DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 30 June 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 138 and 139 are therefore withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 30 June 2026.
3. Claims 120-137 are under prosecution.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The Information Disclosure Statements filed 29 July 2024 and 22 September 2025 are acknowledged and have been considered.
It is noted that the listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
5. The use of trade names or marks used in commerce (including but not necessarily limited to Therminator), has been noted in this application. Any trade names or marks should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
6. The amendments to the Specification filed 30 June 2026 are entered.
Claim Interpretation
7. As noted in the Requirement for Restriction mailed 30 April 2026, the claims are drawn to a “system.” The specification recites a “system” wherein the “system” is defined in terms of structural limitations. In addition, the claims recite structural limitations of the “system.” Thus, the “system” is interpreted to encompass any collection of reagents and parts used together that are not necessarily part of a completely integrated single unitary device. Any further interpretation of the word is considered an “intended use” and does not impart any further structural limitation on the claimed subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 and Claim Interpretation
8. 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.
9. Claims 120-137 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.
A. Claim 120 (upon which claims 121-137 depend) is indefinite in each of the following:
I. The recitation “less than about” in claim 120. The phrase “less than” typically indicates a maximum point; however, the phrase “less than” is controverted by the term “about,” which implies that values above and below the indicated amount are permitted. Therefore, the juxtaposition of these two terms makes it unclear what maximum values are encompassed by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05 (b) III; which discusses the phrase “at least about.” The phrase “less than about” is deemed indefinite for similar reasons.
II. The recitation “l/(2*NA^2),” as it is unclear if Applicant is using the equation to define depth-of-focus or one half the depth-of-focus.
In addition, it is unclear what “NA” stands for. Forth the purposes of examination, “NA” is interpreted as “numerical aperture.”
B. Claim 122 is indefinite in the recitation l/2*NA), as it is unclear if Applicant is using the equation to define the diffraction limit or one half the diffraction limit.
In addition, it is unclear what “NA” stands for. For the purposes of examination, “NA” is interpreted as “numerical aperture.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Claims 120-124, 126-129, 133, and 136-137 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Celedon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0361016 A2, published 28 November 2019) and Staker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0274028 A1, published 27 September 2018) and, as applied to claim 121, as evidenced by Gray et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2013/0296195 A1, published 7 November 2013).
Regarding claim 120, Celedon et al. teach imaging systems (paragraph 0118) comprising an analyte disposed on a substrate, in the form of a solid support 3, which comprises an attached probe bound to a target analyte 6, which has a dimension (i.e., length) orthogonal to the substrate and is bound to a support, in the form of a solid support (i.e., detectable piece 203; Figure 2a and paragraph 0032), wherein the solid support aids in keeping the analyte orthogonal (i.e., perpendicular) to the substrate (paragraph 0124). Celedon et al. also teach the dimension of the analyte (i.e., the complex region) is 100 nm in length (paragraph 0011), and that the depth-of-focus (i.e., field) of the imaging system is 500 micrometers (paragraph 0130); thus, the 100 nm length is less than half of the 500 micrometer depth-of-field (i.e., focus). Celedon et al. also teach the systems have the added advantage of distinguishing specific from non-specific binding of analytes (Abstract). Thus, Celedon et al. tach the known techniques discussed above.
It is also noted that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” and even when the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have similar properties, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F2d 775. 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP 2144.05.01).
The courts have also found that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Therefore, the claimed ranges merely represent an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the values of the cited prior art.
Applicant is advised that MPEP 716.01(c) makes clear that “[t]he arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record” (In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965)). Thus, Applicant should not merely rely upon counsel’s arguments in place of evidence in the record.
Celedon et al. do not explicitly teach an imaging module.
However, Staker et al. teach optical detection systems for imaging polynucleotides (Abstract) comprising imaging modules (paragraph 0050). Staker et al. also teach a numerical aperture of 1 and a wavelength of 600 nm (paragraph 0022), which results in a depth-of-focus of 300 nm, which is more than twice the size of the dimension of Celedon et al. Staker et al. also teach the systems have the added advantage of allowing detection at or below the diffraction limit of optical systems (Abstract). Thus, Staker et al. teach the known techniques discussed above.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of the cited prior art to arrive at the instantly claimed system with a reasonable expectation of success. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make the combination because said combination would have resulted in a system having the added advantages of distinguishing specific from non-specific binding of analytes as explicitly taught by Celedon et al. (Abstract) and allowing detection at or below the diffraction limits as explicitly taught by Staker et al. (Abstract). In addition, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan that the known techniques of the cited prior art could have been combined with predictable results because the known techniques of the cited prior art predictably result in systems useful for detecting nucleic acids.
Regarding claim 121, the system of claim 120 is discussed above. Celedon et al. teach the substrate (i.e., solid support) is silica (paragraph 0073), which is selectively passivatable as evidenced by Gray et al. (Abstract).
It is noted that the claim does not actually require any portion of the substrate to be passivated.
Regarding claim 122, the system of claim 120 is discussed above. Celedon et al. teach the dimension parallel to the substate is 10 nm (i.e., the diameter of the particle; paragraph 0101). Staker et al. teach the diameter a numerical aperture of 1 and a wavelength of 600 nm; thus, the diffraction limit is 300 nm, and the second dimension is therefore less than one half the diffraction limit.
It is reiterated that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art and even when the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have similar properties, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, and that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Therefore, the claimed ranges merely represent an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the values of the cited prior art, especially in view of the teaching of Staker et al. that detection below the diffraction limit improves efficiency and accuracy (Abstract).
Applicant is again cautioned against merely relying upon counsel’s arguments in place of evidence in the record. Regarding claim 123, the system of claim 120 is discussed above. Celedon et al. teach the support (i.e., detectable piece) is spherical (paragraph 0123).
In addition, the courts have found that changes in shape are obvious (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). Thus, any shape of the support is an obvious variant of the shape of the cited prior art. See MPEP 2144.04 IV B.
Applicant is again cautioned against merely relying upon counsel’s arguments in place of evidence in the record.
Regarding claims 124 and 126, the system of claim 120 is discussed above. Celedon et al. teach the support is a nanoparticle, in the form of a bead with a diameter of 10 nm (i.e., claim 124; paragraph 0100), and Staker et al. teach adapters comprising primers (i.e., claims 124 and 126; paragraph 0017). Thus, it would have been obvious to have primers that bind to an analyte (i.e., claim 126) on the support (i.e., claim 124).
Regarding claim 127, the system of claim 120 is discussed above. Celedon et al. teach the support (i.e., particle) comprises a metal (paragraph 0073).
Regarding claim 128, the system of claim 120 is discussed above. Celedon et al. teach the support comprises a nucleic acid, in the form of first probe 4 (Figure 2A and paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 129, the system of claim 120 is discussed above. Celedon et al. teach the support (i.e., detectable piece) is a nanorod (paragraph 0103)..
In addition, it is reiterated that the courts have found that changes in shape are obvious. Thus, any shape of the support is an obvious variant of the shape of the cited prior art.
Applicant is again cautioned against merely relying upon counsel’s arguments in place of evidence in the record.
Regarding claims 133 and 137, the system of claim 120 is discussed above. Celedon et al. teach analyte 6 is immobilized on substrate 3 (i.e., claim 133) via anchor moieties, in the form of probes 210/205 (i.e., Figure 2A and paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 136, the system of claim 120 is discussed above. Staker et al. teach concatemers (paragraph 0012).
13. Claim 125 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Celedon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0361016 A2, published 28 November 2019) and Staker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0274028 A1, published 27 September 2018) as applied to claim 120 above, and further in view of Tinnefeld et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2014/0057805 A1, published 27 February 2014).
Regarding claim 125, the system of claim 120 is discussed above in Section 12.
While Celedon et al. and Staker et al. each teach the systems comprise a microscope (paragraphs 0126 and 0125, respectively), none of the previously cited prior art teaches the support is an origami structure.
However, Tinnefeld et al. teach DNA origami molecules as labeling molecules, which have the added advantage of allowing microscope calibration (paragraph 0024). Thus, Tinnefeld et al. teach the known techniques discussed above.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Tinnefeld et al. with the previously cited prior art to arrive at the instantly claimed system with a reasonable expectation of success. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make the combination because said combination would have resulted in a system having the added advantage of allowing microscope calibration as explicitly taught by Tinnefeld et al. (Abstract). In addition, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan that the known techniques of Tinnefeld et al. could have been combined with the previously cited prior art with predictable results because the known techniques of Tinnefeld et al. predictably result in particles (i.e., origami) useful for detecting nucleic acids.
14. Claims 130-132 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Celedon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0361016 A2, published 28 November 2019) and Staker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0274028 A1, published 27 September 2018) as applied to claim 120 above, and further in view of Ma (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0298709 A1, published 3 December 2009).
Regarding claims 130-132 , the system of claim 120 is discussed above in Section 12.
Celedon et al. teach the support is a nanoparticle, in the form of a bead with a diameter of 10 nm (paragraph 0100) having probes attached thereto (Figure 2A), and Staker et al. teach adapters comprising primers (paragraph 0017). Thus, it would have been obvious to have primers on the support (i.e., claim 132).
None of the previously cited prior art teaches the claimed repeating regions (i.e., claims 130-131).
However, Ma teaches the capture of target nucleic acid molecules using linkers (i.e., claim 131) that target repeats in the analyte (i.e., claim 130; Figures 2A-2C), which has the added advantage of allowing multiplex detection of a repeated sequence element in multiple targets simultaneously (paragraph 0109-0110). Thus, Ma teaches the known techniques discussed above.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Ma with the previously cited prior art to arrive at the instantly claimed system with a reasonable expectation of success. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make the combination because said combination would have resulted in a system having the added advantage of allowing multiplex detection of a repeated sequence element in multiple targets simultaneously as explicitly taught by Ma (paragraphs 0109-0110). In addition, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan that the known techniques of Ma could have been combined with the previously cited prior art with predictable results because the known techniques of Ma predictably result in particles useful for detecting nucleic acids associated with, for example, chromosomal stability (paragraph 0003 of Ma).
15. Claim 134 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Celedon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0361016 A2, published 28 November 2019) and Staker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0274028 A1, published 27 September 2018) as applied to claim 120 above, and further in view of Lau (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0078983 A1, published 13 April 2006).
Regarding claim 134, the system of claim 120 is discussed above in Section 12.
While Celedon et al. and Staker et al. each teach the detectable piece (i.e., the particle of Celedon et al. or the label of Staker et al.) exhibits chemiluminescence (paragraphs 0105 and 0102, respectively) none of the previously cited prior art teaches artifacts.
However, Lau teaches the addition of pigments, which are adjacent the analyte because they are present in the microarray substrate, that enhance the detected chemiluminescence signal by advantageously decreasing the background (paragraph 0076). Thus, Lau teaches the known techniques discussed above.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Lau with the previously cited prior art to arrive at the instantly claimed system with a reasonable expectation of success. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make the combination because said combination would have resulted in a system having the added advantage of enhanced chemiluminescence signals due to the reduced background as explicitly taught by Lau (paragraph 0076). In addition, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan that the known techniques of Lau could have been combined with the previously cited prior art with predictable results because the known techniques of Lau predictably result in substrates useful for detecting nucleic acids.
16. Claim 135 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Celedon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0361016 A2, published 28 November 2019) and Staker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0274028 A1, published 27 September 2018) as applied to claim 120 above, and further in view of Schwartz et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2013/0344508 A1, published 26 December 2013).
Regarding claim 135, the system of claim 120 is discussed above in Section 12.
None of the previously cited prior art teaches the analyte comprises a scaffold.
However, Schwartz et al. teach detection of scaffolds, which has the added advantage of providing an enhanced signal and minimization of detection errors from background noise (paragraph 0185). Thus, Scwartz et al. teach the known techniques discussed above.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Schwartz et al. with the previously cited prior art to arrive at the instantly claimed system with a reasonable expectation of success. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make the combination because said combination would have resulted in a system having the added advantage of providing an enhanced signal and minimization of detection errors from background noise as explicitly taught by Schwartz et al. (paragraph 0185). In addition, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan that the known techniques of Schwarts et al. could have been combined with the previously cited prior art with predictable results because the known techniques of Schwartz et al. predictably result in readily detectable nucleic acids.
Double Patenting
17. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
18. Claims 120-124, 126-129, 133, and 136-137 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 69-71 and 74-83 of copending Application No. 17/946,742 in view of Celedon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0361016 A2, published 28 November 2019) and Staker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0274028 A1, published 27 September 2018) and, as applied to claim 121, as evidenced by Gray et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2013/0296195 A1, published 7 November 2013).
Both sets of claims are drawn to analytes on substrates, imaging relative to the depth -of-focus, etc. Any additional limitations of the ‘742 claims are encompassed by the open claim language “comprising” found in the instant claims.
The ‘742 claims do not teach the orthogonal direction of the imaging module.
However, these limitations, as well as the additional limitations of the remaining claims and the rationale for combining, are taught by Celedon et al. and Staker et al. as discussed above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
19. Claim 125 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 69-71 and 74-83 of copending Application No. 17/946,742 in view of Celedon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0361016 A2, published 28 November 2019) and Staker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0274028 A1, published 27 September 2018) as applied to claim 120 above, and further in view of Tinnefeld et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2014/0057805 A1, published 27 February 2014) based on the citations and rationale provided above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
20. Claims 130-132 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 69-71 and 74-83 of copending Application No. 17/946,742 in view of Celedon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0361016 A2, published 28 November 2019) and Staker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0274028 A1, published 27 September 2018) as applied to claim 120 above, and further in view of Ma (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0298709 A1, published 3 December 2009) based on the citations and rationale provided above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
21. Claim 134 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 69-71 and 74-83 of copending Application No. 17/946,742 in view of Celedon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0361016 A2, published 28 November 2019) and Staker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0274028 A1, published 27 September 2018) as applied to claim 120 above, and further in view of Lau (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0078983 A1, published 13 April 2006) based on the citations and rationale provided above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
25. Claim 135 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 69-71 and 74-83 of copending Application No. 17/946,742 in view of Celedon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0361016 A2, published 28 November 2019) and Staker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0274028 A1, published 27 September 2018) as applied to claim 120 above, and further in view of Schwartz et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2013/0344508 A1, published 26 December 2013)
based on the citations and rationale provided above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
26. No claim is allowed.
27. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert T. Crow whose telephone number is (571)272-1113. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30.
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, Anne Gussow can be reached at 571-272-6047. 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.
Robert T. Crow
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1683
/Robert T. Crow/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1683
Prosecution Insights