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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Application Status
This application is a 371 of PCT/CN2022/080799, 10/26/2023.
Claims 1-7, 8, 21-24, and 25-33 are currently pending in the instant application.
The preliminary amendment filed on 10/26/2023, amending claims 2-8, 21, 23 and 24, canceling claims 9-20, and adding new claims 25-33 is acknowledged.
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Claims 1-8, drawn to a detergent composition comprising from 0.5% to 2% by weight of an ethoxylated poly(ethyleneimine) polymer, from 0.0001% to 5% (w/w) active enzyme protein of a polypeptide having cellulase activity, and optionally at least one additional enzyme, and a detergent adjunct ingredient, and SEQ ID NO: 12 as species in the response filed on 05/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Arguments: The traversal is on the ground(s) that the PTO follows the rules set forth in 37 C.F.R. 1.401 - 1.499, and the standard for determining whether unity of invention exists during the national stage, i.e. whether a restriction requirement may be imposed, is set forth in 37 C.F.R. 1.475, which provides that a national stage application in the national stage complies with the unity of invention requirement if the claims are drawn only to one of the stated combinations of categories, including “…(2) A product and a process of use of said product…” In the present case, the invention designated Group I and the invention designated Group II are so related as product and process of use. Under the standards set forth above, Applicant submits that the Group I and Group II claims together possess unity of invention and that the restriction requirement imposed in the Office Action is improper. Examination of the claims 1-8 and 21-33 together is respectfully requested. Significantly, no objection to unity of invention was raised at any point of the PCT phase. In the event that the restriction requirement between the composition and method aspects of the invention is made final, and the method claims are correspondingly withdrawn, Applicants responsively request that method claims 14-17 and 24-31 be rejoined under the provisions of MPEP §821.04 upon confirmation of allowable subject matter of the composition claims 1-13 and 18-23. Further to the restriction requirement the examiner has also requested an election of species of polypeptide having cellulase activity, as recited in claims 7, 8, 24 and 28. In response, Applicants elect SEQ ID NO: 12 as a single disclosed species, with traverse. All of the presently pending claims read on the elected species. The traverse is based on the assertion that the species are related as possessing cellulase functionality and, therefore by a commonality of operation, function and effect and, accordingly, that a search of SEQ ID Nos: 1-14 together would not place an undue burden on the Examiner.
Response: This is not found persuasive because the inventions listed as Groups I - II do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons: A detergent composition comprising from 0.5% to 2% by weight of an ethoxylated poly(ethyleneimine) polymer, from 0.0001% to 5% (w/w) active enzyme protein of a polypeptide having cellulase activity, and optionally at least one additional enzyme, and a detergent adjunct ingredient of Group I and a method for the improvement of the sustainability profile of a detergent composition the method comprising replacing partly or fully ethoxylated poly(ethyleneimine) polymers of the detergent composition with a polypeptide having cellulase activity, optionally in combination with at least one additional enzyme, wherein the sustainability profile of the detergent composition is improved when one or more ethoxylated poly(ethyleneimine) polymers of the detergent composition is replaced partly or fully by a biodegradable ingredient with the polypeptide having cellulase activity of Group II, are each patentably distinct product and method of use thereof, and comprises unrelated and chemically distinct entities. The only shared technical feature of these groups is that they all relate to a polypeptide having cellulase enzymatic activity or nucleic acid encoding the same. However, this shared technical feature is not a “special technical feature” as defined by PCT Rule 13.2 as it does not define a contribution over the art. Panandiker et al. (WO 1997/7042294A1, publication 11/13/1997) teach a liquid laundry detergent composition providing fabric modifying benefits comprising: a) at least 10%, by weight, of a detersive surfactant selected from anionic and nonionic detersive surfactant; b) from 0.05% to 2%, by weight, of a cellulase enzyme; c) from 0.5% to 10%,by weight, of a water-soluble or dispersible, modified polyamine fabric surface modifying agent, said agent comprising a polyamine backbone (see, abstract, and claims 1-17). Thus, a detergent composition comprising polypeptide having cellulase activity and method of use thereof does not make contribution over the prior art and lack unity of invention. Besides, 37 CFR 1.475 does not provide for multiple products and/or methods within a single application. Therefore, inventions of Group I - II lack unity of invention.
Regarding the arguments of burden of search is not at all persuasive because this application is a National Stage application filed under 35 USC 371, and thus, burden of search is NOT an issue for a case filed under 371.
Claims 8 (for not comprising elected species SEQ ID NO: 12), 21-24, and 25-33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Applicants request for rejoinder is noted. However, current claims of elected Group I are not allowable at this time. When Group I would be allowable, rejoinder request would be evaluated at that time.
Claims 1-7 are present for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicants claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) to a foreign patent applications WORLD INTELECTUAL PRPERTY ORGANIZATION PCT/CN2021/083222, filed on 03/26/2021, and WORLD INTELECTUAL PRPERTY ORGANIZATION PCT/CN2021/087514, filed on 04/15/2021, with English translation.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 10/26/2023, 12/01/2023, 11/26/2024, 11/27/2024, 08/05/2025, 10/22/2025, and 12/22/2025 are acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are considered by the examiner. The signed copies of 1449s are enclosed herewith.
Drawings
There are no Drawings with this application.
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.
The claimed invention is directed to a naturally-occurring nucleic acid or fragment thereof, whether isolated or not, that is not patent-eligible pursuant to the Supreme Court decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., -- U.S. -- (June 13, 2013).
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The instant rejection is issued because of recent "Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility of Claims Reciting or Involving Laws of Nature, Natural Phenomena, & Natural Products" (see, MPEP 2106, and updated Guidance of 2019-PEG).
In the instant case, when a claim is determined to recite or involve one or more judicial exceptions, the key inquiry becomes whether the claim as a whole recites something significantly different than the judicial exception. The Guidance provides weighing factors for determining whether a claim recites something that is significantly different than the judicial exception. If the totality of the relevant factors weighs toward eligibility, the claim qualifies as eligible subject matter. However, if the totality of the relevant factors weighs against eligibility, the claim should be rejected.
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, the factors weigh against something that is significantly more than a law of nature or product of nature and therefore the claims do not qualify as eligible subject matter. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Claim 1 is drawn to under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) – “a detergent composition comprising from 0.5% to 2% by weight of an ethoxylated poly(ethyleneimine) polymer, from 0.0001% to 5% (w/w) active enzyme protein of a polypeptide having cellulase activity, and optionally at least one additional enzyme, and a detergent adjunct ingredient,”.
In this case, the recited “enzyme polypeptide having cellulase activity”, is not markedly different in structure from a naturally occurring polypeptide” molecule. See Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Genetics Inc. 106 USPQ2d 1972 (U.S. Supreme Court 2013). As such, the claimed recited “polypeptide” molecule is not markedly different in structure from a naturally occurring product and thus the claimed “enzyme protein having cellulase activity” molecule is not patent eligible subject matter.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the following analysis:
Step 1) Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claims are drawn to a composition of matter or manufacture (a product).
Step 2a, Prong 1) Does the claim recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes, the claim 1 is drawn to a Natural Phenomenon and Law of Nature, “an enzyme protein having cellulase activity present in a detergent composition”. Thus, “an enzyme protein having cellulase activity present in a detergent composition would meet the defined claim and render it non-patent eligible.
Step 2a, Prong 2) Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application?
No, the claimed composition doesn’t improve any technology or technical field, apply or use the JE to effect to a particular application or apply/use the JE in some other meaningful way.
Step 2B) Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception?
The answer is No, therefore, the recited ““an enzyme protein having cellulase activity present in a detergent composition” molecule, is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7 are also not patent eligible for the same reason as discussed above for claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 2, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite and vague for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 4, and 6 are indefinite with the recitation “preferably about”, in the context of 1% of ethoxylated poly(ethyleneimine) polymer, which is unclear as to the scope of the claim. The phrase "preferably" and “about”, render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Does “preferably” mean superior to other similar parameters or something else? Besides, the recitation “about 1% of ethoxylated poly(ethyleneimine) polymer”, which is confusing too, because “about 1% of ethoxylated poly(ethyleneimine) polymer” is unclear and vague, as it is not clearly stated in the specification about what is the scope of “about 1% of ethoxylated poly(ethyleneimine) polymer” mean? Besides, the term “about” is a term of degree and the examiner has reviewed the specification and can find no examples or teachings that can be used for ascertaining the variance intended by the recited term of degree. Moreover, there is nothing in the specification or prior art of record to indicate that one of ordinary skill in the art could have ascertain the scope of the recited degree. It is suggested that applicant clarify the meaning of the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Clarification is required.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the phrase “such as” renders the claim(s) indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the phrase “e.g.” renders the claim(s) indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
A. Written Description
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 7 are drawn to a detergent composition comprising from 0.5% to 2% by weight of an ethoxylated poly(ethyleneimine) polymer, from 0.0001% to 5% (w/w) active enzyme protein of a polypeptide having cellulase activity, and optionally at least one additional enzyme, and a detergent adjunct ingredient, wherein the cellulase enzyme protein is at least 60% identity to SEQ ID NO: 12.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that a “written description of an invention involving a chemical genus, like a description of a chemical species, ‘requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula [or] chemical name,’ of the claimed subject matter sufficient to distinguish it from other materials.” University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 18221, at *23, quoting Fiers v. Revel, 25 USPQ2d 1601, 1606 (Fed. Cir. 1993). To fully describe a genus of genetic material, which is a chemical compound, applicants must (1) fully describe at least one species of the claimed genus sufficient to represent said genus whereby a skilled artisan, in view of the prior art, could predict the structure of other species encompassed by the claimed genus and (2) identify the common characteristics of the claimed molecules, e.g., structure, physical and/or chemical characteristics, functional characteristics when coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or a combination of these (paraphrased from Enzo Biochemical).
Thus, Claims 1 and 7 are drawn to a detergent composition comprising from 0.5% to 2% by weight of an ethoxylated poly(ethyleneimine) polymer, from 0.0001% to 5% (w/w) any active enzyme protein of a polypeptide derived from any sources having no structure, or any enzyme protein, which is at least 60% identity to SEQ ID NO: 12, and optionally at least one additional enzyme, and a detergent adjunct ingredient, wherein the cellulase enzyme protein is at least 60% identity to SEQ ID NO: 12, i.e., 40% non-identity to SEQ ID NO: 12, that encompasses many cellulase enzymes derived from many unknown sources and many mutants, variants, and fragments thereof, which can have wide variety of unknown structures, i.e. No Structure-Function correlation, which is required to fulfill the Written Description (WD) requirement.
As discussed in the written description guidelines the Written Description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, reduction to drawings, or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. A representative number of species means that the species, which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus.
Furthermore, the genus of polypeptides required in the claimed invention is an extremely large structurally and functionally variable genus. While the argument can be made that the recited genus of polypeptides are adequately described by the disclosure of the structures of prior art. However, the art clearly teaches the “Practical Limits of Function Prediction”: Whisstock et al., (2003) highlight the difficulties associated with “Prediction of protein function from protein sequence and structure”; “To reason from sequence and structure to function is to step onto much shakier ground”, closely related proteins can change function, either through divergence to a related function or by recruitment for a very different function, in such cases, assignment of function on the basis of homology, in the absence of direct experimental evidence, will give the wrong answer, it is difficult to state criteria for successful prediction of function, since function is a vague concept. This finding is reinforced in the following scientific teachings for specific proteins in the art that suggest, even highly structurally homologous polypeptides do not necessarily share the same function and many functionally similar proteins will have little or no structural homology to disclosed proteins. For example, proteins having similar structure have different activities (structure does not always correlate to function); Witkowski et al., (1999) teaches that one conservative amino acid substitution transforms a -ketoacyl synthase into a malonyl decarboxylase and completely eliminates -ketoacyl synthase activity. Similarly, the art also teaches that functionally similar molecules have different structures; Kisselev L., (2002) teach that polypeptide release factors in prokaryotes and eukaryotes have same function but different structures.
Furthermore, the genus of polynucleotide encoding polypeptides or variants required in the claimed invention is an extremely large structurally and functionally variable genus. While the argument can be made that the recited genus of polypeptides are adequately described by the disclosure of the structures of prior art, i.e., lipase variant enzymes. However, the art clearly teaches the “Practical Limits of Function Prediction”: Whisstock et al., (2003) highlight the difficulties associated with “Prediction of protein function from protein sequence and structure”; “To reason from sequence and structure to function is to step onto much shakier ground”, closely related proteins can change function, either through divergence to a related function or by recruitment for a very different function, in such cases, assignment of function on the basis of homology, in the absence of direct experimental evidence, will give the wrong answer, it is difficult to state criteria for successful prediction of function, since function is in principle a fuzzy concept. This finding is reinforced in the following scientific teachings for specific proteins in the art that suggest, even highly structurally homologous polypeptides do not necessarily share the same function and many functionally similar proteins will have little or no structural homology to disclosed proteins. For example, proteins having similar structure have different activities (structure does not always correlate to function); Witkowski et al., (1999) teaches that one conservative amino acid substitution transforms a -ketoacyl synthase into a malonyl decarboxylase and completely eliminates -ketoacyl synthase activity. Similarly, the art also teaches that functionally similar molecules have different structures; Kisselev L., (2002) teach that polypeptide release factors in prokaryotes and eukaryotes have same function but different structures.
Claims are drawn to very broadly a detergent composition comprising from 0.5% to 2% by weight of an ethoxylated poly(ethyleneimine) polymer, from 0.0001% to 5% (w/w) any active enzyme protein of a polypeptide derived from any sources having no structure, or any enzyme protein, which is at least 60% identity to SEQ ID NO: 12, and optionally at least one additional enzyme, and a detergent adjunct ingredient, wherein the cellulase enzyme protein is at least 60% identity to SEQ ID NO: 12, i.e., 40% non-identity to SEQ ID NO: 12, that encompasses many cellulase enzymes derived from many unknown sources and many mutants, variants, and fragments thereof, which can have wide variety of unknown structures, whose structures are not fully described in the specification. No information, beyond the characterization of few cellulase enzymes has been provided, which would indicate that applicants had possession of the claimed genus. The specification does not contain sufficient disclosure of the structure with function of all the variant lipase enzymes, within the scope of the claimed genus. The genus of polypeptides claimed is a large variable genus including many mutants, variant and fragments thereof, which can have wide variety of structures. Therefore, many structurally unrelated enzymes (variant lipase) within the scope of these claims. The specification discloses the structure of only few representative species of the claimed genus, which is insufficient to put one of skill in the art in possession of the attributes and features of all species within the claimed genus. Therefore, one skilled in the art cannot reasonably conclude that applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the instant application was filed.
Applicant is referred to the revised guidelines concerning compliance with the written description requirement of U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, published in the Official Gazette and also available at www.uspto.gov.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
MPEP-2131 Anticipation — Application of 35 U.S.C. 102 [R-08.2017]
A claimed invention may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 when the invention is anticipated (or is "not novel") over a disclosure that is available as prior art. To reject a claim as anticipated by a reference, the disclosure must teach every element required by the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation. See, e.g., MPEP § 2114, subsections II and IV.
"A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Note that, in some circumstances, it is permissible to use multiple references in a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection. See MPEP § 2131.01.
MPEP-2131.01 Multiple Reference 35 U.S.C. 102 Rejections [R-11.2013]
Normally, only one reference should be used in making a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102. However, a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection over multiple references has been held to be proper when the extra references are cited to:
(A) Prove the primary reference contains an "enabled disclosure;"
(B) Explain the meaning of a term used in the primary reference; or
(C) Show that a characteristic not disclosed in the reference is inherent.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention as anticipated by Suzuki et al. (A laundry powdered detergent composition having stable fragrance component. WO2017/134840, publication 08/10/2017, see IDS).
The Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) of claims 1 and 7, which is drawn to a detergent composition comprising from 0.5% to 2% by weight of an ethoxylated poly(ethyleneimine) polymer, from 0.0001% to 5% (w/w) active enzyme protein of a polypeptide having cellulase activity, and optionally at least one additional enzyme, and a detergent adjunct ingredient, wherein the cellulase enzyme is at least 60% identical to SEQ ID NO: 12 (elected species) of the instant application.
Regarding claims 1-7, Suzuki et al. teach a laundry detergent composition containing components of (A) to (D), comprises surfactant (A), a cleaning auxiliary compound (B), an enzyme (C), and a fragrance enclosed in a trehalose-containing coating (D) to produce a favorable fragrance during washing without any degradation in the fragrance even when the laundry detergent composition is stored under high temperature and high humidity. Suzuki et al. further teach the detergent composition, wherein the surfactants includes poly-oxyethylene alkyl ether, sodium alkyl benzene sulfonate, and sodium alpha-olefin sulfonate, and cationic surfactants includes alkyl trimethylamine salts, which is about 50% of the powdered composition, wherein the Cleaning aid includes Enzyme including cellulase, protease, amylase and lipase, and Powder fragrance encapsulated in a film containing trehalose and a fragrance encapsulated in an aminoplast polymer shell, according to the powdered laundry detergent composition, wherein a powdered laundry detergent composition wherein the enzyme is one or more selected from protease, lipase, amylase, and cellulase, which is 100% identical to SEQ ID NO: 12 of the instant application because Suzuki et al. clearly indicated that cellulase enzyme is the same as owned by Novozymes Cellzyme, which is about 0.05% to 5% of the total mass of powder detergent . Since, the Assignee of the instant application is also NOVOZYMES, and thus, the cellulase enzyme Cellzyme used by Suzuki et al. is inherently the same cellulase enzyme as claimed, and the amino acid sequence is also inherently would be the same (any evidence in the contrary). Therefore, the cellulase enzyme of Suzuki et al. is inherently one of the cellulase enzymes recited in claim 5 (any evidence in the contrary).
Because the powder detergent composition with cellulase enzyme and surfactants of the claimed invention and that of the powder detergent composition with cellulase enzyme, source of fragrance, and GH enzymes of the reference is one and the same, Examiner takes the position that the limitations of claims 1-7 inherently associated with the detergent composition of Suzuki et al. Since the Office does not have the facilities for examining and comparing applicants' detergent and detergent composition by the prior art, the burden is on the applicant to show a novel or unobvious difference between the claimed product and the product of the prior art. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) and In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594.
Therefore, Suzuki et al. anticipate claims 1-7 of the instant application as written.
Conclusion
Status of the claims:
Claims 1-7 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IQBAL H CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-8137. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, at 9:00-5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Manjunath N. Rao, can be reached on 571-272-0939. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Iqbal H. Chowdhury, Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1656 (Recombinant Enzymes and Protein Crystallography)
US Patent and Trademark Office
Ph. (571)-272-8137 and Fax (571)-273-8137
/IQBAL H CHOWDHURY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1656
Prosecution Insights