DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The terminal disclaimer filed on 16 October 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of 12,144,306, 12,213,430, 12,213,429 and 12,137,659 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
The objection to the specification is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s deposit statement.
The rejection of claims 1-20 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the subject matter that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant, regards as the invention is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s deposit statement, amendment of claim 13, and disavowal of “a plant of “soybean cultivar 26160905” as reading on the definition of “soybean plant” in ¶195 and “single locus conversion” as encompassing anything other transgenes (response pg 5-7).
The rejection of claims 1-20 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35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s deposit statement. Applicant is reminded that because viability testing of all deposits is required before they can be considered to meet the requirements of 37 CFR 1.801- 1.809, they are advised to perfect the deposit as early as is possible, and before the payment of the issue fee. Failure to perfect a deposit by the date of payment of the issue fee may result in abandonment of the application for failure to prosecute.
The rejections of claims 1-20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 and 19 of each of U.S. Patent Nos. 12,144,306, 12,213,430, 12,213,42, and 12,137,659 are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s filing a terminal disclaimer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter that 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The rejection is repeated for the reasons of record as set forth in the Office action mailed 22 July 2025. Applicant’s arguments filed 16 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Part A of the previous rejection was overcome by Applicant’s overcoming the indefiniteness rejection and by amendment of claim 13.
B. The description of the claimed plant is incomplete.
The instant Specification fails to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S. Code § 112(a) because it does not provide a description sufficient to conduct an examination, including search of the prior art, nor does it provide enough description to be sufficient to aid in the resolution of questions of infringement.
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).
In the instant application, a full examination cannot be conducted because applicant failed to provide the complete breeding history for the instantly claimed plant variety. Specifically, Applicant claims a new soybean cultivar. A plant cultivar is defined by both its genetics (i.e., its breeding history) and its traits. In the instant application, Applicant has provided a description of the plant traits as seen in the specification (Table 1) and how it was made (¶69); however, the parents are not known in the prior art, at least by the names provided. The instant application is thus incomplete as to the breeding history used to produce the claimed plant variety.
The criticality of a breeding history in assessing the intellectual property rights of a plant is well recognized in the field of plant breeding. With regard to Plant Patents, MPEP 1605 states that a complete detailed description of a plant includes “the origin or parentage”. Other bodies that grant intellectual property protection for plant varieties require breeding information to evaluate whether protection should be granted to new varieties. 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, “Applying for a Plant Variety Certificate of Protection”, https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/pvpo/application-help/apply, accessed 1 May 2023). Additionally, 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, 2017, Explanatory Notes on Essentially Derived Varieties Under the 1991 Act of the UPOV Convention, see notes 14 and 30). While the USPTO, USDA, and UPOV have different laws governing intellectual property rights, all recognize that a breeding history is an essential part of adequate description of the plant sought to be protected.
The breeding history is also necessary to aid in the resolution of patent infringement by providing information necessary to determine whether differences in plants where genetic differences, differences caused by the environment, or differences within the accepted variation within a variety. 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, 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.
Moreover, a specification an incomplete 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 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 phenotype of the claimed plant for assessing potential infringement.
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. The assumption that elite cultivars are composed of relatively homogenous genetic pools is false (Haun et al, 2011, Plant Physiol. 155:645-655; see pg 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 (pg 645, right column, paragraph 2, to pg 646, left column, paragraph 3). In addition, environmental variation may lead to phenotypic variation within a cultivar. (Großkinsky et al, 2015, J. Exp. Bot. 66:5429-5440; see pg 5430 left column, paragraph 2, and right column, paragraph 2). In view of this variability, a breeding history is an essential and the least burdensome way to provide genetic information needed at adequate describe a newly developed plant.
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 to provide the complete 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. For example, if Applicant’s breeding history uses proprietary line names, Applicant should notate in the specification all other names of the proprietary lines, especially publicly disclosed or patented line information. If the breeding history encompasses a locus conversion or a backcrossing process, Applicant should clearly indicate the recurrent parent and the donor plant and specifically name the trait or transgenic event that is being donated to the recurrent parent. If one of the parents is a backcross progeny or locus converted line of a publicly disclosed line, Applicant should provide the breeding history of the parent line as well (i.e., grandparents).
Applicant is also 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 variety). 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant urges that in Ex Parte C, Enzo and Inari to assert that the written description requirement is provided by the deposit, such that they do have to provide a breeding history; the public can access their deposit and perform a molecular marker analysis that would provide structural (genetic) characteristics to distinguish the instant plant from other plants in the public domain (response pg 9-11).
This is not found persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the public can access their deposit and perform a molecular marker analysis that would provide structural (genetic) characteristics to distinguish the instant plant with other plants, instant claims 18-19 are drawn to a method comprising detecting at least a plurality of first polymorphisms in a sample of nucleic acids from the claimed plant. So, Applicant is asking to preclude the public from performing a marker analysis that Applicant is saying the public can do to distinguish the instant plant from other plants.
Applicant needs to explain how the public can conduct a marker analysis if they have claims preventing the genotyping of the plant. If the public cannot genotype the plant, they cannot do a marker analysis Applicant says is possible to do. If a marker analysis cannot be done, then Applicant’s assertion that written description can be satisfied by way of the deposit is misleading. Applicant’s claims 18 and 19 in effect would make the public an infringer to genotype the instant variety as a means to distinguish their plant from the instant variety.
Note that in response to the obviousness and double patenting rejections in the previous Office action, Applicant did not provide a genetic marker analysis to show that the instant variety is not obvious over the cited plants. If genetic marker analysis can be used distinguish the instant variety, why didn’t Applicant provide marker information to show that the instant variety is not obvious over the plants cited in the obviousness and double patenting rejections? It is noted that Applicant is in the best position to do so as they own the prior art patent and the instant variety and likely have markers available. Applicant’s failure to provide this information is evidence that it is not practical to do a marker analysis to distinguish the instant plants as claimed from other plants with related phenotypes.
Applicant has other plants with nearly identical traits. The trait similarity and the lack of explanation of the value of the instant soybean makes the analysis on the breeding history more important. 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).
Regarding Applicants’ arguments on the legal basis of the written description rejection and the court’s/board’s interpretations. The best starting point for a written description analysis is the law itself. The first 10 words of 35 USC 112 (a) are critical.
(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. (emphasis added)
The strict interpretation of the law is clear: Applicant must provide in the specification a written description of the invention. The only question is what an “adequate written description” is. This is a fact-based inquiry done by the factfinder (i.e., the examiner) when analyzing the nature of the instant invention.
The Office has made a finding of fact that for the instant variety the minimum description is the combination of the phenotype and genotype (breeding history). To support this finding of fact, the Office has cited other plant-related intellectual property organizations and relevant court cases dealing with plant varieties in which both the phenotype and genotype are analyzed. The Office did not cite these findings to clarify the law. They are solely to clarify the finding of fact, i.e., what is an adequate written description for the instant plant variety. Applicant’s arguments ask the Office to not consider the actual statute and base our decision solely on statements from court/board cases that do not directly decide what an adequate written description is for a plant variety.
Further illustrating the importance of the genotype of the claimed plant is the data provided in the Mason Declaration. In that Declaration, Mason compared the relative maturity of the instant soybean with that cited in the art and double patenting rejection. The cited soybean plant, 92312145, has a phenotype of which the instant soybean plant appears to belong.
The relative maturity for the instant soybean reported in Table 1 of the specification is 4.9; in Table 2 of the Declaration, it is 1.5. Similarly, the relative maturity for 92312145 reported in Table 1 of US 11,337,396 is 4.2; in Table 1 of the Declaration, it is 2.3. How can thew Office base examination on a phenotypic trait that is so drastically affected by environmental conditions? Any difference between the instant soybean and 92312145 is less than the in-variety difference caused by the environment.
In response to the 102/103 rejection below, Applicant argued that the claimed plant has a unique combination of chromosomes produced by making a specific cross. However, Applicant provided no evidence that the chromosome combinations in the instant plant are not part of the chromosome combinations in the genus of plants that are 92312145. This plant is owned by Applicant. Because of the phenotypic similarity, the Office needs to analyze the genotype of the claimed plant more carefully. A review of arbitrary/proprietary line information provided for the instant parents is not useful to someone that is not the Applicant. The names “CC1401255” and “43E17E7” do not allow for the Office to have a full understanding of the instant variety.
The references cited in the rejection are evidence regarding that question of fact regarding what is considered when describing plants. They are not cited for legal analysis. The references cited, including USDA and UPOV, establish that in the plant variety art, a breeding history is part of the description of a plant variety.
Applicant has not provided evidence saying that in the plant variety art the breeding history is not considered art of the description of a plant variety. Applicant has not rebutted the evidence provided in the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102, 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mason (2022, US 11,337,396).
The rejection is repeated for the reasons of record as set forth in the Office action mailed 22 July 2025. Applicant’s arguments and the Mason Declaration, both filed 16 October 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Mason teaches a soybean variety, 92312145, that segregates for at least 3 of the nonenvironmentally-affected traits (Table 1). Amongst those plants would be those that have white flowers, buff hila, gray pubescence, brown pod walls, yellow, dull seed coats, yellow cotyledons, ovate leaflets, indeterminate growth habit, the DAS-44406-6 herbicide resistance event, the rhg1 soybean cyst nematode resistance gene, and that have similar values for the environmentally-affected traits relative maturity, lodging, height, seeds/lb, seed protein % and seed oil % (Table 1 and the two paragraphs immediately following).
Claims 1-18 in ‘396 are identical to instant claims 1-17 and 20 except for the name of the variety.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the methods of introducing single locus conversion and those involving multiple rounds of breeding to use marker assisted breeding. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as this would reduce the number of breeding generations needed to produce a single locus converted plant, as in claims 11-12, or produce an inbred plant, as in claim 16. Marker assisted breeding involves detecting polymorphisms in nucleic acids from the parent plants and progeny and recording the results, commonly done on a computer readable medium.
Response to Arguments
Applicant urges and the Declaration states that a head-to-head analyses for various traits between 26160905 and 92312145 versus the same check varieties showed statistically significant differences in height, yield, and relative maturity (response pg 11-12; Declaration ¶5).
This is not found persuasive. Applicant has not provided evidence that any difference in height, yield, and relative maturity in 26160905 means that it is not a species of the genus that is 92312145
The Declaration states that while soybean farmers evaluate many factors when selecting a variety for planting, improving yield is the most important trait for farmers and differences in relative maturity can allow for optimized growing seasons (Declaration ¶6).
This is not found persuasive. The relative maturity for the instant soybean reported in Table 1 of the specification is 4.9; in Table 2 of the Declaration, it is 1.5. Similarly, the relative maturity for 92312145 reported in Table 1 of US 11,337,396 is 4.2; in Table 1 of the Declaration, it is 2.3. How can a trait that is so drastically affected by environmental conditions allow for optimized growing seasons? Any difference between the instant soybean and 92312145 is less than the in-variety difference caused by the environment.
While the environmental variation in the height and yield scores for these varieties is less than that seen for relative maturity, the unpredictability of performance in these traits suggests that it is not something that farmers can rely on (for example, the yield for the instant plant is reported as 51.7 in instant Table 2, but 43.6 is the Declaration).
The Declaration states that the statistical analysis performed for this comparative trial explicitly incorporates the variation within the samples-ensuring that the results reflect not just the difference between group means, but also how much variability exists within each group (Declaration ¶6).
This is not found persuasive. 92312145 is a genus of plants, as demonstrated by its segregating for hilum color, pubescence color, and pod wall color (Table 1); one of ordinary skill in the art would expect it to segregate for other traits, like height, yield, and relative maturity, absent evidence to the contrary. Such evidence has not been provided. For example, the data is presented solely as means, with no ranges; whether the height, yield, and relative maturity of the instant plant falls within the ranges of height, yield, and relative maturity values that the genus of 92312145 produces thus cannot be evaluated.
Applicant urges and the Declaration states that the claimed cultivar is a result of the serendipitous combination of (1) the initial cross of CC1401255 and 43E17E7, the selection and advancing methods applied, and the complex nature of genetic inheritance; 26160905 is the end product of its own breeding protocol (response pg 13; Declaration ¶8).
This is not found persuasive. Neither CC1401255 and 43E17E7 are known in the prior art, at least by the names provided.
The Declaration states that one of ordinary skill in the art could not have predicted the results of these performance trials (Declaration ¶9) and Applicant urges that an obviousness rejection requires an expectation of success (response pg 13).
This is not found persuasive. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 does not require the same analysis as a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 alone. The rejection is made because the Examiner cannot determine whether the claimed plant is a species of the genus of 92312145 plants. The rejection is made because the Examiner cannot determine whether the prior art possesses the unrecited characteristics, in this case, the genetics of the claimed plant versus that of 92312145. Where the prior art product seems to be identical, except that the prior art is silent to a characteristic or property claimed, then the burden shifts to Applicant to provide evidence that the prior art would neither anticipate nor render obvious the claimed invention. See In re Best 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). The data in the Declaration did not provide that evidence, as explained above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,337,396. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The rejection is repeated for the reasons of record as set forth in the Office action mailed 22 July 2025. Applicant’s arguments and the Mason Declaration, both filed 16 October 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
‘396 claims a soybean variety, 92312145, that segregates for at least 3 of the nonenvironmentally-affected traits (Table 1). Amongst those plants would be those that have white flowers, buff hila, gray pubescence, brown pod walls, yellow, dull seed coats, yellow cotyledons, ovate leaflets, indeterminate growth habit, the DAS-44406-6 herbicide resistance event, the rhg1 soybean cyst nematode resistance gene, and that have similar values for the environmentally-affected traits relative maturity, lodging, height, seeds/lb, seed protein % and seed oil % (Table 1 and the two paragraphs immediately following).
Claims 1-18 in ‘396 are identical to instant claims 1-17 and 20 except for the name of the variety.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the methods of introducing single locus conversion and those involving multiple rounds of breeding to use marker assisted breeding. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as this would reduce the number of breeding generations needed to produce a single locus converted plant, as in claims 11-12, or produce an inbred plant, as in claim 16. Marker assisted breeding involves detecting polymorphisms in nucleic acids from the parent plants and progeny and recording the results, commonly done on a computer readable medium.
Response to Arguments
Applicant references arguments made in response to the rejection under 35 USC 102/103. They are not found persuasive for the reasons above.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anne R. Kubelik, Ph.D., whose telephone number is (571) 272-0801. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm Eastern.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shubo (Joe) Zhou, can be reached at (571) 272-0724. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
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.
/Anne Kubelik/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1662