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 .
Priority
This application claims priority to provisional application 63/219,916 and PCT/US2022/036459. Therefore, it is entitled to the 9th Jul 2021 priority date of the provisional application.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 are under consideration.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Fig. 1B references "LINE28" and "let-ta". These labels are not described in the specification.
Figs. 1D and 1E are missing labels on the right side of the figures.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following:
The Examples, pg. 21-22, do not correctly describe the partial views of FIGs. 1D-E. MPEP 608.01(f) states that “if the drawings show Figures 1A, 1B, and 1C and the brief description of the drawings refers to only Figure 1, the examiner should object to the brief description, and require applicant to provide a brief description of Figures 1A, 1B, and 1C.”
Accordingly, Applicant is required to describe the partial views present in FIG. 1E.
In addition, Applicant is required to correct the description of FIG. 1D, on pg. 22, lines 20-25. This description seems to refer to another view of Fig. 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 4-5, “low affinity” and “high affinity” are relative terms rendering the claims indefinite because the specification does not define these terms. In the Spec on pg. 21, lines 31-33, applicants describe the association of LIN28A with biotin labeled let-7a with a Kd ~25nM; then on pg. 22, lines 9-10, applicants discuss that the association of LIN28A with biotin labeled let-7a in the presence of repetitive and unstructured polyadenylic acid (poly A), with an average molecular weight of 250 kDa, could not displace LIN28A from pre-let-7 miRNA with a Kd-10nM. Thus, while Applicants measure Kd, they do not describe what of these, or any other Kd value, is high or low affinity binding.
Thus, a standard/control value that remains undefined, makes the metes and bounds of the claimed invention unclear.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Scope of the Invention
Claim 1 is directed to a method.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed method is a method to inhibit activity of a RNA binding protein (RBP) in a cell by delivering an inhibitory agent, which is an RNA, to the cell.
The scope of the invention includes an RNA inhibitor, which is an RNA molecule, that inhibits the function of RBP, by one of two ways:
#1. binds to and competitively blocks the natural substrate of the RBP from binding to it, or
# 2. binds to and allosterically blocks the natural substrate of the RBP from binding to it.
Disclosure of a Complete or Partial structure
However, the specification as filed does not provide an adequate written description of the vast genus of RNA molecules. that would be commensurate with the breadth of what is claimed.
The specification as filed provides a generic description or limiting disclosure of what is encompassed by the claimed invention. For e.g., on pg. 21, Example 1, the disclosure states: The vast number of non-miRNA sites on coding and ribosomal transcripts could act as binding decoys and could prevent LIN28 from regulating pre/pri-miRNA biogenesis. Then, they show, in a working example, that LIN28A can bind the sponge construct encoding an RNA sequence modeled after a high affinity target site detected in the Human HMGA2 3'UTR, which binds LIN28 preferentially at low concentrations (Fig. 1B). The LIN28 sponge construct serves as an effective competitor for LIN28A binding, as shown by the displacement of pre-let-7a miRNA from LIN28A (FIG. 1D). The sponge expression enhanced the biogenesis of let-7 family miRNAs, effectively showing inhibition of activity of the RBD, LIN28A (FIG. 3B).
Species not Disclosed
Thus, the inventors only discovered Lin28 inhibition in a cell. The specification and prior art of record only provide written support for wherein the RBP is LIN28A and the RNA inhibitor is an RNA sequence modeled after a high affinity target sequence detected in the Human HMGA2 3'UTR.
RBP:
The specification on pg. 7-pg. 16 lists hundreds of RBPs.
RBP binding agent:
The specification on pg. 18, 2nd to the last para states: In some embodiments, the RBP binding agent comprises a synthetic gene. As used herein, a "synthetic gene" can refer to a foreign nucleic sequence that is artificially engineered and/or assembled.
Thus, the genus of RBP is broad and each of the instantly disclosed genus of RNA inhibitors is targeted to a specific RBP, although the claims are drawn to any inhibitor and targeting any RBP. Further, the genus of inhibitors as recited, includes substantially different sequences.
Knowledge from the art
Nowak (Nowak (RNA, Vol. 23, No. 3, 317–332, 2016)) teaches that Lin28a is very well conserved across many species. It contains two highly conserved RNA-binding motifs within cold-shock (CSD) and tandem zinc-finger (ZnF) domains, with 79%–90% homology at the amino acid level across vertebrates. These domains are present in a number of RNA-binding proteins (such as YBX2, FRGY2, or NCp7); however, Lin28 proteins are the only metazoan proteins to have both (Introduction). Thus, Lin28 is a unique RBP in the sense that it uses two distinct mechanisms of binding to RNA and affects miRNA levels positively and negatively.
Structure/Function Correlation
The feature of the RBP and the RNA molecule that binds to it seem to be essential for the invention. RNA inhibitors could be single-stranded, circular, stem-loop and bind to their targets when designed as antisense oligonucleotides, siRNA and shRNA, each of which has a different structure and/or mechanism of action. There is no essential structure of record required for RNA inhibitors that bind to any RBP that would support written description for the genus of inhibitors that will bind RBP to inhibit activity of the RBP.
While it is acknowledged that it is routine and conventional to prepare these molecules, in view of MPEP 2163, adequate written description of RNA inhibitors requires more than just generically contemplating the species of inhibitors. The instant specification, fails to describe the product adequately. If the product is not described, a method of using that product cannot be adequately described.
In addition, the prior art and the as-filed specification do not provide written description to allow one of skill in the art to extrapolate from the evidence of LIN28A inhibition by an RNA species as shown, to inhibition of any other RBP by any other species of RNA inhibitors. Particularly so, as the art shows that LIN28A is a unique molecule at least with respect to its RNA binding domains. Therefore, one cannot extrapolate from evidence seen with LIN28 to any other RBP.
Dependent Claims
Claims 2-19 do not limit the scope, structure or sequence of the RNA binding agent and are therefore rejected for the same reasons as recited above for claim 1.
Conclusion of Written Description
The written description requirement for the claimed genus of inhibitors is not satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species. A representative number of species are not adequately described to be considered representative of the entire genus. There is substantial variation within the genus of agents that are RNA inhibitors that are specific for any given RBP, and the applicant does not describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus. In view of the lack of description for these species, it is evident that Applicant was not in possession of the full breath of the claimed inhibitors for inhibiting an RBP.
Claim Interpretation
The structure of an RNA binding site for the RBP is not limiting. Therefore, it will be interpreted as any RNA molecule, comprising any sequence, that binds to proteins.
The limitation, "synthetic gene" in claim 11 is being interpreted as defined in pg. 18, lines 25-26 of the spec.; i.e., a foreign nucleic sequence that is artificially engineered and/or assembled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 11-13, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Bindereif (EP 3819377 A1, published 12th May, 2021). Claim 4 is evidenced by Guo (Guo and Zhou, Chem Rev. 2016 Feb 15;116(11):6503–6515).
Regarding claim 1, Bindereif teaches a method for inhibiting RNA-binding proteins (title). The method comprises: 1. capturing the RNA-binding protein with a circular RNA molecule preferably in a sequence-specific manner, such that the functional activity of the RNA-binding proteins is inhibited (abstract). The method is carried out in a cell, where the cell can be present in vitro or in vivo [0094]. An embodiment of the method requires: Synthesis of large circRNAs or circRNA sponges that can be produced in vivo from a transfected circRNA expression construct (Pg. 16, last para; A circular RNA comprising a binding domain having a nucleotide sequence to which one or more copies of an RNA binding protein binds, thereby capturing and inhibiting the activity of the RNA-binding protein, claim 1; wherein the RNA-binding protein in the complex is unable to perform its metabolic activity, claim 31). See also the recitation of the RBP agent and its role in inhibiting activity of a RBP in a cell from [0009]:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Bindereif teaches, the circular RNA molecule can be single-stranded or double stranded (the circRNA described herein preferably is a circularized "single-stranded" RNA molecule, it may nonetheless contain self-complementary sequences that allow parts of the RNA to fold back and to form secondary structure motifs including without limitation base pairs, stems, stem loops and bulges, [0050]).
Regarding claim 3, Bindereif teaches, the circRNA contains four copies of a 20-mer binding sequence for a RBP (CA-SELEX X4, which contains four copies of a SELEX-derived 20-mer binding sequence for hnRNP L; Fig. 2 legend, pg.17).
Regarding claims 5 and 7, Bindereif teaches, the 20-mer CA-rich RNA sequence is an hnRNP L-high-affinity binding sequence [0132]. Bindereif teaches, wherein the circular RNA comprises a binding domain having a nucleotide sequence to which one or more copies of the RNA-binding protein binds [0027]. Bindereif recites in claim 4: [w]herein the number of CA or AC dinucleotides is at least 20, at least 30, at least 40, at least 50, at least 60, at least 75, at least 100, at least 125, at least 150, at least 175, at least 200, at least 250, at least 300, at least 350, at least 400, or at least 450 CA or AC dinucleotides.
Regarding claim 6, the Bindereif teaches, wherein the circular RNA comprises a binding domain having a nucleotide sequence to which one or more copies of the RNA-binding protein binds [0027].
Regarding claim 4, Bindereif teaches, a known role for circRNAs is allostery [0002]. As evidenced by Guo, substrate binding in an allosteric molecule will affect affinity of binding of further substrate molecules (abstract). Therefore, having one copy of the binding domain in the circular RNA as discussed for claim 6 above, will result in low affinity binding. When more binding sites become available, the affinity of binding will change.
Regarding claim 11, Bindereif teaches, the circRNAs can be synthetic (the term "RNA" relates to a molecule which comprises ribonucleotide residues … such as partially or completely purified RNA, essentially pure RNA, synthetic RNA [0051]; a linear synthetic (CA)32 RNA [0132]).
Regarding claims 12-13 and 15, Bindereif teaches, the circular RNA molecule can be made by any appropriate method known in the art (for example, transcription is driven by the highly active U6+27 promoter which works in mammalian cells) [0022]; use of DNA and RNA vectors [0065]). In a particular example, Bindereif teach HEK293 cell lines that stably express circRNAs were generated, based on transfecting a circRNA expression construct pcDNA5/FRT/TO vector (Thermo Fisher Scientific), [0124].
Regarding claim 18, Bindereif teaches, the RBP is Heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein (hnRNP) [0006].
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bindereif (EP 3819377 A1, published 12th May, 2021) as applied to claims 1-7, 11-13, 15, and 18 above, in view of Corley (Corley et al., Molecular Cell, Volume 78, Issue 1, 2 April 2020, Pages 9-29).
Regarding claim 8, Bindereif teaches the RNA molecule is a 20-mer CA-rich RNA sequence which is an hnRNP L-high-affinity binding sequence [0132], as taught for claim 1 and discussed in the rejection of claims 2-7.
Bindereif does not teach a plurality of binding sites for a plurality of different RBPs.
However, before the effective filing date of instant invention, Corley had taught a that there are various ways by which RNA binds RBPs, some well characterized while others are simply non-specific (pg. 12, R col; Table 2). Corley teaches RNA Recognition Motifs (RRMs) interact with 2–8 nt in single-stranded RNA (ssRNA) commonly through several sequential stacking interactions and hydrogen bonds with RNP motifs, often with nanomolar affinities. Each RRM has its own sequence preferences, often for degenerate sequences such as GU-rich tracts; the combination of consecutive RRMs in an RBP dramatically increases binding affinity and specificity (pg. 12, R col). Corley teaches, on the other hand, the KH domain is even smaller than the RRM domain, and typically recognizes 4 nt in ssRNA or ssDNA. Corley teaches, the combination of consecutive RNA Recognition Motifs (RRMs) in an RBP dramatically increases binding affinity (Id.).
In view of the teaching of Bindereif and Corley, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add at least one more cognate sequence of binding site matching the RRM in the RBP to the existing binding sites in Bindereif single stranded RNA molecule and thus regulate the activity of the RBP. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” One would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Corley teaches the availability of several well-studied RNA sequences of binding sites and the corresponding RBP having RRMs that recognize each site. See MPEP 2143 I A or KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
Thus, Bindereif in view of Corley make obvious instant claim 8.
Claim(s) 14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bindereif (EP 3819377 A1, published 12th May, 2021) as applied to claims 1-7, 11-13, 15, and 18 above, in view of Akama-Garren (Akama-Garren EH, et al.,. Sci Rep. 2016 Feb 18;6:16836.). Claim 14 is evidenced by Addgene ([retrieved on 2026-06-08]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://www.addgene.org/68457/>; 1 pg.).
Regarding claims 14 and 16-17, Bindereif teaches the expression of the RNA sequence is driven by a highly active promoter which works in mammalian cells.
Bindereif does not teach the promoter is Tet Response Element (TRE) or viral delivery.
However, before the effective filing date of instant invention, Akama-Garren had taught a method of making a TRE promoter, which is a modified form of TOPO, by modular assembly of known regulatory elements and a delivery system using a lenti or retroviral vector. As evidenced by the deposited clone in Addgene, Akama-Garren’s promoter, tight TRE promoter, features two copies of tetO upstream of a T7 promoter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to substitute the TOPO vector suggested by Bindereif to express the RNA sequence that binds to a RBP, with a vector that comprises a TRE promoter as taught by Akama-Garren, because Akama-Garren teach how to construct such a vector and the advantage of having an inducible viral system. One of skill in the art knows about allostery, and so would include multiple (at least two, as taught by Akama-Garren) tetO binding sites that would result in a TRE promoter, to allow cooperative binding, which enhances transcriptional activation and reduces leakiness compared to a single TetO site. One of skill would then be able to alter the number and arrangement of TetO repeats in TREs that would result in a pTRE, and to fine-tune the sensitivity to tetracycline/doxycycline, thus allowing control of dose and timing of RNA expression, which is critical for in vivo studies where precise spatiotemporal control is needed. See MPEP 2143 I G.
Thus, Bindereif in view of Akama-Garren make obvious instant claims 14 and 16-17.
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bindereif (EP 3819377 A1, published 12th May, 2021) as applied to claims 1-7, 11-13, 15, and 18 above, in view of Steckelberg and Brown (Steckelberg et al. PNAS | June19,2018 | vol.115 | no.25 | 6404–6409 and Brown et al., Nature structural & molecular biology, VOLUME 21 NUMBER 7 JULY 2014 633-642).
Regarding claims 9-10, Bindereif teaches an RNA molecule comprising a sequence which binds to an RBP in a cell, as discussed for claim 1 above.
Bindereif does not teach the RNA molecule comprises stabilizing sequences.
However, before the effective filing date of instant invention, Stackelberg had taught many functional RNAs rely on a pseudoknot that forms a protective structure to form a stable exoribonuclease-resistant state (bridging left and right col, pg. 6404). Steckelberg taught an example of a structured RNA for blocking exoribonuclease degradation is the Exo-element from SCNMV at the 5’-end of the RNA. The Exo-element + RNA adopts a three-dimensional structure that blocks the progression of 5’ to 3’ exoribonucleases such as Xrn1 (Fig. 5).
Also, before the effective filing date of instant invention, Brown taught the MALAT1 lncRNA, forms a bipartite triple helix that sequesters the 3′ end of the RNA within a U•AU triple, conferring resistance to rapid RNA decay (right col, pg. 6404).
In view of the teaching of Steckelberg and Brown, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to try to add the protective elements taught by Steckelberg and Brown to the RNA molecule taught by Bindereif for the advantage of having a stable and exonuclease-resistant molecule that could be used in a cell. One would have had reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Steckelberg and Brown taught all the steps required to carry out such modification; i.e., the sequences of the protective elements and a method of adding these sequences to RNA molecules. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” See KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
Thus, Bindereif in view of Steckelberg and Brown make obvious instant claims 9-10.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bindereif (EP 3819377 A1, published 12th May, 2021) as applied to claims 1-7, 11-13, 15, and 18 above, in view of Nowak (Nowak et al., RNA, Vol. 23, No. 3, 317–332, 2016).
Regarding claim 19, Bindereif teaches an RNA sequence for binding hnRNP.
Bindereif does not teach wherein the RBP is LIN28.
However, before the effective filing date of instant invention, Nowak had taught LIN28 is an RBP with RNA motifs which are different between the RNAs that are upregulated/downregulated by LIN28 (following binding) (Fig. 9A; the well-known AGGG and GGAG Lin28a-binding motifs, which are located in the conserved terminal loop (Fig. 1A,C)). Nowak teach a method of testing the binding of Lin28a to its cognate RNA by EMSA (Fig. 4). Nowak teach that the binding is abrogated when the specific binding sequences on the RNA molecule are mutated (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Bindereif’s RNA molecule to include binding sequences specific for LIN28 for the advantage of having a system to study LIN28. One would have had reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Nowak taught all the steps required to carry out such modification; i.e., RNA binding sequence and a method of testing the binding. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” See KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
Thus, Bindereif in view of Nowak make obvious instant claim 19.
Therefore the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains.
Relevant Prior Art Not relied Upon
The following art is made note of and not currently relied on, but is relevant to applicants invention. Balzeau (Balzeau et al., (Front. Genet. 8:31, 2017), IDS 5/15/2024) review the LIN28/let-7 pathway. They suggest that a truncated stem loop short RNA duplex which has a similar structure to let-7 miRNAs might also help increase let-7 level by acting as a competitive binding inhibitor for LIN28AB., for example. See this statement and more from pg. 12, Left col. 2nd to last para, in the recitation below:
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The closest prior art is applied above.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHABANA MEYERING, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (703)756-4603. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 9am to 5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ram Shukla can be reached at (571) 272-0735. 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.
SHABANA S. MEYERING, Ph.D.
Examiner
Art Unit 1635
/SHABANA S MEYERING/ Examiner, Art Unit 1635
/CATHERINE KONOPKA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1635
Prosecution Insights