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 .
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Claims 16-20 are cancelled in the claim amendments dated 8/4/2026.
The drawings filed 8/4/2026 overcome the objection presented in the prior Office Action.
The claim amendments dated 8/4/2026 have overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) presented in the prior Office Action. However, new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are discussed below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previously presented rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 (claims 10-15) filed 8/4/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of a new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 4-5, “crude-liquid filtration device” appears to be a typographical error and should read “crude liquid filtration device” for consistency with all other recitations of the noted phrase.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“crude liquid filtration device” in claim 10, lines 4-5;
“feed liquid circulation storage device” in claim 10, line 7;
“feed liquid circulation filtration device” in claim 10, lines 7-10;
“host cell culture device” in claim 11, line 3;
“culture device” in claim 11, line 4;
“lysis device” in claim 11, lines 4-5;
“finished liquid collection device” in claim 23, line 3;
“real-time turbidity monitoring device” in claim 23, line 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 10-15 and 21-24 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 claim 10, the limitation "the feed liquid filtration flow path" in lines 9-10 lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claims 11-15 and 21-24 are similarly rejected as they depend upon rejected claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation "the culture device" in line 4 lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “the activating-enzyme” in line 6 lacks sufficient antecedent basis, as the recitation of “activating-enzyme supply vessel” in line 2 appears to be drawn to a vessel capable of holding and supplying an enzyme and does not inherently include an activating-enzyme.
Claim 15 is similarly rejected as it depends upon rejected claim 14.
Claim limitations “lysis device” and “real-time turbidity monitoring device” in claims 11 and 23, respectively, invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions of lysing or monitoring turbidity in real-time.
The specification does not disclose any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, capable of lysing a cell or monitoring turbidity in real-time. Examiner finds that different lysis techniques (e.g., mechanical, chemical, enzymatic) and different real-time turbidity measuring techniques require substantial structure(s) and/or ingredients to lyse a cell and measure turbidity in real-time not described in the specification. As a result, an ordinarily skilled artisan would be left unapprised as to the details of the claimed lysis device or the real-time turbidity monitoring device.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 11 and 23 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 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. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions of lysing a cell or monitoring turbidity in real-time. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 10-14 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ton et al. (US 2011/0008843 A1) (previously presented, hereinafter referred to as Ton) in view of Bao et al. (CN 111318077 A) (hereinafter referred to as Bao – English machine translation provided, see PTO-892).
Regarding claim 10, Ton discloses a system for preparing a polypeptide (title, [0001]), wherein the system comprises an enrichment module (Fig. 2 – see annotated figure below), the enrichment module comprises a cell lysis buffer separation apparatus (Fig. 2) comprising
a filtration device ([0134]-[0135] discloses a system for filtering prior to purification) and,
wherein the filtration device is a multiplex filtration device ([0134]-[0135] discloses multi-step filtration) comprising
a crude liquid filtration device ([0134] discloses depth filtration for filtering cell debris) and
a feed liquid filtration flow path ([0135] discloses concentration via tangential flow filtration),
PNG
media_image1.png
490
285
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ton does not disclose or teach a waste pipeline, wherein the crude liquid filtration device and the feed liquid filtration flow path are connected via a pipeline, or wherein the feed liquid filtration flow path comprises a feed liquid circulation storage device and a feed liquid circulation filtration device, the feed liquid circulation storage device and the feed liquid circulation filtration device are connected end to end via a pipeline to form the feed liquid circulation filtration flow path.
Ton teaches that a piping assembly can be used for utility connections, including facilitating fluid flow ([0160]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ton’s system to incorporate a pipeline connecting the crude liquid filtration device and the feed liquid filtration flow path to facilitate fluid flow between the two, and the ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to automate the system.
Bao in the analogous art of protein purification teaches that it is known in the art to use a tangential flow filtration (TFF) system, i.e., a feed liquid filtration flow path, comprising a circulating liquid storage tank, i.e., a feed liquid circulation storage device, and a tangential flow filter device, i.e., a feed liquid filtration device, connected end to end via a pipeline to form a circulation filtration flow path (Fig. 1, circulating liquid storage tank 4 and tangential flow filter device 3 connected via pipeline). Bao teaches that TFF can be used to concentrate and filter polypeptides ([0036])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Ton’s feed liquid filtration flow path in the manner claimed for the purpose of filtering and concentrating a polypeptide, as taught by Bao. The ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to imitate a filtering system known in the art to be capable of filtering a polypeptide.
Bao also teaches a pipeline connecting a waste container to the tangential flow filter device, i.e., a waste feed liquid discharge pipeline (Fig. 2).
Although the prior art combination does not disclose or teach wherein the waste feed liquid discharge pipeline is arranged downstream of the feed liquid filtration device, modifying the prior art combination to meet the noted limitation would amount to mere rearrangement of parts. It has been held that rearrangement of parts is unpatentable because the shifting of parts would not modify the operation of the device (MPEP § 2144.04 VI). In this case, the pipeline would still discharge waste.
The prior art combination discussed above does not disclose or teach a waste residue discharge pipeline arranged downstream of the crude liquid filtration device.
Ton teaches that waste from depth filtration, i.e., crude liquid filtration, includes cell debris, i.e., residue.
Although the prior art combination does not disclose or teach the waste residue discharge pipeline arranged downstream of the crude liquid filtration device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art combination waste discharge pipeline to comprise a waste residue discharge pipeline as such a modification represents mere duplication of the waste feed liquid discharge pipeline as discussed above. It has been held that the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP §2144.04 VI B). Such a modification would predictably direct the solid waste produced by crude lysate filtration to a waste container. Moreover, modifying location of the waste residue discharge pipeline such that it is arranged downstream of the crude liquid filtration device would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because the waste is produced post-filtration.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art combination teaches the system according to claim 10, wherein the system further comprises a fermentation module upstream of the cell lysis buffer separation apparatus, wherein the fermentation module comprises a host cell culture device and a lysis device, and the lysis device is arranged downstream of the culture device.
Ton of the prior art combination discloses a fermentation module (Fig. 2 – see annotated figure below). Ton discloses that the fermentation module comprises a host cell culture (Fig. 2, 400 mL Seed Culture; claim 12, “(b) culturing the Clostridium botulinum bacteria in the culture medium”) and a lysis device arranged downstream of the host cell culture device (claim 12, “(c) fermenting the Clostridium botulinum bacteria from step (b) in an APF fermentation medium until Clostridium botulinum cell lysis occurs”).
PNG
media_image2.png
490
270
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, the prior art combination teaches the system according to claim 10, wherein the system further comprises one or more chromatography columns downstream of the cell lysis buffer separation apparatus (Ton: Fig. 2, chromatography systems downstream of lysis buffer separation apparatus; Ton: claim 12).
Regarding claim 13, the prior art combination teaches the system according to claim 12, wherein the one or more chromatography columns comprise first, second, and third chromatography columns sequentially connected ([0073] and [0112]), wherein the chromatography columns are the same or different and are selected from affinity chromatography column ([0073] discloses hydrophobic interaction chromatography), gel filtration chromatography column, and ion chromatography column ([0073] discloses anion and cation exchange chromatography).
Regarding claim 14, the prior art combination teaches the system according to claim 13.
The prior art combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the system further comprising an activating-enzyme supply vessel connected to the front end of the first chromatography column.
However, Ton of the prior art combination teaches that proteins can be activated by proteases ([0121], “…toxin is liberated by cell lysis and activated by proteases…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art combination system to further comprise an activating-enzyme supply vessel as it would amount to mere duplication of Ton’s fermentation vessel. It has been held that the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP §2144.04 VI B). Such a modification would predictably allow the system to hold and supply proteases, and the ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to finish a protein product. Note: Examiner is interpreting “activation-enzyme supply vessel” as a vessel capable of holding and supplying an enzyme.
Although the prior art combination does not explicitly disclose or teach connected to the front end of the first chromatography column, modifying the system discussed above to meet the noted limitation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because the placement of the vessel post-filtering would predictably allow the system to activate an inactive protein, and the ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to complete production of a desired protein product.
The limitation “wherein the polypeptide is present in the form of a single-chain neurotoxin polypeptide precursor in a cell or lysis buffer, and has toxicity after protease activation by the activating-enzyme at least 5,000-fold greater than that of the single-chain neurotoxin polypeptide precursor” is drawn to a recitation of the purpose or intended use of the invention and has been given an appropriate patentable weight (MPEP § 2111.02 II).
Regarding claim 21, the prior art combination teaches the system of claim 10, wherein a filtration material of the crude liquid filtration device has a pore size of 0.1-0.65 µm (Ton: [0134], depth filtration has a pore size of 0.2-0.8 µm), and a filtration material of the feed liquid circulation filtration device has a pore size of 0.2 µm or less (Ton: [0139], TFF uses a 0.2 µm filter).
Regarding claim 22, the prior art combination teaches the system of claim 10.
The prior art combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the cell lysis buffer separation apparatus further comprises a lysis buffer inlet pipeline and a supplementary liquid inlet pipeline.
Nonetheless, modifying the prior art combination system to further comprise a lysis buffer inlet pipeline and a supplementary liquid inlet pipeline would amount to mere duplication of the pipelines discussed above. It has been held that the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP §2144.04 VI B). Such a modification would predictably facilitate fluid flow. Moreover, connecting the lysis buffer inlet pipeline and the supplementary liquid inlet pipeline to the front end of the crude liquid filtration device would amount to mere rearrangement of parts. It has been held that rearrangement of parts is unpatentable because the shifting of parts would not modify the operation of the device (MPEP § 2144.04 VI). Such a modification would predictably facilitate fluid flow from upstream the crude liquid filtration device to the crude liquid filtration device.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ton in view of Bao as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Pierce™ HRV 3C Protease, Thermo (hereinafter referred to as Thermo, see PTO-892).
Regarding claim 15, the prior art combination teaches the system according to claim 14.
The limitation “wherein the single-chain neurotoxin polypeptide precursor is a botulinum neurotoxin precursor comprising an N-terminal affinity tag, a first protease cleavage site, a botulinum neurotoxin light chain, a second protease cleavage site that is not cleavable by a protease produced by the host cell, and a botulinum neurotoxin heavy chain” is drawn to a recitation of the purpose or intended use of the invention and has been given an appropriate patentable weight (MPEP § 2111.02 II).
The prior art combination does not disclose or teach wherein the activating-enzyme in the activating-enzyme supply vessel is a rhinovirus 3C protease that cleaves at least the second protease cleavage site to form an activated neurotoxic polypeptide.
However, Thermo in the analogous art of recombinant protein purification teaches it is known in the art that HRV 3C protease cleaves at an amino acid sequence LEVLFQGP.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art combination system to use the HRV 3C protease as the activating-enzyme to cleave at a site LEVLFQGP, and the ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to use the protease to activate an unfinished polypeptide product.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ton in view of Bao as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of O’Connor (US 2013/0273607 A1) (see PTO-892).
Regarding claim 23, the prior art combination teaches the system of claim 10.
The prior art combination does not explicitly disclose or teach wherein the cell lysis buffer separation apparatus further comprises a finished liquid collection flow path.
Bao of the prior art combination teaches that final processed liquid can be stored using a pipeline a liquid storage tank, i.e., a finished liquid collection flow path comprising a finished liquid collection device ([0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art combination cell lysis buffer separation apparatus to further comprise finished liquid collection flow path comprising a finished liquid collection device for the purpose of collecting and storing a finished product, as taught by Bao.
O’Connor in the analogous art of purifying recombinant proteins teaches that measuring turbidity following filtration is important for determining product quality ([0095]-[0098]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art combination finished liquid collection flow path to further comprise a real-time turbidity monitoring device to determine product quality following filtration, and the ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to following quality standards.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ton in view of Bao as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Rao et al. (WO 2016/019350 A2) (hereinafter referred to as Rao, see PTO-892).
Regarding claim 24, the prior art combination teaches the system of claim 10.
The prior art combination does not disclose or teach wherein the cell lysis buffer separation apparatus is completely enclosed.
However, Rao in the analogous art of protein manufacturing teaches that it is known in the art to enclose a cell lysis buffer separation apparatus (Fig. 4 shows that the system is enclosed; [74]-[75] discloses that the system is a cell lysis buffer separation apparatus).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art combination cell lysis buffer separation apparatus such that it is completely enclosed, as taught by Rao. The ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to maintain sterility.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Dibel et al. (US 2007/0246406 A1) discloses a TFF system for separating biological compounds and polymers.
Islam et al., A Review on Macroscale and Microscale Cell Lysis Methods, Micromachines 2017 teaches different methods of lysing cells.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ADRIAN J CARREON whose telephone number is (571)272-6818. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5 PM.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 571-272-1374. 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.
/A.J.C./ Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/William H. Beisner/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights