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
1. The Office acknowledges the receipt of Applicant’s amendment filed April 14, 2026. Claims 1-25 are pending. Claims 4 and 6 are withdrawn. Claims 1-3, 5 and 7-25 are examined in the instant application.
All previous rejections not set forth below have been withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This action is made FINAL.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112(a)
2. Claims 1-3, 5 and 7-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
35 USC 112 (a) states “The specification shall contain a written description of the invention” (emphasis added). 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 pepper line (ZSP-8T20-6764). So, the examiner will evaluate what is an adequate written description for a new pepper line. In reviewing this question of fact, the examiner analyzes how plant varieties are evaluated in the public domain. The review concludes that generally the minimum requirements for an adequate description of a new plant variety are a trait table and genetic information (via a breeding history). In reviewing Applicant’s specification, there is a phenotypic description of line ZSP-8T20-6764 in Table 1. However, there is no accompanying breeding history in the specification for the claimed line. Because the specification lacks a breeding history and that breeding history is part of the minimum description of a plant variety, Applicant has not fulfilled the requirement of 35 USC 112(a) to provide a written description in the specification. The Office’s reasonable basis for challenging the adequacy of written description is supported 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, (previously cited)).
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 (previously cited)).
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) (previously cited) and Ex Parte McGowen Board Decision in Application 14/996,093, decided June 15, 2020 (previously cited)). 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 in Ex Parte C and Ex Parte McGowen, a trait table is insufficient to differentiate varieties by itself.
It has been long established that intraline heterogeneity exists in crop species. Haun et al. (Plant Physiology, Feb. 2011, Vol. 155, pp. 645-655 (previously cited)) teaches that the assumption that elite lines 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 line 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 line. (Großkinsky et al., J. Exp. Bot., Vol. 66, No. 11, pp. 5429-5440, 2015 (previously cited), 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 Applicant’s disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. (See MPEP 2163.04). Importantly, it should be noted that the citations above are not referenced for legal authority. The legal authority relied by the examiner is the 35 USC 112(a) statute. The citations are presented to support the finding of fact that a breeding history is necessary for the adequate description of a plant variety.
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 variations of a variety. 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 yet to be patented. Because the instant specification lacks a complete breeding history, the public will not be able to fully resolve questions of infringement. Since the breeding history, including the parents of the claimed line, 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. An adequate written description is essential to preclude the issuance of a patent that would otherwise issue due to Applicant’s omission of critical information from the Specification.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant must amend the specification/drawing to provide the breeding history used to develop the instant line. When identifying the breeding history, Applicant should identify any and all other potential names for all parental lines utilized in the development of the instant line and all other potential names for the claimed line. If Applicant’s breeding history uses proprietary line names, Applicant should notate in the specification all other names of the proprietary lines, especially publicly disclosed or patented line 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 line). If there any patent applications or patents in which sibs or parents of the instant plant are claimed, the serial numbers and names of the sibs 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).
In the instant application, Applicant does not disclose the breeding history for the claimed line in the Specification. In a separate communication filed July 1, 2024, Applicant discloses the breeding history for line ZSP-8T20-6764 and an alternate name for SVPZ4566 (an F1 hybrid of line ZSP-8T20-6764) which are not disclosed in the Specification. The information provided in the communication should be set forth in the Specification, because said communication is not part of the Specification and cannot provide the written description required to be in the Specification. Thus, the breeding history for the claimed line as disclosed in the Specification is incomplete. Moreover, the claims recite that the deposited seeds are representative of line ZSP-8T20-6764. The claims are not directed to the deposited seeds or plants grown therefrom. Paragraph [0028] states “A small percentage of variants can occur within commercially acceptable limits for almost any characteristic during the course of repeated multiplications.” Table 1 indicates that the disclosed phenotypic traits “are typical values. Values may vary due to environment. Values that are substantially equivalent are within the scope of the invention.” Additionally, paragraph [0035] states “an occasional variant trait … might arise during backcrossing, introduction of a transgene, or application of a genetic engineering technique.” Thus, the claims are directed to a genus of pepper plants and seeds that are genotypically and phenotypically different from the deposit, and have different traits from those disclosed in the specification. Therefore, the question is not whether one skilled in the art can distinguish the claimed plant from other plants, but whether one skilled in the art can distinguish the genus of claimed plants from other plants. The disclosure of the parents, i.e., breeding history, used to produce the claimed genus is an essential component for determining the patentability of the claimed genus. It should be noted that Applicant does not provide marker information to distinguish the claimed genus of plants from other plants when Applicant is in the best position to do so. Polymorphisms exist within the genus of plants claimed. Applicant’s failure to provide this information is evidence that it is not practical to do a marker analysis to distinguish plants from one another. Moreover, claims 23-25 would preclude anyone from performing a marker analysis for genotyping the plant. Given these differences, the complete breeding history for producing the claimed line in the Specification is deemed material for patentability.
Correction is required.
Applicant’s Traversals
Applicant traverses primarily the following: (1) Deposit-based written description for biological material is expressly recognized and satisfied in the present case. (2) The Regents of The University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1568; 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1406 (Fed. Cir. 1997) noted that a name alone does not satisfy the written description requirement where “it does not define any structural features commonly possessed by members of the genus that distinguish them from others. One skilled in the art therefore cannot, as one can do with a fully described genus, visualize or recognize the identity of the members of the genus” (emphasis added). Here, all members of the claimed genus of pepper plants and seeds share the structural feature of having the genetic complement of pepper line ZSP-8T20-6764, and one of skill in the art viewing the specification could readily identify the members of the genus. Substantially similar issues have previously decided in Ex Parte C and Inari Agriculture, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. (3) A complete breeding history is not required. (4) The specification aids in resolving infringement. (5) The asserted finding lacks substantial evidence under the governing legal standard. (6) Plant patent practice (MPEP 1605), PVP requirements and UPOV requirements are legally irrelevant. (7) Adequate written description is defined by the statute and legal precedent. (8) 37 CFR 1.105 and MPEP 724—not 112(a)—provide mechanisms to seek additional information to aid search.
Response to Applicant’s Traversals
Applicant’s traversals have been carefully considered but are deemed unpersuasive for the following reasons. 35 USC 112(a) clearly states “The specification (emphasis added) shall contain a written description of the invention”. This is a question of fact, not a question of law, as to whether the Specification provides adequate written description for the claimed invention (MPEP 2163(I)). The facts are as follows. Applicant has deposited seeds representative of the claimed line. The claims are not directed to the deposited seeds or plants grown therefrom. Paragraph [0028] states “A small percentage of variants can occur within commercially acceptable limits for almost any characteristic during the course of repeated multiplications.” Table 1 indicates that the disclosed phenotypic traits “are typical values. Values may vary due to environment. Values that are substantially equivalent are within the scope of the invention.” Additionally, paragraph [0035] states “an occasional variant trait … might arise during backcrossing, introduction of a transgene, or application of a genetic engineering technique.” Thus, the claims are not directed to the deposited seeds or plants grown therefrom. The recitation of pepper line ZSP-8T20-6764 encompasses a genus of plants that are genotypically and phenotypically different from the deposited material and from the characteristics disclosed in Table 1. Turning to its breeding history, no information is provided in the Specification as to how the claimed line was obtained, or whether the parents of said line are publicly available. In a separate communication filed July 1, 2024, Applicant discloses the breeding history for line ZSP-8T20-6764 and an alternate name for SVPZ4566 (an F1 hybrid of line ZSP-8T20-6764) which are not disclosed in the Specification. Thus, absent the disclosure in the Transmittal Letter, one skilled in the art would not have known how the claimed line was produced or the public availability of the parents. However, a Transmittal Letter is not part of the Specification and cannot provide the written description required by the statute to be in the Specification. Thus, the breeding history for the claimed line as disclosed in the Specification is incomplete.
With regard to traversal (1), a deposit alone does not satisfy the written description requirement. If this were true, then Applicant need not provide any description whatsoever for the claimed line in the Specification. MPEP 2163(I) states “a showing of possession alone does not cure the lack of a written description”, citing Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 969-70, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “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." (Quoting the Deposit of Biological Materials for Patent Purposes, Final Rule, 54 Fed. Reg. 34,864 (August 22, 1989) at 34,880).
With regard to traversal (2), since the genus encompasses members that are genotypically and phenotypically different from the deposit and from the characteristics disclosed in Table 1, progeny plants having half of the chromosomes of said members cannot be adequately described. No morphological and physiological characteristics are disclosed for plants having half of the chromosomes of line ZSP-8T20-6764. The Office agrees and complies with the decision in The Regents of The University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., that a name alone does not satisfy the written description requirement where “it does not define any structural features commonly possessed by members of the genus that distinguish them from others.” In the instant application, the Transmittal Letter discloses that the claimed line is obtained by crossing parent plants SZZ-27-89 and 128TBLK2734-M-2-2. Absent the Transmittal Letter, one skilled in the art would not have known what parents were used to produce the claimed line, their public availability, or that its F1 hybrid progeny SVPZ4566 is known by another name (HEARTBEAT). No genotypic, phenotypic or public availability information is given for SZZ-27-89 and 128TBLK2734-M-2-2. Thus, the parent name designations alone are not given patentable weight, consistent with the holding in The Regents of The University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co. As stated above, Applicant acknowledges that the claimed genus encompasses plants having genotypic and phenotypic variations in a population of one or more individuals. Thus, in addition to the phenotypic characteristics and the deposit of representative seeds, the above requested information is also material to patentability.
With regard to traversal (3), Applicant is claiming a genus of plants that are genotypically and phenotypically different from the deposited material and from the morphological and physiological characteristics disclosed in Table 1. As no other information is disclosed, and many pepper varieties share the same morphological and physiological characteristics, the breeding history is essential to distinguish the claimed genus of plants from other plants.
With regard to traversal (4), contrary to Applicant’s allegations, the Patent Owner is not making the genetic sequence (genotype) of the claimed line available because claims 23-25 would preclude anyone from performing a marker analysis or DNA sequencing to detect a polymorphism without infringing the claimed invention. If a marker analysis cannot be performed, then Applicant’s assertion that written description can be satisfied by way of the deposit is misleading. Applicant’s claims 23-25 in effect would make the public an infringer to genotype the instant variety as a means to distinguish their plant from the instant line. It should be noted that no genetic marker information is disclosed to distinguish the genus of claimed plants from other plant when Applicant is in the best position to do so. Polymorphisms exist within the genus of plants claimed. Applicant’s failure to provide this information is evidence that it is not practical to do a marker analysis to distinguish Applicant’s genus of claimed plants from others.
With regard to traversals (5) and (7), 35 USC 112(a) clearly states “The specification (emphasis added) shall contain a written description of the invention”. The strict interpretation of the law is clear. Applicant must provide in the specification a written description. A Transmittal Letter submission cannot satisfy this statutory requirement because said submission is not part of the specification.
With regard to traversal (6), the above cited documents, including Plant Patents, PVP and UPOV, were not relied upon to determine the requirements for a plant utility application or for legal precedence. They were considered to determine the state of the art as to what is adequate description for a plant line, and to make a finding of fact as to what constitutes adequate written description in a utility patent. The Office has made a finding of fact that for the instant line, the minimum description is the combination of the phenotype and genotype (breeding history) for the claimed line.
With regard to traversal (8), an adequate written description is not to help the examiner carry out a thorough examination but to preclude the issuance of a patent that would otherwise issue due to Applicant’s omission of critical information from the Specification. The Office has made a finding of fact that for the instant variety, the minimum description is the combination of the phenotype and genotype (breeding history). To support the finding of fact, the Office has cited other plant-related intellectual property organizations (USDA, UPOV) and relevant court cases (Ex parte C, Ex Parte McGowen) dealing with plant varieties in which both the phenotype and genotype were analyzed. Haun et al. and Großkinsky et al. were cited to show that a trait table is insufficient to differentiate varieties by itself, because intracultivar heterogeneity exists in crop species and environmental variation may lead to phenotypic variation within a cultivar. The Office did not cite these findings to clarify the law. They are solely to clarify the findings of fact, i.e., what is an adequate written description for the claimed line. Applicant’s arguments ask the Office to not consider the actual statute and to base its decision solely on statements from court or Board cases that do not directly decide what is an adequate written description for a plant variety. These arguments are not persuasive.
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
3. Claims 17 and 18 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.
With regard to claims 17-18, the claimed plant comprising a first set of the chromosomes of pepper line ZSP-8T20-6764 and further comprising a single locus conversion lacks adequate written description for the following reasons. Initially, it should be noted that the claimed plant encompasses a hybrid of line ZSP-8T20-6764 further comprising a single locus conversion. The claims are not directed to an inbred plant of line ZSP-8T20-6764 further comprising a single locus conversion, and otherwise having all the morphological and physiological characteristics of an inbred plant of line ZSP-8T20-6764. Thus, prior to producing the claimed plants, an inbred plant of line ZSP-8T20-6764 was outcrossed with an undisclosed plant to produce a hybrid plant having undisclosed morphological and physiological characteristics. Said hybrid plant having undisclosed morphological and physiological characteristics is then outcrossed again with additional undisclosed plant(s) to introduce the single locus conversion. Because it is not known what morphological and physiological characteristics the hybrid plant has prior to the outcrossing(s), the morphological and physiological characteristics of its progenies cannot be predictably determined. Paragraph [0090] states that plants are developed by backcrossing or genetic engineering of a locus, wherein essentially all of the morphological and physiological characteristics of a pepper variety are recovered in addition to the characteristics of the single locus. However, because it is not known what morphological and physiological characteristics a hybrid of line ZSP-8T20-6764 has prior to the backcrossing or site-specific modification, backcrossing to said hybrid would not produce a plant that can be adequate described genotypically or phenotypically. Applicant has no working example of a hybrid plant of pepper line ZSP-8T20-6764 further comprising a single locus conversion. Moreover, paragraph [0009] states that a single locus conversion includes one or more site-specific changes to the plant genome and may comprise one or more genes or nucleotides integrated or mutated at a single chromosomal location. However, because it is not known what morphological and physiological characteristics a hybrid of line ZSP-8T20-6764 has prior to the incorporation of site-specific changes comprising one or more genes, additional genomic modifications to said hybrid would not produce a plant that can be adequate described genotypically or phenotypically. Applicant has no working example of a plant comprising at least a first set of chromosomes of pepper line ZSP-8T20-6764 and further comprising a single locus conversion. Thus, the claimed hybrid plant further comprising a single locus conversion lacks adequate written description.
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would not have recognized Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. See Written Description Guidelines, Revision 1, March 25, 2008, published online at http://www.uspto.gov/web/menu/written/pdf.
Applicant’s Traversals
Applicant traverses primarily the following. (1) The specification defines the term “single locus conversion”. (2) The specification provides detailed exemplary methods for producing plants comprising at least a first set of chromosomes of the line and further comprising a single locus conversion (3) In re Gosteli states that the written description requirement does not require applicant to “describe exactly the subject matter claimed, [instead] the description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed”. (4) Pepper line ZSP-8T20-6764 is uniform and stable, as is a hybrid produced therefrom, a plant further comprising a single locus conversion will have half of the genetic material of pepper line ZSP-8T20-6764, the entire genetic contribution of pepper line ZSP-8T20-6764 is described by way of the deposit, and these genetic complements are identifiable and represent a description of the concrete and identifiable structural characteristics to distinguish them from other plants.
Response to Applicant’s Traversals
Applicant’s traversals have been carefully considered but are deemed unpersuasive for the following reasons.
With regard to traversal (1), paragraph [0090] defines a single locus converted plant as a plant that is developed by backcrossing or genetic engineering of a locus, wherein essentially all of the morphological and physiological characteristics of a pepper variety are recovered in addition to the characteristics of the single locus. However, none of the morphological and physiological characteristics of a pepper variety having one set of chromosomes of line ZSP-8T20-6764 is disclosed. Hybrid SVPZ4566 is not representative of a pepper variety having one set of chromosomes of line ZSP-8T20-6764 because hybrid SVPZ4566 was obtained by crossing two specific parents. The claims only recite one parent. Moreover, crossing line ZSP-8T20-6764 with an undisclosed plant to produce an F1 hybrid progeny having one set of chromosomes of line ZSP-8T20-6764, then crossing said F1 hybrid progeny to another undisclosed plant to introduce the single locus conversion in an F2 hybrid progeny, and then backcrossing said F2 progeny to its F1 hybrid plant would not produce a plant having all the morphological and physiological characteristics (which are undisclosed) of the F1 hybrid progeny plant due to gene segregation of dominant and recessive alleles at every locus of the heterologous genome of the F1 hybrid progeny parent. None of the morphological and physiological characteristics of line ZSP-8T20-6764 is required to be present in the claimed plant.
With regard to traversal (2), none of the methods disclosed in the specification is a method for producing plants comprising at least a first set of chromosomes of the line further comprising a single locus conversion and essentially all of the morphological and physiological characteristics of a plant having a first set of chromosomes of line ZSP-8T20-6764.
With regard to traversal (3), In re Gosteli is not on point because there is no evidence that Applicant is in possession of a plant comprising a first set of the chromosomes of pepper line ZSP-8T20-6764 further comprising a single locus conversion and essentially all of the morphological and physiological characteristics of a plant having a first set of chromosomes of line ZSP-8T20-6764, per Applicant’s definition of single locus converted plant given in paragraph [0090]. The specification does not disclose any trait in line ZSP-8T20-6764 that is retained in the claimed plant.
With regard to traversal (4), Applicant is arguing limitations not present in the claims. The claims are not directed to a pepper plant of line ZSP-8T20-6764 further comprising a single locus conversion and all the morphological and physiological characteristics of line ZSP-8T20-6764. Contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the claimed plant does NOT have half of the genetic material of pepper line ZSP-8T20-6764, because a plant of line ZSP-8T20-6764 was outcrossed to undisclosed parents at least twice—the first time to produce a plant having a first set of chromosomes of line ZSP-8T20-6764, and the second time to introduce the single locus conversion. The claimed F2 hybrid progeny of line ZSP-8T20-6764 is not deposited.
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
4. No claim is allowed.
5. 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.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG T BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-0793. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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 on 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.
/PHUONG T BUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1663
Prosecution Insights