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 .
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, FGL2, and IFNγ in the reply filed on May 5, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 18 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected subject matter (a non-elected invention or species), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 5, 2026.
The claims have been examined to the extent that the claims read on the elected genes (FGL2 and IFNγ). The additionally recited genes have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed to nonelected subject matter. Prior to allowance of the claim, any non-elected subject matter that is not rejoined with any allowed elected subject matter will be required to be removed from the claims.
Claim Objections
3. The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
In the instant case there are two claims labeled as claim 13. In response to this action the misnumbered claims 13-20 should be renumbered as claims 14-21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim analysis is set forth below.
Step 1: The claims are directed to the statutory category of a process.
Step 2A, prong one: Evaluate Whether the Claim Recites a Judicial Exception
The instant claims recite an abstract idea.
The claims require “determining” a PBMC ratio of the expression levels of an anti-inflammatory gene to a pro-inflammatory gene in PBMCs from the patient; wherein the anti-inflammatory gene is FGL2 and the pro-inflammatory gene is IFNy. A ratio in math is a comparison of two or more quantities that indicates how many times one value contains or relates to another. Determining a ratio is a mathematical concepts and therefore considered to be an abstract idea. Further it is noted that the ratio could be determined using mental process steps i.e., reading a laboratory report and comparing the expression levels. Mental processes, which are concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinions) are also considered to be abstract ideas.
The instant claims recite a law of nature.
The claims recite a correlation between the ratio of FGL2: IFNy and operational tolerance in a transplant patient. This type of correlation is a consequence of natural processes, similar to the naturally occurring correlation found to be a law of nature by the Supreme Court in Mayo.
Step 2A, prong two: Evaluate Whether the Judicial Exception Is Integrated Into a Practical Application
The claims do NOT recite additional steps or elements that integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application of the exception(s). For example, the claims do not practically apply the judicial exception by including one or more additional elements that the courts have stated integrate the exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
An additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
An additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
An additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
An additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Claims 1 and 11 do not recite any steps in addition to the judicial exceptions and therefore they do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Claims 5 and 14 state that determining the ratio comprises measuring the expression of genes optionally by quantitative PCR or ultrafast qPCR. The measuring steps are NOT considered to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they merely add insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering) to the judicial exceptions.
Claims 10 and 19 further recite “reducing” the dosage of the immunosuppressant in the patient, optionally wherein the reduction is complete cessation. The reduced dosage is administered regardless of the ratio that is determined, thus, this is not an integration of the judicial exception
Step 2B: Evaluate Whether the Claim Provides an Inventive Concept
Claims 1 and 11 do not recite any steps in addition to the judicial exceptions and therefore they do not provide an inventive concept. Claims 5 and 14 state that determining the ratio comprises measuring the expression of genes optionally by quantitative PCR or ultrafast qPCR.
This step does not amount to significantly more because it simply appends well understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the art, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exceptions.
The teachings in the specification demonstrate the well understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements because it teaches that the additional elements are well known or commercially available. For example the specification teaches the following:
[0098] Transcript levels can be measured for example by quantitative PCR and/or hybridization-based methods (e.g. microarray). These methods are well known in the art. Expression of any suitable variant and/or mutant form of a target gene may be used. Typically, the measurement from a gene is normalized to one or more reference genes (e.g. housekeeping genes) to obtain the expression level. Examples of housekeeping genes that have been known to express at consistent mRNA level in PBMC and tissues include, for example, hypoxanthine-guanine phosphoribosyltransferase (HPRT), TATA box binding protein (TBP), beta-2 microglobulin (B2M), cancer susceptibility candidate-3 (CASC3), and ezrin (EZR). Expression levels of target genes may also be obtained from a database comprising expression data of a larger collection of genes, for example, from sequencing of the transcriptome or exome.
Further it is noted that the courts have recognized the following laboratory techniques as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the life science arts when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Determining the level of a biomarker in blood by any means, Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC, 859 F.3d 1352, 1362, 123 USPQ2d 1081, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
Using polymerase chain reaction to amplify and detect DNA, Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1377, 115 USPQ2d 1152, 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Detecting DNA or enzymes in a sample, Sequenom, 788 F.3d at 1377-78, 115 USPQ2d at 1157); Cleveland Clinic Foundation 859 F.3d at 1362, 123 USPQ2d at 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
Immunizing a patient against a disease, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1063, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1497 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
Analyzing DNA to provide sequence information or detect allelic variants, Genetic Techs., 818 F.3d at 1377; 118 USPQ2d at 1546;
Freezing and thawing cells, Rapid Litig. Mgmt. 827 F.3d at 1051, 119 USPQ2d at 1375;
Amplifying and sequencing nucleic acid sequences, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d 755, 764, 113 USPQ2d 1241, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
For the reasons set forth above the claims are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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 1-17 and 19 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.
Regarding Claims 1-10 it is not clear how the recited preamble is intended to breathe life and meaning into the claim. The preamble of the claim recites a method of predicting operational tolerance in a transplant patient who is on an immunosuppressant, yet the method only requires determining a PBMC ratio of the expression levels of an anti-inflammatory gene to a pro-inflammatory gene in PBMCs from the patient; wherein the anti-inflammatory gene is FGL2 and the pro-inflammatory gene is IFNy. Thus it is not clear if applicant intends to cover only a method of determining a PBMC ratio of the expression levels of an anti-inflammatory gene to a pro-inflammatory gene in PBMCs from the patient; wherein the anti-inflammatory gene is FGL2 and the pro-inflammatory gene is IFNy OR if the method is intended to somehow require more to accomplish the goal set forth in the preamble. If it is the later, then it appears that the claims are incomplete, as they fail to provide any active steps that clearly accomplish the goal set forth by the preamble of the claims. It is noted that the claims further state “wherein a PBMC ratio of >1 is indicative that the patient will achieve operational tolerance”. However, claim scope is not limited by claim language (such as wherein clauses) that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed.
Claims 7-9 are rejected over the recitation of the phrase “wherein a PBMC ratio of 1 combined with an intragraft ratio of 1 is indicative that the patient will achieve operational tolerance”. This phrase is confusing because claim 1 states that all that is needed to make the determination that the patient will achieve operational tolerance is a PBMC ratio
≥
1.
Regarding Claims 11-17 and 19 it is not clear how the recited preamble is intended to breathe life and meaning into the claim. The preamble of the claim recites a method of identifying a transplant patient on an immunosuppressant as a candidate for reducing the dosage of the immunosuppressant, yet the method only requires determining a PBMC ratio of the expression levels of an anti-inflammatory gene to a pro-inflammatory gene in PBMCs from the patient; wherein the anti-inflammatory gene is FGL2 and the pro-inflammatory gene is IFNy. Thus it is not clear if applicant intends to cover only a method of determining a PBMC ratio of the expression levels of an anti-inflammatory gene to a pro-inflammatory gene in PBMCs from the patient; wherein the anti-inflammatory gene is FGL2 and the pro-inflammatory gene is IFNy OR if the method is intended to somehow require more to accomplish the goal set forth in the preamble. If it is the later, then it appears that the claims are incomplete, as they fail to provide any active steps that clearly accomplish the goal set forth by the preamble of the claims. It is noted that the claims further state “wherein if the PBMC ratio is >1, then the patient is a candidate for reducing the dosage of the immunosuppressant”. However, claim scope is not limited by claim language (such as wherein clauses) that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed.
Claims 16-17 are rejected over the recitation of the phrase “wherein if the PBMC ratio is 1 and the intragraft ratio is 1, then the patient is a candidate for reducing the dosage of the immunosuppressant”. This phrase is confusing because claim 11 states that all that is needed to make the determination that the patient is a candidate for reducing the dosage is a PBMC ratio
≥
1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-2, 4-12, 13b, 14-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chruscinski (Results of Litmus (nct 02541916): The Liver Immune Tolerance Bio Marker Utilization Study [abstract]. Am J Transplant. June 2, 2019; 19 (suppl 3) https://atcmeetingabstracts.com/abstract/results-of-litmus-nct-02541916-the-liver-immune-tolerance-bio-marker-utilization-study-2/. Accessed May 23, 2026) in view of Urbanellis (Immunology 2014 144 pages 91-106).
Regarding Claim 1 Chruscinski teaches that they previously we reported an eight -gene expression panel, consisting of increased expression of 6 immunoregulatory genes (fgl2, foxp3, il10, lag3, tgfb, tigit) and decreased expression of 2 pro-inflammatory genes (ifng, gzmb) was found to be predictive of tolerance. Chruscinski teaches they examined whether an 8 target and 5 housekeeping gene expression panel in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) and liver allografts could identify operationally tolerant liver transplant recipients. They first measured the panel in PBMC from 60 adult liver transplant recipients who were a minimum of 3 months post-transplant and who had no biochemical evidence of rejection. Patients with a putative tolerant gene profile in PBMC underwent a liver biopsy and were then weaned off immunosuppression (IS) to confirm that the gene profile identified a tolerant state. PBMC gene expression was monitored at 3, 6, and 12 months post IS withdrawal. Chruscinski teaches that 16 had the putative tolerance gene profile in their PBMC. Twelve patients agreed to enter the withdrawal phase of the study. Prior to withdrawal, a liver biopsy was performed, and 3 patients were excluded as their biopsies showed recurrent disease and/or rejection. Of the 9 remaining patients, 5 have now been weaned off of IS and are >2 years post IS withdrawal, 2 are undergoing withdrawal and 2 developed acute cellular rejection, which was easily reversed. Five of 5 patients who had the gene expression profile both in liver and PBMC were successfully weaned off immunosuppression. In patients who achieved tolerance, patterns of the tolerance gene profile were similar to what was seen in mice that achieved tolerance: levels of fgl2 remained stable over time, foxp3 gene expression increased at 3 months and then then returned to baseline and tigit gene expression in tolerant patients increased at 6 months post-IS withdrawal and remained elevated at 1 year. Chruscinski teaches that the data suggest that a combination of gene expression monitoring in PBMC and the liver allograft may identify operationally tolerant recipients, allowing for withdrawal of immunosuppression (see Meeting Abstract in its entirety). Thus Chruscinski teaches a method of predicting operational tolerance in a transplant patient who is on an immunosuppressant. The method comprises determining the expression levels of an anti-inflammatory gene (FGL2) and a pro-inflammatory gene (IFNy) in a PBMC sample from the patient.
Regarding Claim 2 Chruscinski teaches a method wherein the transplant is liver transplant.
Regarding Claim 5 Chruscinski teaches measuring the expression levels of the anti-inflammatory gene (FGL2) and the pro-inflammatory gene (IFNy) in PBMCs by performing RT-PCR.
Regarding Claim 6 Chruscinski teaches a method wherein the anti-inflammatory gene is FGL2 and the pro-inflammatory gene is IFNy.
Regarding Claim 7 Chruscinski teaches that patients with a putative tolerant gene profile in PBMC underwent a liver biopsy and were then weaned off immunosuppression (IS) to confirm that the gene profile identified a tolerant state. Thus Chruscinski teaches a method further comprising determining intragraft expression levels of an anti-inflammatory gene (FGL2) and the pro-inflammatory gene (IFNy).
Regarding Claim 8 Chruscinski teaches a method wherein the graft sample is a liver biopsy sample.
Regarding Claim 9 Chruscinski teaches a method wherein the pro-inflammatory gene for the intragraft is INFy.
Regarding Claim 10 Chruscinski teaches that patients with the putative tolerance gene profile in their PBMC and liver biopsy were weaned off immunosuppression. Thus Chruscinski teaches reducing the dosage of immunosuppressant in a patient.
Regarding Claim 11 Chruscinski teaches that they previously we reported an eight -gene expression panel, consisting of increased expression of 6 immunoregulatory genes (fgl2, foxp3, il10, lag3, tgfb, tigit) and decreased expression of 2 pro-inflammatory genes (ifng, gzmb) was found to be predictive of tolerance. Chruscinski teaches they examined whether an 8 target and 5 housekeeping gene expression panel in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) and liver allografts could identify operationally tolerant liver transplant recipients. They first measured the panel in PBMC from 60 adult liver transplant recipients who were a minimum of 3 months post-transplant and who had no biochemical evidence of rejection. Patients with a putative tolerant gene profile in PBMC underwent a liver biopsy and were then weaned off immunosuppression (IS) to confirm that the gene profile identified a tolerant state. PBMC gene expression was monitored at 3, 6, and 12 months post IS withdrawal. Chruscinski teaches that 16 had the putative tolerance gene profile in their PBMC. Twelve patients agreed to enter the withdrawal phase of the study. Prior to withdrawal, a liver biopsy was performed, and 3 patients were excluded as their biopsies showed recurrent disease and/or rejection. Of the 9 remaining patients, 5 have now been weaned off of IS and are >2 years post IS withdrawal, 2 are undergoing withdrawal and 2 developed acute cellular rejection, which was easily reversed. Five of 5 patients who had the gene expression profile both in liver and PBMC were successfully weaned off immunosuppression. In patients who achieved tolerance, patterns of the tolerance gene profile were similar to what was seen in mice that achieved tolerance: levels of fgl2 remained stable over time, foxp3 gene expression increased at 3 months and then then returned to baseline and tigit gene expression in tolerant patients increased at 6 months post-IS withdrawal and remained elevated at 1 year. Chruscinski teaches that the data suggest that a combination of gene expression monitoring in PBMC and the liver allograft may identify operationally tolerant recipients, allowing for withdrawal of immunosuppression (see Meeting Abstract in its entirety). Thus Chruscinski teaches a method of identifying a transplant patient on an immunosuppressant as a candidate for reducing the dosage of the immunosuppressant. The method comprises determining the expression levels of an anti-inflammatory gene (FGL2) and a pro-inflammatory gene (IFNy) in a PBMC sample from the patient.
Regarding Claim 12 Chruscinski teaches a method wherein the transplant is liver transplant.
Regarding Claim 14 Chruscinski teaches measuring the expression levels of the anti-inflammatory gene (FGL2) and the pro-inflammatory gene (IFNy) in PBMCs by performing RT-PCR.
Regarding Claim 15 Chruscinski teaches a method wherein the anti-inflammatory gene is FGL2 and the pro-inflammatory gene is IFNy.
Regarding Claim 16 Chruscinski teaches that patients with a putative tolerant gene profile in PBMC underwent a liver biopsy and were then weaned off immunosuppression (IS) to confirm that the gene profile identified a tolerant state. Thus Chruscinski teaches a method further comprising determining intragraft expression levels of an anti-inflammatory gene (FGL2) and the pro-inflammatory gene (IFNy).
Regarding Claim 17 Chruscinski teaches a method wherein the pro-inflammatory gene for the intragraft is INFy.
Regarding Claim 19 Chruscinski teaches that patients with the putative tolerance gene profile in their PBMC and liver biopsy were weaned off immunosuppression. Thus Chruscinski teaches reducing the dosage of immunosuppressant in a patient.
Chruscinski does not teach determining a ratio of the expression levels of an anti-inflammatory gene (FGL2) to a pro-inflammatory gene IFNy (clms 1, 7-9, 11, and 16-17). Chruscinski does not teach a method wherein a PBMC ratio of >1 is indicative that the patient will achieve operational tolerance or that the patient is a candidate for reducing the dosage of the immunosuppressant (clms 1, 7-9, 11, and 16-17). Chruscinski does not teach a method wherein a PBMC ratio of >1 and a intragraft ratio >1 is indicative that the patient will achieve operational tolerance or that the patient is a candidate for reducing the dosage of the immunosuppressant (clms 7-9 and 16-17). Chruscinski does not teach a method wherein the PBMCs are Tregs or transitional B cells (clms 4 and 13b).
However Urbanellis teaches that they recently identified a set of genes that have immunoregulatory (Treg-associated) and pro-inflammatory properties and showed that expression of these genes correlated with spontaneous liver allo-graft acceptance. Urbanellis teaches that they further scrutinized in detail this same gene panel. They found that rejecting cardiac allografts were characterized by high expression of the pro-inflammatory genes gzmb and ifnγ with low expression of foxp3, lag3, tgf-b and fgl2. Tolerant cardiac allografts, on the other hand, were characterized by high expression of immunoregulatory genes foxp3, lag3, tgf-b and fgl2 and low expression of gzmb and ifnγ, leading to a high immunoregulatory to pro-inflammatory gene expression ratio, similar to what we previously reported intolerant liver allografts (page 104).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Chruscinski by determining a ratio of the expression levels of an anti-inflammatory gene (FGL2) to a pro-inflammatory gene (IFNy) in both the PRMC and liver biopsy samples as suggested by Urbanellis. As discussed above, Urbanellis teaches that tolerant cardiac allografts are characterized by high expression of immunoregulatory genes such as fgl2 and low expression of ifnγ, leading to a high immunoregulatory to pro-inflammatory gene expression ratio. Thus one of skill in the art would have been motivated to determine the ratio of an anti-inflammatory gene (FGL2) to a pro-inflammatory gene (IFNy) for the benefit of using it to identify tolerant allografts. Further it is noted that Urbanellis teaches that immunoregulatory genes such as FGL2 are “treg associated” genes and thus one of skill in the art would have been motivated to detect FGL2 in a PBMC sample comprising Tregs.
While the combination of Chruscinski and Urbanellis teach all of the claimed method steps, they do not explicitly teach a method “wherein” a PBMC ratio of >1 and/or a intragraft ratio >1 is indicative that the patient will achieve operational tolerance or that the patient is a candidate for reducing the dosage of the immunosuppressant. However claim scope is not limited by claim language (such as wherein clauses) that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed.
8. Claims 3 and 13a are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chruscinski (Results of Litmus (nct 02541916): The Liver Immune Tolerance Bio Marker Utilization Study [abstract]. Am J Transplant. June 2, 2019; 19 (suppl 3) https://atcmeetingabstracts.com/abstract/results-of-litmus-nct-02541916-the-liver-immune-tolerance-bio-marker-utilization-study-2/. Accessed May 23, 2026) in view of Urbanellis (Immunology 2014 144 pages 91-106) as applied to claims 1-2 and 11-12 above and in further view of Luengas (A Unique Gene Expression Profile to Identify Operationally Tolerant Liver Transplant Recipients. Diss. University of Toronto, 2016 https://utoronto.scholaris.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/998b0574-3133-4465-aca1-1f8153820d29/content Accessed May 23, 2026).
The teachings of Chruscinski and Urbanellis are presented above.
The combined references do not teach a method wherein the transplant is a liver transplant and the transplant patient is previously diagnosed with hepatitis C virus (HCV) cirrhosis, alcoholic cirrhosis, autoimmune disease, genetic liver disease, fulminant hepatic failure (FHF), and/or non- alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) (clms 3 and 13a).
However Luengas investigated that gene expression could be used to identify operationally tolerant liver transplant recipients. Luengas teaches that liver transplant recipients who had developed a state of tolerance and were off immunosuppression (TOL) had high co-expression of FGL2 and TIGIT mRNA transcripts in their PBMC in contrast to patients undergoing rejection yielding a potentially useful biomarker panel for operational tolerance. (page ii). Luengas teaches that the patients that participated in the study were transplanted for hepatitis C , alcoholic cirrhosis, primary sclerosing cholangitis, and liver disease of unknown etiology (page 73 and Tables 4-1, 4-3).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Chruscinski and Urbanellis by performing the method on transplant patients previously diagnosed with hepatitis C virus (HCV) cirrhosis, alcoholic cirrhosis, autoimmune disease, genetic liver disease, fulminant hepatic failure (FHF), and/or non- alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) as suggested by Luengas. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to include these types of patients since these are common reasons why patients end up needing the transplants in the first place. Further one of skill in the art would have been motivated to include these patients since Luengas teaches that the group of tolerant patients (those with high expression of FGL2) included patients with HCV and FHF and demonstrates that the biomarker (FGL2) will also work in this group of patients.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA HANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8668. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:15am-4:45pm EST.
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, Wu-Cheng Shen can be reached at 571-272-3157. 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.
/AMANDA HANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1682
Prosecution Insights