DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims
Claims 1-25 are pending and are examined in this Office Action.
Duty to Disclose
Applicant is reminded of their “Duty of Disclosure, Candor, and Good Faith” (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 and MPEP § 2001). Information that would be considered pertinent to patentability includes: 1) The plants utilized in the breeding programs that arrived at the two parental lines/varieties crossed to produce the instant hybrid variety (meaning the grandparent varieties), as well as the specific breeding steps/techniques used to arrive at these parent lines/varieties, 2) any progeny, siblings, half-siblings, or other closely genetically related plants that are either co-pending applications or previously published or publicly disclosed, 3) if parental varieties that were crossed to arrive at the instantly claimed hybrid variety were developed via backcrossing this should be disclosed along with the grandparents, including which grandparent was the recurrent parent along with any publications or public disclosures of the recurrent parent and what events/loci/transgenes/traits were donated from the non-recurrent parent, 4) any alternative designations, experimental names, tradenames, etc. for the instant plant, parent plants, and grandparent plants should be disclosed. All of this information is material to patentability. If, for example, one of the parent plants is published but with a different name/designation, then the publication should be included in the IDS along with an explanation that the different name/designation is a synonym and how this plant is related to the instantly claimed plant.
It is noted that Applicant already disclosed two alternative designations for corn hybrid SVSK0834 (19-6S-SHY-0834 and R4048) (Spec 8).
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive of the claimed. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: - - SWEET CORN HYBRID SVSK0834 AND PARENT CORN LINE SHY6s16-7785LL - - .
Claim Interpretation
Self-pollination (selfing) is defined to include both pollination from the anther to the stigma of the same plant and also includes pollination from the anther of one plant to the anther of a different plant of the same genotype (Spec 40 ¶ 193). This would include “sibling” pollination for inbred plants.
A single locus conversion may involve more than one gene and/or more than one genetic modification but it must be at a single chromosomal location (Spec 3 ¶ 9).
Claim Objections
Claims 19 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: each of these claims recites “crossing the plant of claim 1 with itself” and this is technically incorrect. Crossing involves using pollen from one plant and applying it to the stigma of a different plant, see Applicant’s own definition of crossing “the mating of two parent plants” (Spec 34 ¶¶ 106-107). Appropriate correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Indefiniteness
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 6, 8, 19-21, and 23-25 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. All dependent claims are included in these rejections unless they include a limitations that overcomes the deficiencies of the parent claim.
All claims that recite “corn hybrid SVSK0834” are indefinite because “SVSK0834” has no art accepted meaning and the instant specification does not provide a proper definition. The specification discloses hybrid SVSK0834 as a corn plant with specific physiological and morphological characteristics (Spec 8-9). The specification states “The parents of corn hybrid SVSK0834 are corn line SHY-6S16-7785LL and corn line SHY-6S15-2102W” (id.), but the specification does not specifically define hybrid SVSK0834 as a plant produced by crossing corn line SHY-6S16-7785LL and corn line SHY-6S15-2102W. This is set forth as an example of how the hybrid was made but is not set forth as an actual definition. For this reason it is unclear if any plant having the traits in Table 1 would be considered a plant of hybrid SVSK0834, or if there is some genetic component that is also required to be considered a plant of hybrid SVSK0834.
Claim 8 is directed to a corn plant having all of the physiological and morphological characteristics of the plant of claim 1. This is indefinite because the plant of claim 1 is actually a genus of plants that could be an inbred member of corn line SHY-6S16-7785LL or it could by a hybrid having SHY-6S16-7785LL as one of the parents but having any corn plant at all as the second parent. The genus of hybrid plants would include plants with many different characteristics, therefore the plant being claimed in claim 8 is required to have unknown characteristics which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 23 is directed to a method that requires detecting “at least a first polymorphism” in a sample of nucleic acids from a plant of claim 1 or part thereof. A polymorphism is a change in the nucleic acid compared to a control nucleic acid. Without knowing what the control nucleic acid is, there is no way of knowing if a particular nucleic acid collected from the claimed plant/plant part is different or is the same. In the absence of a defined control nucleic acid, any claim requiring at least one polymorphism is indefinite.
Inadequate Written Description
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-25 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. 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. All dependent claims are included in these rejections unless they include a limitation that overcomes the deficiencies of the parent claim.
The claims are broadly drawn to a plant and a seed of corn line SHY-6S16-7785LL and parts thereof, progeny thereof, methods of making and using said corn line (claims 1-3, 5, and 7-25) or hybrid SVSK0834 (claims 4 and 6) and to methods of making and using said hybrid (claims 19-21), and to a corn plant having all the physiological and morphological characteristics of a plant comprising at least a first set of the chromosomes of corn line SHY-6516-7785LL (claim 8) and a tissue culture thereof and method of vegetatively propagating such a corn plant (claims 9 and 10), and to a corn plant produced by backcrossing with a plant comprising at least a first set of the chromosomes of corn line SHY-6516-7785LL (claim 12), and to a corn plant produced by introducing a transgene into a plant comprising at least a first set of the chromosomes of corn line SHY-6516-7785LL (claim 14), and to a method of determining the genotype of a plant comprising at least a first set of the chromosomes of corn line SHY-6516-7785LL by detecting at least a first polymorphism in a sample of nucleic acids from said plant (claims 23-25).
The claims are directed to plants and seeds of corn line SHY-6S16-7785LL and to plants and seeds comprising at least one set of the chromosomes of SHY-6S16-7785LL; including plants of hybrid SVSK0834. The proper analysis for examining a new corn line must first determine what is an adequate written description for a new corn line (also referred to as a variety or a cultivar). In reviewing this question of fact, the examiner analyzed how plant varieties are evaluated in the public domain. The review concluded that generally the minimum requirements for an adequate description of a new plant variety has a trait table and genetic information (via a breeding history). In reviewing applicant’s specification there is a phenotypic description as is seen in table 1. However, there is no accompanying breeding history in the specification. Because the specification lacks a breeding history and that breeding history is part of the minimum description of a plant variety the 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 informed by a review of the following:
With regard to Plant Patents, MPEP 1605 states that a complete detailed description of a plant includes “the origin or parentage”.
A breeding history, including information about parentage and breeding methodology, is part of the requirements of Plant Variety Protection (PVP) applications. That information is used to “determine if development is sufficient to consider the variety new” (USDA website https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/pv po/application-help/apply, downloaded 2/11/2026, PDF provided with other references on the PTO-892 form).
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, Oct. 27, 2023, especially page 8 part 16 and page 15 part 33).
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) and Ex Parte McGowen Board Decision in Application 14/996,093, decided June 15, 2020). In both of these cases, there were many differences cited by the Applicant when comparing the prior art and the new plant variety. However, because the breeding history was available, these differences were deemed to be obvious and within the natural variation expected in a backcrossing breeding process. Without a breeding history in these cases, a complete comparison with the prior art could not have been possible.
As seen above in Ex Parte C and Ex Parte McGowan, a trait table is insufficient to differentiate varieties by itself. It has been long established that intracultivar heterogeneity exists in crop species. (Haun et al. (2011) Plant Physiology, Vol. 155, pp. 645-655) teaches that the assumption that elite cultivars are composed of relatively homogenous genetic pools is false. (p. 645, left column). Segregation, recombination, DNA transposition, epigenetic processes, and spontaneous mutations are some of the reasons elite cultivar populations will maintain some degree of plant-to-plant variation (p. 645, right column and p. 646, left column). In addition to genetic variation, environmental variation may lead to phenotypic variation within a cultivar. (Großkinsky et al., (2015) J. Exp. Bot., Vol. 66, No. 11, pp. 5429-5440, especially 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 element of a 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 recited in the claims. (See MPEP 2163.04). Please note, the citations above are not for legal authority, the legal authority relied upon by the examiner is the 35 USC 112(a) statute. The citations are presented to support the finding of fact that a breeding history is necessary to the adequate description of a plant.
Although not directly relied upon for the above written description position, a complete written description additionally helps drive examination and help with infringement verification.
MPEP 2163 (I) states “The written description of the deposited material needs to be as complete as possible because the examination for patentability proceeds solely on the basis of the written description. See, e.g., In re Lundak, 773 F.2d 1216, 227 USPQ 90 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also 54 Fed. Reg. at 34,880 ("As a general rule, the more information that is provided about a particular deposited biological material, the better the examiner will be able to compare the identity and characteristics of the deposited biological material with the prior art.").”
MPEP 2163(I) states “The description must be sufficient to permit verification that the deposited biological material is in fact that disclosed. Once the patent issues, the description must be sufficient to aid in the resolution of questions of infringement." Id. at 34,880.)” (Quoting the Deposit of Biological Materials for Patent Purposes, Final Rule, 54 Fed. Reg. 34,864 (August 22, 1989) at 34,880).
The breeding history aids in the resolution of patent infringement by providing information necessary to determine whether differences in the plants are genetic differences, differences caused by the environment, or differences within the accepted variation within a variety.
Moreover, a specification devoid of a complete breeding history hampers the public’s ability to resolve infringement analysis with plants already in the prior art as well as plants that have not yet been patented. Because the instant specification lacks the complete breeding history, the public will not be able to fully resolve questions of infringement. Since the breeding history, including the parents, is not known to the public, the public could only rely on the phenotypes of the claimed plants for assessing potential infringement.
Thus, an application that does not clearly describe the breeding history does not provide an adequate written description of the invention.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant must amend the specification/drawings to provide the breeding history used to develop the instant cultivar. 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 cultivar and all other potential names for the claimed cultivar. If Applicant’s breeding history uses proprietary cultivar names, Applicant should notate in the specification all other names of the proprietary cultivars, especially publicly disclosed or patented cultivar information. If the breeding history encompasses a locus conversion or a backcrossing process, Applicant should clearly indicate the recurrent parent and the donor plant and specifically name the trait or transgenic event that is being donated to the recurrent parent. If one of the parents is a backcross progeny or locus converted line of a publicly disclosed line, Applicant should provide the breeding history of the parent line as well (i.e., grandparents). Applicant should identify the breeding method used, such as single seed descent, bulk method, backcross method, etc., and the filial generation in which the instant plant was chosen (the filial generation in which the line was deemed to be stable and uniform and seeds were collected in bulk thereafter). Information pertaining to the homozygosity or heterozygosity of the parents as well as the instant plant should be set forth.
Applicant is reminded that they have a duty to disclose information material to patentability. Applicant should also notate the most similar plants which should include any other plants created using similar breeding history (such as siblings of the instant cultivar). If there any patent applications or patents in which 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).
35 USC 112(a) clearly states “The specification (emphasis added) shall contain a written description of the invention”. In the instant application, the disclosure is insufficient because it does not address all the issues set forth above. A specification devoid of a complete breeding history hampers the public’s ability to fully resolve questions of infringement.
With regard to hybrid SVSK0834, Applicant describes corn hybrid SVSK0834 as having corn line SHY-6516-7785LL and corn line SHY-6S15-2102XW as parents (Spec 8-9). Applicant describes phenotypic characteristics of both corn hybrid SVSK0834 and parent corn line SHY-6516-7785LL in Table 1 (Spec 9-12). Applicant does not provide any description of the second parent, corn line SHY-6S15-2102XW. Applicant does not provide any breeding history at all for either of the parental corn lines.
For the claims that recite SVSK0834, specifically, these claims do not require any particular parentage nor do they recite a deposit of SVSK8034 seeds. The only structures that are described in the specification for arriving at the claimed hybrid are corn line SHY-6S16-7785LL and corn line SHY-6S15-2102XW. Applicant has not described any other way to arrive at a plant having all the characteristics disclosed in Table 1 for the hybrid corn plant. The claims directed to the hybrid are not limited to plants produced by crossing corn line SHY-6S16-7785LL and corn line SHY-6S15-2102XW, seeds of said corn lines having been deposited under NCMA Accession No. 202307001 and NCMA Accession No. 202204060, respectively (Spec 42). Without being limited to F1 progeny of this particular cross, the claims only require the hybrid plants to have the traits in table 1 (see indefiniteness rejection); and this genus of plants does not have a representative number of species reduced to practice and is not described by its genetic background.
With regard to claim 8, the claimed plant must have “all of the physiological and morphological characteristics of a plant comprising at least a first set of the chromosomes of corn line SHY-6S16-7785LL”. This is inclusive of any F1 progeny produced by crossing a plant of SHY-6S16-7785LL with any other corn plant. Without knowing what characteristics are produced by this genus of hybrid plants produced by crossing SHY-6S16-7785LL with an unlimited number of possible crossing partners, it is impossible to know what characteristics are required to be encompassed by claim 8. For this reason, the corn plant claimed in claim 8 is not adequately described.
With regard to claim 9, the plant of claim 1 includes F1 progeny of corn line SHY-6S16-7785LL, and regenerable cells of this plant include embryos of selfed F1s which would be of the F2 generation. When hybrid F1 plants go through meiosis to form embryos, the two copies of each chromosome have recombination events that result in new chromosomes in the embryo that are mosaics of genomic DNA from each of the F0 parent plants with no predictability regarding which segment of genomic DNA will come from which of the F0 parent plants. For this reason a tissue culture of regenerable cells of an F1 hybrid plant encompasses a genus that is not adequately described.
With regard to claim 12, a corn plant produced by the method of claim 11 includes corn plants produced by using a hybrid as a recurrent parent. It is known in the art that for the backcross method to successfully recover the genetics of the recurrent parent plant, the recurrent parent must be an inbred (Plant and Soil Sciences eLibrary 2023; downloaded on Aug. 26, 2023). Otherwise the hybrid recurrent parent goes through meiosis to produce pollen or an ovule at each step of backcrossing, and the genome is not the same as the genome of the starting hybrid plant.
With regard to claim 14, a corn plant produced by the method of claim 13 includes corn plants produced by any method that comprises introducing a transgene into the plant of claim 1. This is inclusive of backcrossing or genetic transformation of hybrid plants. This will have the same issues as claim 12 with any plant that involves sexual reproduction of a hybrid plant will no longer have the same genomic DNA in its chromosomes and the resulting characteristics are also unpredictable.
Lack of Enablement
Claims 1-25 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The claims are directed to seeds and plants of an inbred corn line and a hybrid corn variety or plant parts derived from said varieties or methods of using and making said varieties. Since the inbred or hybrid plant is essential to the claimed inventions they must be obtainable by a repeatable method set forth in the specification or otherwise be readily available to the public. If a claimed plant is not so obtainable or available, the requirements of 35 USC § 112 may be satisfied by a deposit of the seeds. A deposit of 625 seeds of a plant cultivar is considered sufficient for most plant species to ensure public availability. The specification does not disclose a repeatable process to obtain the plant. It is noted that Applicant has deposited seeds of the claimed inbred corn line with the Provasoli-Guillard National center for Marine Algae and Microbiota (NCMA) (Spec 42) but the deposit statement does not include a statement ensuring that restrictions will be irrevocably removed upon issuance of a patent.
(a) If a deposit is made and accepted under the terms of the Budapest Treaty, then the specification must include the street address of the depository and Applicant must provide a statement, affidavit or declaration by Applicants, or a statement by an attorney of record over their signature and registration number, or someone empowered to make such a statement, stating that the instant invention will be irrevocably and without restriction released to the public upon the issuance of a patent, would satisfy the deposit requirement made herein.
(b) If a deposit has not been made under the Budapest Treaty, then in order to certify that the deposit meets the criteria set forth in 37 CFR 1.801-1.809 and MPEP 2402-2411.05, Applicant may provide assurance of compliance by statement, affidavit or declaration, or by someone empowered to make the same, or by a statement by an attorney of record over his or her signature and registration number showing that:
(i) during the pendency of this application, access to the invention will be afforded to the Commissioner upon request;
(ii) all restrictions upon availability to the public will be irrevocably removed upon granting of the patent in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.808(a)(2);
(iii) the deposit will be maintained in a public depository for a period of 30 years or 5 years after the last request or for the effective life of the patent, whichever is longer, and the specification will include the street address of the depository;
(iv) a test of the viability of the biological material at the time of deposit (see 37 CFR § 1.807); and,
(v) the deposit will be replaced if it should ever become inviable.
If Applicant is able to provide such a statement for the seeds deposited for corn line SHY-6S16-7785LL, then claims limited to this inbred corn line will be fully enabled (although NOT adequately described, see written description rejection, above). In order to enable the claims directed to corn hybrid SVSK0834, the analogous statement would need to be provided for the second parent plant, SHY-6S15-2102XW, and the claims would need to include the recitation that the hybrid is produced by crossing these two inbred lines along with the inbreds’ respective accession numbers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a routine method of using a product of nature without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method of determining the genotype of the plant of claim 1 or a progeny plant thereof, or a part thereof, the method comprising detecting a polymorphism in a sample of nucleic acids from said plant or part thereof. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only method steps are ”detecting” a polymorphism in nucleic acids (claim 23) DNA sequencing or genetic marker analysis (claim 24), and storing the results of the detecting on a computer readable medium or transmitting the results of the detecting. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recitation of “or a progeny plant thereof” renders the starting material inclusive of corn plants that are so many generations removed from the original plant comprising at least a first set of chromosomes of corn line SHY-6S16-7785LL. The genus of progeny plants so many generations removed would be inclusive of plant that are not distinguishable from a wild field-grown corn plant, and therefore the genus of starting plants in claim 23 include products of nature which are judicial exceptions. The method steps themselves are routine and generic method steps that do not amount to “significantly more”. Detecting polymorphisms is routine, DNA sequencing and genetic marker analysis is routine, storing results on a computer readable medium or transmitting results are each routine. For these reasons, claims 23-25 are inclusive of methods that utilize a product of nature to perform routine and generic method steps which do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brunner et al (2005) The Plant Cell; vol. 17; pp. 343-360.
The claims are directed to a method comprising detecting a polymorphism in a sample of nucleic acids from a plant comprising at least one set of chromosomes from corn line-6S16-7785LL or progeny thereof; including using DNA sequencing or genetic marker analysis and including storing the results on a computer readable medium or transmitting the results. Because the nucleic acids can be obtained from “progeny thereof”, this includes distally related progeny because there are no limitations as to how many generations removed the progeny can be nor are there any limitations as to what maize plant(s) can be used as breeding partners in creating said progeny. This renders the claim inclusive of methods that utilize nucleic acids indistinguishable from any prior art maize nucleic acids.
Brunner teaches BAC clones from B73 and Mo17 maize lines (Brunner 356) and such clones necessarily utilized nucleic acids isolated from B73 and Mo17 maize plants. These BAC clones were sequenced, and the sequences were assembled and viewed using computer software (Id. 357). They identified multiple polymorphisms between B73 and Mo17 maize genomic DNA (Id. 351).
Close Prior Art
In the prior art, Hellewell, K. B. teaches a corn line and a hybrid that are very similar to the instant corn line and hybrid (US 2022/0330510 A1; published on Oct. 20, 2022). Hellewell teaches corn line SHW-6S18-4337LL (Hellewell 5-6, Table 2) and hybrid corn SVSC2876 (Id. 3-4, Table 1). A comparison of the traits disclosed in these trait tables to the traits disclosed in instant Table 1 (Spec 9-12) shows that these lines/hybrids are very similar in their traits, but they differ at least in row alignment and days to emergence.
Examiner’s Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHY KINGDON whose telephone number is (571)272-8784. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:30 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, Amjad A Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-7058. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
CATHY KINGDON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1663
/CATHY KINGDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1663