DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 9 March 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9 March 2026.
Claims 1-15 are under prosecution.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The Information Disclosure Statements filed 16 April 2024, 14 May 2024, and 3 January 2025 are acknowledged and have been considered.
Priority
4. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed with the European Patent Office on 1 March 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of Application EPO 23159425.0 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
5. The claims discussed below are subject to the following interpretation:
A. Claim 3 recites nanostructures that “comprise” a height or length; thus, the heights and lengths encompass values greater than the claimed ranges listed due to the word “comprise.”
B. The two densities claimed in claim 12 are, interpreted as the density of nucleic acid nanostructures on the surface and the density of the first payload moieties on the surface, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-15 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.
A. Claim 1 (upon which claims 2-15 depend) is indefinite in the recitation “a first payload moiety positioned at a site of each the nucleic acid nanostructures.” The previous limitation already recited “each of the nucleic acid nanostructures comprising:.” Thus, the recitation of “a” first payload moiety positioned at a site of “each” the nucleic acid nanostructures is confusion because it implies one payload is attached to all of the nanostructures.
Similar grammatical issues are noted throughout the claims. For example:
I. “[T]he nucleic acids nanostructures comprise a length…” or “a height,” “the ratio…of the nucleic acid nanostructures,” and “a height dimension of the nucleic acid nanostructures” as found in claim 3 renders the claim unclear as to whether the cited limitations refer to the entire collection of nanostructures together (i.e., all of the nanostructures combined have a length of 10-1000 nm) or just one nanostructure (i.e., having a length of 10-1000 nm).
II. “[T]he first payload moieties…are coupled…in a vicinity of a middle of the other dimensions of the nucleic acid nanostructures” in claim 4 renders the claim unclear as to whether all first payload moieties of all nanostructures are in the middle of the collective other dimensions of the entire group of nanostructures or if each nanostructure has its first payload moiety in the middle of its own remaining dimensions.
III. It is suggested that the claims be amended (where appropriate) in a manner consistent with, for example, claims 6 and 7, where it is clear that “each nucleic acid nanostructure” has the required limitations.
B. Regarding claim 10, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In addition, it is unclear why three different Markush groups are listed as possibilities for the first payload moiety.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claims 1, 3, and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drmanac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0392574 A1, published 17 December 2020).
Regarding claim 1, Drmanac et al. teach a method comprising exposing a plurality of nucleic acid nanostructures, in the form or DNA nanoballs, to a surface comprising a regular array of discrete spaced apart regions, wherein each of the spaced apart regions comprise capture oligonucleotides (paragraph 0048 and Figure 1C). Thus each discrete region comprises a first moiety, in the form of the capture oligonucleotide, which forms a ligand-receptor interaction with the nanoball, in the form of hybridization to a sequence (i.e., the claimed second moiety) on the nanoball.
Drmanac et al. also teach the DNA nanoballs (i.e., concatemers; paragraph 0257) comprise a functionality R thereon (paragraph 0051 and Figure 1E), wherein the functionality binds (i.e., links) to a moiety on an analyte (paragraph 0008; see also Figures 1H and 1I). Thus, the functionality R is the claimed first payload moiety, and a minimum distance is maintained between the first payloads because the nanoballs are confined to the discrete locations on the array surface.
It is also noted that the courts have held that any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930); Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959)). See MPEP §2144.04 IV C. Thus, any claimed order of steps is an obvious variant of the steps of the cited prior art.
MPEP 716.01(c) makes clear that “[t]he arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record” (In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965)). Thus, counsel’s mere arguments cannot take the place of evidence in the record.
Regarding claim 3, the method of claim 1 is discussed above. Drmanac et al. teach the nanostructures (i.e., the nanocluster products of RCR) are 500 nm in length nanoballs (paragraph 0284).
It is noted that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” and even when the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have similar properties, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see 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); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F2d 775. 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP 2144.05.01).
The courts have also found that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Therefore, the claimed ranges merely represent an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the values of the cited prior art.
Applicant is again cautioned against merely relying upon counsel’s arguments in place of evidence in the record.
Regarding claim 7, the method of claim 1 is discussed above. Drmanac et al. teach the reactive moieties (i.e., linkers) used to attach to the surface of a solid support comprise cleavable bridges (paragraph 0066). Thus, because the bridges are cleavable, it would be obvious to cleave them.
Alternatively, Drmanac et al. teach the nucleic acids are immobilized via adapters (paragraph 0185), each of which contains a cleavable moiety, in the form of a restriction site (paragraph 0046). Thus, because the adapters are cleavable, it would be obvious to cleave them.
It is reiterated that the courts have held that any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. Thus, any claimed order of steps is an obvious variant of the steps of the cited prior art.
Applicant is again cautioned to avoid merely relying upon counsel’s arguments in place of evidence in the record.
Regarding claim 8, the method of claim 1 is discussed above.
It is noted that In re Best (195 USPQ 430) and In re Fitzgerald (205 USPQ 594) discuss the support of rejections wherein the prior art discloses subject matter which there is reason to believe includes functions that are newly cited or is identical to a product instantly claimed. In such a situation the burden is shifted to the applicants to “prove that subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on” (205 USPQ 594, second column, first full paragraph).
Specifically, Drmanac et al. teach the reactive moieties (i.e., linkers) used to attach to the surface of a solid support are straight chain molecules of 20 carbons (paragraph 0066), which are believed to be flexible.
Applicant is again cautioned to avoid merely relying upon counsel’s arguments in place of evidence in the record.
Regarding claim 9, the method of claim 1 is discussed above. Drmanac et al. teach the surface is flat, in the form of a planar array (paragraph 0008).
Regarding claim 10, the method of claim 1 is discussed above. Drmanac et al. teach specific binding moieties for binding two molecules include antibodies (paragraph 0598). Thus, it would have been obvious for the first payload moiety (i.e., functionality R on the nanoball; paragraph 0051 and Figure 1E), which binds (i.e., links) to a moiety on an analyte (paragraph 0008; see also Figures 1H and 1I) to be an antibody.
In addition, Drmanac et al. teach the nanoball (i.e., concatemer) is labeled (paragraph 0494), wherein the labels is a fluorescent dye (paragraph 0167).
Regarding claim 11, the method of claim 1 is discussed above. Drmanac et al. teach the minimum distance between the first payload moieties (i.e., the distance between the discrete locations) is 0.2-20 microns (paragraph 0041).
Regarding claim 12, the method of claim 1 is discussed above. Drmanac et al. teach the density of the nanoballs is at least 1000 per square micron (paragraph 0047).
In addition, with respect to claims 11-12, it is reiterated that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art and even when the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have similar properties, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, and that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Therefore, the claimed ranges merely represent an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the values of the cited prior art.
Applicant is again cautioned against merely relying upon counsel’s arguments in place of evidence in the record.
11. Claim 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drmanac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0392574 A1, published 17 December 2020) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in combination with Gopinath et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0025752 A1, published 23 January 2020).
It is noted that while claim 3 is rejected as described above, the claim is also obvious using the interpretation outlined below.
Regarding claims 2-5, the method of claim 1 is discussed above in Section 10.
Drmanac et al. also teach the methods have the added advantage of allowing large scale analyses (Abstract). Thus, Drmanac et al. teach the known techniques discussed above.
While Drmanac et al. teach the second moiety (i.e., the group attached to the substate surface) and the first payload moiety( i.e., functionality R thereon (paragraph 0051), which binds (i.e., links) to a moiety on an analyte are opposite one another (i.e., claim 5; paragraph 0008; see also Figures 1H and 1I), Drmanac et al. do not teach functionally equivalent nucleic acid nanostructures comprising faces (i.e., claim 2).
However, Gopinath et al. teach functionally equivalent nanostructures (i.e., DNA origami) placed on surfaces (paragraph 0070) having a binding face for binding to the substrate surface, wherein the binding face is a planar triangle and the payload moieties are on the top face (e.g., Figure 3). Thus, the height (i.e., of the probes) is smaller than the face of the triangle (i.e., claim 2). Gopinath et al. also teach lengths of 87 nm (i.e., claim 3; Figure 3), and that the payload moieties (i.e., probes) are in the vicinity of the middle of the other dimension of the nanostructure; i.e., in the middle of the face of a triangle (i.e., claim 4; Figure 3). Any additional moieties on the nanostructure are encompassed by the open claim language “comprising” found in the instant claim. The faces can also forma cube (paragraph 0080); thus, the ratio of the length to the height would be 1:1 (i.e., claim 3).
In an alternative embodiment, Gopinath et al. teach the planar faces form a cube (paragraph 0080). Thus, placing the payload R group of Drmanac on the opposite end of the nanostructure for the surface binding second moieties would put the two groups in different faces (e.g., the bottom and the top) in the large nanostructure (i.e., claim 5). Gopinath et al. also teach the nanostructures have the added advantage of sensing conformational changes of target molecules (Abstract). Thus, Gopinath et al. teach the known techniques discussed above.
It is reiterated that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art and even when the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have similar properties, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, and that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Therefore, the claimed ranges merely represent an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the values of the cited prior art.
Applicant is again cautioned against merely relying upon counsel’s arguments in place of evidence in the record.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Drmanac et al. and Gopinath et al. to arrive at the instantly claimed method with a reasonable expectation of success. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make the combination because said combination would have resulted in a method having the added advantages allowing large scale analyses as explicitly taught by Drmanac et al. (Abstract) and sensing conformational changes of target molecules as explicitly taught by Gopinath et al. (Abstract). In addition, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan that the known techniques of the cited prior art could have been combined with predictable results because the known techniques of the cited prior art predictably result in techniques useful for assaying target molecules.
12. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drmanac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0392574 A1, published 17 December 2020) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in combination with
Bathe et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0237903 A1, published 30 July 2020).
It is noted that while claim 4 is rejected as described above, the claim is also obvious using the interpretation outlined below.
Regarding claim 4, the method of claim 1 is discussed above in Section 10.
Drmanac et al. also teach the methods have the added advantage of allowing large scale analyses (Abstract). Thus, Drmanac et al. teach the known techniques discussed above.
Drmanac et al. do not teach functionally equivalent nucleic acid nanostructures wherein the payload is bound in the middle of the other dimension of the nanostructure.
However, Bathe et al. teach functionally equivalent nanostructures (i.e., DNA nanoparticles) which bind to target molecules (paragraph 0018), having moieties bound in the vicinity of a middle of one dimension (i.e., in the middle of the baser of a triangular face of an icosahedron; Figure 1A), and that the placement of the moieties has the added advantage of allowing control of the relative position of molecules (e.g., antigens) bound to the surface of the nanostructure (Abstract) Thus, Bathe et al. teach the known techniques discussed above.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Drmanac et al. and Bathe et al. to arrive at the instantly claimed method with a reasonable expectation of success. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make the combination because said combination would have resulted in a method having the added advantages allowing large scale analyses as explicitly taught by Drmanac et al. (Abstract) and allowing control of how the nanostructure is positioned relative to what it can bind to as explicitly taught by Bathe et al. (Abstract). In addition, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan that the known techniques of the cited prior art could have been combined with predictable results because the known techniques of the cited prior art predictably result in techniques useful for assaying target molecules.
13. Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drmanac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0392574 A1, published 17 December 2020) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in combination with Ancona et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0230522 A1, published 16 August 2018).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, the method of claim 1 is discussed above in Section 10.
Drmanac et al. also teach the methods have the added advantage of allowing large scale analyses (Abstract). Thus, Drmanac et al. teach the known techniques discussed above.
While Drmanac et al. teach hybridization of the nanostructures to targets (paragraph 0041), Drmanac et al. do not teach functionally equivalent nucleic acid nanostructures with removable second portions.
However, Ancona et al. teach functionally equivalent nucleic acid nanostructures, in the form of nanoscale antennas for binding analytes (paragraph 0062), which are bound to surfaces using second moieties (e.g., binding peptides; paragraph 0073). The nanostructures have a removable portion, in the form of a toehold sequence (paragraph 0006) which is removed upon hybridization to a complementary sequence (i.e., claim 6, wherein the toehold is analogous to the target hybridization of Drmanac et al.; paragraph 0059). Ancona et al. further teach multiple toeholds that are different and comprise different fluorescent dyes (i.e., the second payloads of claim 13; paragraph 0060) and that the distances of the dyes (i.e., at their sites) are set at a given controlled distance (paragraphs 0029-0030). Ancona et al. teach the methods have the added advantage of resulting in a measurable change in the photophysical properties of the nanostructure paragraph 0059). Thus, Ancona et al. teach the known techniques discussed above.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Drmanac et al. and Ancona et al. to arrive at the instantly claimed method with a reasonable expectation of success. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make the combination because said combination would have resulted in a method having the added advantages allowing large scale analyses as explicitly taught by Drmanac et al. (Abstract) and providing a measurable change in the photophysical properties of the nanostructure upon hybridization to a target as explicitly taught by Ancona et al. (Abstract). In addition, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan that the known techniques of the cited prior art could have been combined with predictable results because the known techniques of the cited prior art predictably result in techniques useful for determining hybridization of target molecules.
Double Patenting
14. 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.
15. Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21-40 of copending Application No. 18/962,209.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are drawn to exposing nanostructured to functionalized surfaces, first payload moieties, second moieties, binding to the surface using the same interactions, maintaining minimum distances, cleaving, etc. Any additional limitations of the ‘209 claims are encompassed by the open claim language “comprising” found in the instant claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
16. Claims 2-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21-40 of copending Application No. 18/962,209 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in combination with
Gopinath et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0025752 A1, published 23 January 2020).
Regarding claims 2-5, the method of claim 1 is discussed above.
The ‘209 claims do not include the limitations of instant claims 2-5.
However, these limitations, as well as the motivation to combine, are taught by Gopinath et al. as discussed above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
17. Claims 3 and 7-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21-40 of copending Application No. 18/962,209 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in combination with Drmanac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0392574 A1, published 17 December 2020).
Regarding claims 3 and 7-12, the method of claim 1 is discussed above.
The ‘209 claims do not include the limitations of instant claims 3 and 7-12.
However, these limitations, as well as the motivation to combine, are taught by Drmanac et al. as discussed above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
18. Claim 4 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21-40 of copending Application No. 18/962,209 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in combination with Bathe et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0237903 A1, published 30 July 2020).
Regarding claim 4, the method of claim 1 is discussed above.
The ‘209 claims do not include the limitations of instant claim 4.
However, these limitations, as well as the motivation to combine, are taught by Bathe et al. as discussed above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
19. Claims 6 and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21-40 of copending Application No. 18/962,209 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in combination with Ancona et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0230522 A1, published 16 August 2018).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, the method of claim 1 is discussed above.
The ‘209 claims do not include the limitations of instant claims 6 and 13.
However, these limitations, as well as the motivation to combine, are taught by Ancona et al. as discussed above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Prior Art
20. With respect to claims 14-15, it is noted that while Ancona et al. (cited above) further teach the multiple toehold positions allow for a more pronounced change in response upon binding a complementary sequence, and that the sequences ae different (paragraph 0060), none of the prior art cited above teach the remaining limitations of claims 14-15.
Conclusion
21. No claim is allowed.
22. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert T. Crow whose telephone number is (571)272-1113. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30.
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, Anne Gussow can be reached at 571-272-6047. 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.
Robert T. Crow
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1683
/Robert T. Crow/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1683
Prosecution Insights