Most naturally occurring fatty acids have an even number of carbon atoms because their biosynthesis involves acetate which has two carbon atoms. The fatty acids may be in a free state (non-esterified) or in an esterified form such as part of a TAG, DAG, MAG, acyl-CoA (thio-ester) bound, acyl-ACP bound, or other covalently bound form. When covalently bound in an esterified form, the fatty acid is referred to herein as an "acyl" group. The fatty acid may be esterified as a phospholipid such as a phosphatidylcholine (PC), phosphatidylethanolamine, phosphatidylserine, phosphatidylglycerol, phosphatidylinositol, or diphosphatidylglycerol.
Vanhercke discloses in paragraph 0794, as used herein, the terms "monounsaturated fatty acid" or "MUFA" refer to a fatty acid which comprises at least 12 carbon atoms in its carbon chain and only one alkene group (carbon-carbon double bond), which may be in an esterified or non-esterified (free) form. As used herein, the terms "polyunsaturated fatty acid" or "PUFA" refer to a fatty acid which comprises at least 12 carbon atoms in its carbon chain and at least two alkene groups (carbon-carbon double bonds), which may be in an esterified or non-esterified form.
Vanhercke discloses in paragraph 0794, as used herein, a fatty acid with a "medium chain length", also referred to as "MCFA", comprises an acyl chain of 8 to 14 carbons. The acyl chain may be modified (for example it may comprise one or more double bonds, a hydroxyl group, an expoxy group, etc) or unmodified (saturated). This terms at least includes one or more or all of caprylic acid (C8:0), capric acid (C10:0), lauric acid (C12:0), and myristic acid (C14:0).
Vanhercke discloses in paragraph 1110, extraction of the lipid from vegetative plant parts of the invention uses analogous methods to those known in the art for seed-oil extraction. One way is physical extraction, which often does not use solvent extraction. Expeller pressed extraction is a common type, as are the screw press and ram press extraction methods. Mechanical extraction is typically less efficient than solvent extraction where an organic solvent (e.g., hexane) is mixed with at least the plant biomass, preferably after the biomass is dried and ground. The solvent dissolves the lipid in the biomass, which solution is then separated from the biomass by mechanical action (e.g., with the pressing processes above). This separation step can also be performed by filtration (e.g., with a filter press or similar device) or centrifugation etc. The organic solvent can then be separated from the non-polar lipid (e.g., by distillation). This second separation step yields non-polar lipid from the plant and can yield a re-usable solvent if one employs conventional vapor recovery. In an embodiment, the oil and/or protein content of the plant part or seed is analyzed by near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy prior to extraction.
Vanhercke discloses in paragraph 1109, once the solvent is stripped from the crude seed-oil, the pressed and extracted portions are combined and subjected to normal lipid processing procedures (i.e., degumming, caustic refining, bleaching, and deodorization).
Vanhercke discloses in paragraph 0417, simultaneously or subsequently converting at least some of the lipid in the processed cell, non-human organism or part thereof, plant or part thereof, or seed, to the industrial product by applying heat, chemical, or enzymatic means, or any combination thereof, to the lipid in the processed cell, non-human organism or part thereof, plant or part thereof, or seed, and iv) recovering the industrial product, thereby producing the industrial product.
The claimed invention is anticipated by the reference because the reference teaches a composition which comprises all of the claimed components. In the alternative, no patentable distinction is seen to exist between the reference and the claimed invention absent evidence to the contrary.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 18, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argued: “The pending claims are different from the claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,246,641, 8,735,111, 8,809,026, 9,061,992, or 9,512,438 at least because none of the claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,246,641, 8,735,111, 8,809,026, 9,061,992, or 9,512,438, recite vegetative plant parts comprising lipid, the lipids comprising fatty acids comprising "a level of total medium chain fatty acids (MCFA) that is at least 25% of the total fatty acid content on a weight basis".”
Applicants arguments directed to US Patent Number 8,735,111; 8,809,026; and 9,061,992 are deemed persuasive and the Double Patenting rejection has been WITHDRAWN.
Applicants arguments directed to US Patent Number 9,512,438; 10,246,641; and 11,913,006 are not deemed persuasive and the Double Patenting rejection has been MAINTAINED. It is maintained that the claims of the applied U.S. Patents under the Double Patenting Rejection disclose a "non-polar lipid derived from a vegetative plant part". It is to be noted, MPEP 804 (B)(3) states: "A nonstatutory double patenting rejection, if not based on an anticipation rationale or an "unjustified timewise extension" rationale, is "analogous to [a failure to meet] the nonobviousness requirement of 35 U.S.C. 103 " except that the patent disclosure principally underlying the double patenting rejection is not considered prior art. In re Braithwaite, 379 F.2d 594, 154 USPQ 29 (CCPA 1967). Even though the specification of the applied patent or copending application is not prior art, it may still be used to interpret the applied claims. See paragraph II.B.1, above. The analysis employed with regard to nonstatutory double patenting is "similar to, but not necessarily the same as that undertaken under 35 USC § 103." In re Braat, 937 F.2d 589, 592-93, 19 USPQ2d 1289, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citing In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 892 n.4, 225 USPQ 645, 648 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); see also Geneva Pharmaceuticals, 349 F.3d at 1378 n.1, 68 USPQ2d at 1869 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Basell Poliolefine, 547 F.3d 1371, 1379, 89 USPQ2d 1030, 1036 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The applied U.S. Patents under the Double Patenting Rejection define in the specification/disclosure the "non-polar lipid". The specification/disclosures state: "The non-polar lipid content of the vegetative plant part, non-human organism or part thereof is at 0.5% greater on a weight basis when compared to a corresponding non-human organism or part thereof. In another embodiment, the vegetative plant part, transgenic non-human organism or part thereof, preferably a plant or seed, produce DAGs and/or TAGs that are enriched for one or more particular fatty acids. A wide spectrum of fatty acids can be incorporated into DAGs and/or TAGs, including saturated and unsaturated fatty acids and short-chain and long-chain fatty acids. Some non-limiting examples of fatty acids that can be incorporated into DAGs and/or TAGs and which may be increased in level include: capric (10:0), lauric (12:0), myristic (14:0), palmitic (16:0), palmitoleic (16:1), stearic (18:0), oleic (18:1), vaccenic (18:1), linoleic (18:2), eleostearic (18:3), γ-linolenic (18:3), α-linolenic (18:3ω3), stearidonic (18:4ω3), arachidic (20:0), eicosadienoic (20:2), dihomo-γ-linoleic (20:3), eicosatrienoic (20:3), arachidonic (20:4), eicosatetraenoic (20:4), eicosapentaenoic (20:50)3), behenic (22:0), docosapentaenoic (22:5ω), docosahexaenoic (22:6ω3), lignoceric (24:0), nervonic (24:1), cerotic (26:0), and montanic (28:0) fatty acids. In one embodiment of the present invention, the vegetative plant part, transgenic organism or parts thereof is enriched for DAGs and/or TAGs comprising oleic acid, or polyunsaturated fatty acids. Therefore, the applied U.S. Patents Number 9,512,438; 10,246,641; and 11,913,006 under the Double Patenting Rejection is MAINTAINED.
Applicants argued: “In response, Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection. Vanhercke contains no description, much less an example, of vegetative plant parts comprising "at least 25%" MCFA, between 20% and 50% myristic acid, and between 1% and 10% lauric acid as recited in the claims. Moreover, there is no suggestion in Vanhercke to produce a plant part with each of these recited features. The disclosure of "C12:0 (lauric acid) [and] C14:0 (myristic acid) []both []at a level of at least 5% of the total fatty acid content" in Vanhercke is not a disclosure of a cell comprising (1) a level of total medium chain fatty acids (MCFA) that is at least 25%, (2) a level of myristic acid (C14:0) that is between 20% and 50% of the total fatty acid content and/or triacylglycerol (TAG) content on a weight basis, and (3) a level of lauric acid (C12:0) that is between 1% and 10% of the total fatty acid content and/or TAG content on a weight basis. In this regard, the fact that a claimed species or subgenus is encompassed by a prior art genus is not sufficient by itself to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 382, 29 USPQ2d 1550, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Rather, as noted in MPEP § 2144.08, the Examiner should ascertain the differences between the closest disclosed prior art species or subgenus of record and the claimed species or subgenus, determine the level of skill in the art, determine whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to select the claimed species or subgenus, and make express fact-findings and determine whether they support a prima facie case of obviousness.
Applicants arguments are not deemed persuasive. As stated in the above rejection, Vanhercke SPECIFICALLY discloses in paragraph 0116, the fatty acid with a medium chain length is at least myristic acid. In a preferred embodiment, the cell comprises a myristic acid content of at least about 8% (w/w dry weight). Vanhercke further discloses in paragraph 0132-0134, the cell comprises a total fatty acid content which comprises medium chain fatty acids, preferably C12:0 (lauric acid), C14:0 (myristic acid) or both, at a level of at least 5% of the total fatty acid content. Vanhercke has met the limitation of the claimed total medium chain fatty acids (MCFA) which comprise myristic acid (C14:0) and lauric acid (C12:0) in the claimed range amount, meeting the limitation of the presently claimed invention (see above rejection). It is maintained, of the prior art it is not picking and choosing to select one element from one list, however long the list may be. When the species is clearly named, the selection from a long list does not avoid a 103 rejection. See Ex parte A, 17 USPQ 2d 1716 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990). Additionally, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vanhercke (US 2013/0164798) discloses in the abstract, relates to processes for producing industrial products such as hydrocarbon products from non-polar lipids in a vegetative plant part. Preferred industrial products include alkyl esters which may be blended with petroleum based fuels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATOSHA D HINES whose telephone number is (571)270-5551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Prem Singh can be reached on 571-272-6381. 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.
/Latosha Hines/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771