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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are examined herein.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 05/02/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered in full. Signed copies of the lists of references cited from both IDS are included with this Office Action.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on pg. 54, paragraph [00253], there is a blank line where there should be an Accession number and a blank line where there should be a date of deposit. The paragraph with the deposit information states that the “deposit has been accepted under the Budapest Treaty… ”, however, without an Accession Number and a date of deposit, it appears that the deposit has not, yet, been made. It is unclear how it can already be accepted under the Budapest Treaty if it has not, yet, been made.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, and 11-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 11, and 13 each have a blank line where there should be an Accession number.
Claim 9 should read as “…, insect resistance, pest resistance,…” rather than “…, insect or pest resistance,…”
Claim 12 should read as ““…, insect resistance, pest resistance,…” rather than “…, insect or pest resistance,…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Indefiniteness
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 6, 10-11, 13, and 16-17 are indefinite in their recitation of soybean cultivar “22150935” because the recitation does not clearly identify the claimed soybean cultivar and seed. Furthermore, the recitation does not set forth the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Since the name “22150935” is not known in the art, the use of said same does not carry art recognized limitations as to the specific characteristics or essential characteristics that are associated with the denomination. In addition, the name appears to be arbitrary, and the specific characteristics associated therewith could be modified, as there is no written description of the soybean plant that encompasses all of its traits. This rejection can be obviated by amending the claims to recite the NCMA deposit number.
Dependent claims are also rejected because they fail to overcome the deficiencies of the parent claims.
Additionally, the specification defines “soybean plant” in the following screen-capture.
PNG
media_image1.png
261
519
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is unclear if this broadening definition is only supposed to be applied when the phrase “soybean plant” is explicitly recited in the claims or if similar to phrases such as “A plant of soybean cultivar…” as is recited in Claim 1 should be interpreted in a similarly broad manner. The Examiner requests that Applicant indicate how such claims should be interpreted to that the scope of the claims can be understood. Given this lack of clarity, the metes and bounds of all claims cannot be determined.
Additionally, Claims 1, 11, and 13 recite, in part, “…representative seed of said soybean cultivar having been deposited under…” Given the broadening definition of “soybean plant” disclosed in the specification, it is unclear what it means for the deposit to be “representative”. What breadth of scope is being represented by this deposit?
Claim 15 recites the limitation "growing a progeny plant of a subsequent generation from said seed of a progeny plant of the subsequent generation and crossing the progeny plant of a subsequent generation" in lines 2-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14, from which Claim 15 depends, recites “a progeny plant of a subsequent generation”, therefore it is unclear if the limitation from Claim 15, wherein the method “further comprises”, is referring to growing a progeny plant of a further (different) subsequent generation than what is recited in Claim 14 or if the progeny plant is grown from the seed of the subsequent generation recited in Claim 14. To remediate this aspect of the indefiniteness rejection, Applicant could amend the claim to recite, for example, “growing a progeny plant of the subsequent generation from said seed of the progeny plant of the subsequent generation and crossing the progeny plant of the subsequent generation…” for proper antecedence.
Claim 16 depends from Claim 15 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as given above.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "said plant" in line 3 which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the recitation of “said plants” is referring to the plant of claim 1 or the progeny plant. As such, it is unclear in the method step that comprises detecting, if the sample of nucleic acids is taken from the plant of claim 1, a progeny plant thereof, or both plant types. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Claim 19 depends from Claim 18 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as given above
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Enablement
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 1-20 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 enablement requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The claims are directed to seeds and plants of soybean cultivar 22150935 or plants and plant parts derived from said cultivar, and methods that utilize said cultivar. Since the plant is essential to the claimed invention, it must be obtainable by a repeatable method set forth in the specification or otherwise be readily available to the public. If the plant is not so obtainable or available, the requirements of 35 USC § 112 may be satisfied by a deposit of the seeds. A deposit of 625 seeds of the cultivar is considered sufficient to ensure public availability. The specification does not disclose a repeatable process to obtain the plant. It is noted that Applicant states that a deposit of seeds has been made (See pgs. 54-55 of the instant specification) but there is no accession number or date of deposit.
(a) If a deposit is ACCEPTED under the terms of the Budapest Treaty, then a statement, affidavit or declaration by Applicants, or a statement by an attorney of record over his or her signature and registration number, or someone empowered to make such a statement, stating that the instant invention will be irrevocably and without restriction released to the public upon the issuance of a patent, would satisfy the deposit requirement made herein.
(b) If a deposit has not been made under the Budapest Treaty, then in order to certify that the deposit meets the criteria set forth in 37 CFR 1.801-1.809 and MPEP 2402-2411.05, Applicant may provide assurance of compliance by statement, affidavit or declaration, or by someone empowered to make the same, or by a statement by an attorney of record over his or her signature and registration number showing that:
(i) during the pendency of this application, access to the invention will be afforded to the Commissioner upon request;
(ii) all restrictions upon availability to the public will be irrevocably removed upon granting of the patent in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.808(a)(2);
(iii) the deposit will be maintained in a public depository for a period of 30 years or 5 years after the last request or for the effective life of the patent, whichever is longer;
(iv) a test of the viability of the biological material at the time of deposit (see 37 CFR § 1.807); and,
(v) the deposit will be replaced if it should ever become inviable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Written Description
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 1-20 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.
The scope of the claimed genus of soybean plants is unclear given the indefinite nature of the claims (See 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections above).
The instant disclosure describes features of soybean cultivar 22150935 (Table 1, pg. 10). It is unclear if these described features are required for a soybean plant to be determined to be of soybean cultivar 22150935.
These described features are insufficient, because the specification fails to disclose defining features of the claimed invention such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could distinguish the claimed subject matter from other plant materials. Further, there is no description of what genomic structures and phenotypes would be required of a mutagenized soybean plant of soybean cultivar 22150935.
Given the broad scope of the claimed genus of soybean plants, the lack of working examples and the failure to describe the structures required to confer the claimed function, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus at the time of filing.
Additionally, 35 USC 112 (a) states that “The specification shall contain a written description of the invention”. In evaluating written description, the threshold question is what is “an adequate written description”. This is question of fact that is evaluated by the factfinder (examiner). MPEP 2163.04 clearly states that “The inquiry into whether the description requirement is met must be determined on a case-by-case basis and is a question of fact. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976).”
The instant invention is a new soybean variety (22150935). So, the examiner will evaluate what is an adequate written description for a new soybean variety. In reviewing this question of fact, the examiner analyzed how plant varieties are evaluated in the public domain. The review concluded that generally the minimum requirements for an adequate description of a new plant variety has a trait table and genetic information (via a breeding history).
In reviewing Applicant’s specification, there is a phenotypic description of the plant traits as seen in Table 1 (pg. 10) of the instant specification. While Applicant has provided the breeding method for the instantly claimed plant cultivar in the instant specification (pg. 9, paragraph 0069) and via the IDS dated 05/02/2024, both of the parents used to produce soybean cultivar 22150935 are not known in the art, at least under the names provided (13AA20232-52-23 and 6007-13) As such, the breeding history information provided is insufficient; thus, the instant application is incomplete as to the breeding history used to produce the claimed plant variety. If both of the parents (13AA20232-52-23 and 6007-13) were never in the public domain, then the Applicant must state clearly for the record that the parent is internal soybean line that has never been made publicly available.
The office’s reasonable basis for challenging the adequacy of written description is informed by a review of the following:
With regard to Plant Patents, MPEP 1605 states that a complete detailed description of a plant includes “the origin or parentage”.
A breeding history, including information about parentage and breeding methodology, is part of the requirements of Plant Variety Protection (PVP) applications. That information is used to “determine if development is sufficient to consider the variety new” (See “Applying for a Plant Variety Certificate of Protection”, USDA, https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/pv po/application-help/apply, downloaded 05/01/2023, (U)).
The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) considers breeding history and methodology part of its evaluation of essentially derived plant varieties (UPOV, Explanatory Notes on Essentially Derived Varieties Under the 1991 Act of the UPOV Convention, April 6, 2017, See UPOV EDV Explanatory Notes 14 and 30 (V)).
Historically, the USPTO has considered breeding history information when determining the patentability of a new plant variety. (See Ex Parte C (USPQ 2d 1492 (1992) (W) and Ex Parte McGowen Board Decision in Application 14/996,093, decided June 15, 2020 (X)). In both of these cases, there were many differences cited by the Applicant when comparing the prior art and the new plant variety. However, because the breeding history was available, these differences were deemed to be obvious and within the natural variation expected in a backcrossing breeding process. Without a breeding history in these cases, a complete comparison with the prior art could not have been possible.
As seen above in Ex Parte C and Ex Parte McGowan, a trait table is insufficient to differentiate varieties by itself. It has been long established that intracultivar heterogeneity exists in crop species. Haun et al. (Plant Physiology, Feb. 2011, Vol. 155, pp. 645-655 (Y)) teaches that the assumption that elite cultivars are composed of relatively homogenous genetic pools is false. (p. 645, left column). Segregation, recombination, DNA transposition, epigenetic processes, and spontaneous mutations are some of the reasons elite cultivar populations will maintain some degree of plant-to-plant variation (p. 645, right column and p. 646, left column). In addition to genetic variation, environmental variation may lead to phenotypic variation within a cultivar. (Großkinsky et al., J. Exp. Bot., Vol. 66, No. 11, pp. 5429-5440, 2015 (Z), p. 5430, left column, 1st full paragraph, and right column, 2nd full paragraph). In view of this variability, a breeding history is an essential and the least burdensome way to provide genetic information needed to adequately describe a newly developed plant.
The above factual evidence provides a reasonable basis that a breeding history is necessary written description. With this information the examiner has met the initial burden of presenting by a preponderance of evidence why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize in an applicant’s disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. (See MPEP 2163.04). Please note, the citations above are not for legal authority, the legal authority relied upon by the examiner is the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) statute. The citations are presented to support the finding of fact that a breeding history is necessary to the adequate description of a plant.
Although not directly relied upon for the above written description position, a complete written description additionally helps drive examination and help with infringement verification.
MPEP 2163 (I) states “The written description of the deposited material needs to be as complete as possible because the examination for patentability proceeds solely on the basis of the written description. See, e.g., In re Lundak, 773 F.2d 1216, 227 USPQ 90 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also 54 Fed. Reg. at 34,880 ("As a general rule, the more information that is provided about a particular deposited biological material, the better the examiner will be able to compare the identity and characteristics of the deposited biological material with the prior art.").”
MPEP 2163(I) states “The description must be sufficient to permit verification that the deposited biological material is in fact that disclosed. Once the patent issues, the description must be sufficient to aid in the resolution of questions of infringement." Id. at 34,880.)” (Quoting the Deposit of Biological Materials for Patent Purposes, Final Rule, 54 Fed. Reg. 34,864 (August 22, 1989) at 34,880).
The breeding history aids in the resolution of patent infringement by providing information necessary to determine whether differences in the plants are genetic differences, differences caused by the environment, or differences within the accepted variation within a variety.
Moreover, a specification devoid of a complete breeding history hampers the public’s ability to resolve infringement analysis with plants already in the prior art as well as plants that have not yet been patented. Because the instant specification lacks the complete breeding history, the public will not be able to fully resolve questions of infringement. Since the breeding history, including the parents, is not known to the public, the public could only rely on the phenotypes of the claimed plants for assessing potential infringement.
Thus, an application that does not clearly describe the breeding history does not provide an adequate written description of the invention.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant should identify any and all other potential names for all parental lines utilized in the development of the instant cultivar and all other potential names for the claimed cultivar. If Applicant’s breeding history uses proprietary cultivar names, Applicant should notate in the specification all other names of the proprietary cultivars, especially publicly disclosed or patented cultivar information. If the breeding history encompasses a locus conversion or a backcrossing process, Applicant should clearly indicate the recurrent parent and the donor plant and specifically name the trait or transgenic event that is being donated to the recurrent parent. If one of the parents is a backcross progeny or locus converted line of a publicly disclosed line, Applicant should provide the breeding history of the parent line as well (i.e., grandparents). Applicant should identify the breeding method used, such as single seed descent, bulk method, backcross method, etc., and the filial generation in which the instant plant was chosen. Information pertaining to the homozygosity or heterozygosity of the parents as well as the instant plant should be set forth.
Applicant is reminded that they have a duty to disclose information material to patentability. Applicant should also notate the most similar plants which should include any other plants created using similar breeding history (such as siblings of the instant cultivar). If there any patent applications or patents in which siblings or parents of the instant plant are claimed, the serial numbers and names of the siblings or parents should be disclosed. This information can be submitted in an IDS with a notation of the relevancy to the instant application or as information submitted as described in MPEP 724 (e.g., trade secret, proprietary, and Protective Order).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (Frontiers in plant science 9 (2018): 1-16).
Claim 18 is broadly directed to methods of determining the genotype of the plant of claim 1 or a progeny plant thereof, or a part thereof. There is no limit on the generation of the progeny plant. There is also no active method step that requires using the plant of claim 1. This means that the broadest reasonable interpretation of Claim 18 encompasses methods of genotyping any soybean plant.
Regarding Claims 18 and 19, Wang et al. discloses methods of conducting marker analysis on 235 different soybean cultivars, including genotyping with molecular markers through DNA sequencing and subsequent computer analysis of the isolated SNP alleles (pg. 3, paragraph bridging left and right columns). This process is encompassed in the claimed method, because there is no limit on the generation of the progeny plant.
To remediate this aspect of the prior art rejection, Applicant is encouraged to either: 1) limit the progeny plant to F1 progeny or 2) initiate the method with an active step of crossing the plant of claim 1 with another plant (Note that if option two is taken, it is likely that multiple method steps will need to be added to ensure that the method is not indefinite).
Non-statutory 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Provisional Non-statutory Double Patenting over Application No. 18/414,295
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of co-pending Application No. 18/414,295 (US-20250228193-A1; reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical (those in the instant application refer to soybean cultivar 22150935, while those of 18/414,295 refer to soybean cultivar 21161335), they are not patentably distinct from each other because the referenced soybean cultivars originated from the same parental cross (13AA20232-52-23 and 6007-13).
Moreover, most of the traits disclosed for cultivar 21161335 of ‘295 and instant cultivar 22150935 are the same or are similar (+/- 10% std. dev.). Differences between cultivar 22150935 of the instant application and cultivar 21161335 of ‘295 may be attributable to environmental variations, grader subjectivity, linkage drag during backcrossing, donor plant traits and/or statistical insignificance. Applicant admits that not all of the morphological and physiological characteristics of a variety are recovered when a desired heritable trait is introduced, and an occasional variant trait may arise during backcrossing or direct introduction of a transgene [00195]. Lastly, any morphological and physiological difference between these cultivars needs to be unexpected and practically significant. See Ex Parte C (27 USPQ2d 1492 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992)), Ex Parte McGowen (Application No. 14996093, P.T.A.B. Jun 15, 2020) and MPEP 716.02(b). Applicant does not disclose an unexpected and practically significant difference in a trait between cultivar 22150935 of the instant application and that of cultivar 21161335 of ‘295. The plants, seeds, cells, method of soybean breeding, F1 hybrid, method of producing a plant comprising an added desired trait, method of introducing a single locus conversion, method of introducing a mutation, and method of producing a commodity plant product are claimed in both ‘295 and the instant application.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Closest Prior Art
Claims 1-17 and 20 appear to be free of the prior art, given the failure of the prior art to teach or reasonably suggest a soybean cultivar having all the phenotypic characteristics of the exemplified soybean cultivar listed in Table 1 (pg. 10), or methods of its use. The closest prior art in regard to Claims 1-17 and 20 can be found in Grams et al. (US Patent No. 10,064,358 B1, issued 09/04/2018) which teaches soybean cultivar 58101437, sharing many traits in common with (or does not significantly differ) instant soybean cultivar 22150935, including seed coat color, seed coat luster, cotyledon color, leaflet shape, growth habit, flower color, plant pubescence color, pod wall color, maturity group, relative maturity. However, soybean cultivar 58101437 differs from the instant soybean cultivar in at least breeding history, parental genetics, plant lodging score, plant height, seed size, seed protein content, seed oil content, herbicide resistance, and disease resistance.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY L. MCWILLIAMS whose telephone number is (703)756-4704. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:00-17:30.
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, AMJAD ABRAHAM can be reached at (571) 270-7058. 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.
/KELSEY L MCWILLIAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 1663
/Amjad Abraham/SPE, Art Unit 1663