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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references on pages 40-42 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.
Duty to Disclose
Applicant is reminded of their “Duty of Disclosure, Candor, and Good Faith” (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 and MPEP § 2001). Information that would be considered material to patentability includes: 1) The parental plants utilized in the breeding program that generated the instant variety, as well as the specific breeding steps/techniques used to arrive at the instant variety, 2) any progeny, siblings, half-siblings, or other closely genetically related plants that are either co-pending applications or previously published or publicly disclosed, 3) if the instant variety was developed using backcrossing, then Applicant should disclose this along with which parent was the recurrent parent and what locus/loci/event/transgene was introgressed from the non-recurrent parent, 4) if parental varieties that are crossed to arrive at the instantly claimed variety were developed via backcrossing this should be disclosed along with the grandparents, including which grandparent was the recurrent parent along with any publications or public disclosures of the recurrent parent and what events/loci/transgenes/traits were donated from the non-recurrent parent, 5) if there is a locus converted or multiple loci converted between the deposited seeds and the seeds used for the plants grown for the trait table in the specification, then Applicant should specify which loci were converted and which traits differ when compared to plants grown from the deposited seeds, 5) any alternative designations, experimental names, tradenames, etc. for the instant plant, parent plants, and grandparent plants (if backcrossing was used) should be disclosed. All of this information is material to patentability. If, for example, one of the parent plants is published but with a different name/designation, then the publication should be included in the IDS along with an explanation that the different name/designation is a synonym and how this plant is related to the instantly claimed plant.
Need for Biological Deposit
Applicant has deposited seeds for the instant variety under the Budapest Treaty with the NCIMB (Spec 42-43 ¶ ¶ 175-176). The deposit has been accepted under the Budapest Treaty and Applicant has stated that all restrictions to public availability will be irrevocably removed upon the granting of the patent (Id.). For this reason, Applicant has satisfied all of the requirements under 37 CFR 1.801-1.809. No rejection under 35 USC 112 for lacking a biological deposit for enabling the variety has been made, but for the perfected deposit rejections, specifically for this issue would have been made.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 13 is interpreted to be directed to a combination of both a container and the plant, plant part, or seed of lettuce variety NUN 08249 LTL contained within the container. If the same container does not comprise this plant, plant part, or seed in it, then the container by itself would not be covered by this claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 9, and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities: each of these claims recites crossing a plant with “itself” and this is technically incorrect. Crossing involves using pollen from one plant to fertilize a flower on a different plant; whereas when pollen from a plant fertilizes a flower on the same plant it is referred to as “selfing” (Spec 15, ¶¶ 82-83).
Appropriate correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Indefiniteness
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 1-25 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. All dependent claims are included in these rejections unless they include a limitation that overcomes the deficiencies of the parent claim.
The claims are directed to a plant, plant part, or seed of lettuce variety NUN 08249LTL, and to products derived from said plants, plant parts, and seeds, and to methods of making and using the plants, plant parts, seeds, and products.
The following definition is provided for the word “plant”:
PNG
media_image1.png
61
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Spec 7)
This means that any time the word “plant” appears in a claim, it is inclusive of a whole plant, plant part, or derivative of a plant/plant part, and it is NOT required to have the same genetic makeup as the plant from which it is obtained. This raises indefiniteness for every claim, because starting at claim 1, it is completely unclear what the metes and bounds of the claims are. It is clear claim 1 is inclusive of products that are not required to have the same genetic makeup as the seeds that have been deposited. It is unclear what is included by “derivative”.
The word “derivative” is defined by the Merriam Webster online dictionary by multiple different definitions. For the closest context (chemistry), it is defined as a chemical substance related structurally to another substance and theoretically derivable from it OR as a substance that can be made from another substance (on the world wide web at merriam-webster.com/dictionary/derivative). It is unclear which substances that can be derived from a plant or plant part are encompassed by this claim. Does it include extracts? Progeny? Isolated proteins?
The metes and bounds of claim 1 and every claim that recites “plant” and every claim that depends on a claim that recites “plant” are completely unclear.
In addition, multiple claims recite “a representative sample of seed of said variety NUN 08249 LTL has been deposited under Accession Number NCIMB 43875”. Given that the word “plant” specifically states that the plant is not required to have the same genetic makeup as the plant from which it is obtained because having the same genetics is merely preferable, it is unclear how the deposited seeds are “representative”.
For claims 6, 12, 21, 22 and 24, specifically, it is unclear what “physiological and morphological characteristics are required for the claimed lettuce plant, because the plant of claim 1 includes derivatives that are not required to have the same genetic makeup. Without known what characteristics are required, one would not be able to determine if any given lettuce plant has the same characteristics.
For claim 17, specifically, it is unclear what “further comprises” means. Claim 17 is directed to a lettuce plant comprising a single locus conversion (claims 1 and 16) that “further comprises the single locus conversion”. If a plant were to comprise a single locus conversion, then it cannot comprise another “single” locus conversion, because there would be two locus conversions which is no longer a “single” locus conversion. In addition the use of the article “the” gives the impression that the claimed plant further comprises the same locus conversion that it already had in claim 22 from which it depends. This does not make sense. The metes and bounds of claim 17 are not clear. If Applicant intends for claim 17 to be limited to comprising only one single locus conversion, then they are advised to delete the word “further” in the first line. In this way “the single locus conversion” in the second line is referring back to the single locus conversion recited in claim 16.
For claim 21, specifically, the claim is directed to a method that comprises obtaining nucleic acids from the plant of claim 1 and detecting in these nucleic acids a plurality of polymorphisms. A polymorphism is a difference in nucleotide sequence. It is unclear what the control nucleotide sequence is. Will the claim require comparing the nucleotide sequence of the instant plant with some other control plant? If so, what is the control plant? Is the claim intended to detect polymorphisms between the two copies of the chromosomes? This is confusing, because the claimed variety is disclosed as being an inbred (Spec 7 ¶ 38). If the plant is truly inbred, then the two copies of the chromosome should be homozygous. For these reasons, it is unclear how a particular sequence will be determined to be a “polymorphism”.
Inadequate Written Description
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 1-34 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. All dependent claims are included in these rejections unless they include a limitation that overcomes the deficiencies of the parent claim.
The claims are broadly drawn to a plant, plant part, or seed of lettuce variety NUN 08249LTL, and to products derived from said plants, plant parts, and seeds, and to methods of making and using the plants, plant parts, seeds, and products. As discussed, above, in the indefiniteness rejection under 35 USC 112B, it is completely unclear what the metes and bounds of the claims are. The genus of products covered by the product claims and the genus of products utilized in the method claims is infinitely large.
Applicant has described lettuce variety NUN 08249 LTL, in part by depositing a representative sample of seed with the NCIMB, and in part by including three trait tables (Spec 44-49). Presumably the plants grown to collect the data for these traits tables are from the same batch of seeds as the seeds deposited with the NCIMB with no changes to the genetics between the deposited seeds and the seeds used for collecting the data.
Applicant has not described any derivatives of lettuce variety NUN 08249 LTL. Applicant has not described any plants, plant parts, or derivatives that do not share the same genetic makeup as variety NUN 08249 LTL and the deposited seeds.
With regard to variety NUN 08249 LTL, itself; i.e. the seeds that were deposited, this has not bee adequately described because there is insufficient information about the breeding history. None of the germplasm utilized in the breeding program has been taught in the specification, and the specification discloses that after a cross of unknown parents, the progeny was either self-pollinated or backcrossed with specifying which of these breeding techniques was actually utilized, and if backcrossing was utilized, the recurrent parent was not disclosed (Spec 42 ¶ 173).
35 USC 112 (a) states that “The specification shall contain a written description of the invention”. In evaluating written description, the threshold question is what is “an adequate written description”. This is question of fact that is evaluated by the factfinder (examiner). MPEP 2163.04 clearly states that “The inquiry into whether the description requirement is met must be determined on a case-by-case basis and is a question of fact. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976).”
The instant invention is a new lettuce variety (08249). So, the examiner will evaluate what is an adequate written description for a new lettuce variety. In reviewing this question of fact, the examiner analyzed how plant varieties are evaluated in the public domain. The review concluded that generally the minimum requirements for an adequate description of a new plant variety has a trait table and genetic information (via a breeding history). In reviewing applicant’s specification there is a phenotypic description as is seen in tables 1-3 (Spec 44-49). However, there is no accompanying breeding history in the specification. Because the specification lacks a breeding history and that breeding history is part of the minimum description of a plant variety the applicant has not fulfilled the requirement of 35 USC 112(a) to provide a written description in the specification. The office’s reasonable basis for challenging the adequacy of written description is informed by a review of the following:
With regard to Plant Patents, MPEP 1605 states that a complete detailed description of a plant includes “the origin or parentage”.
A breeding history, including information about parentage and breeding methodology, is part of the requirements of Plant Variety Protection (PVP) applications. That information is used to “determine if development is sufficient to consider the variety new” (See “Applying for a Plant Variety Certificate of Protection”, USDA, https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/pv po/application-help/apply, downloaded 05/01/2023, (U)).
The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) considers breeding history and methodology part of its evaluation of essentially derived plant varieties (UPOV, Explanatory Notes on Essentially Derived Varieties Under the 1991 Act of the UPOV Convention, April 6, 2017, See UPOV EDV Explanatory Notes 14 and 30 (V)).
Historically, the USPTO has considered breeding history information when determining the patentability of a new plant variety. (See Ex Parte C (USPQ 2d 1492 (1992) (W) and Ex Parte McGowen Board Decision in Application 14/996,093, decided June 15, 2020 (X)). In both of these cases, there were many differences cited by the Applicant when comparing the prior art and the new plant variety. However, because the breeding history was available, these differences were deemed to be obvious and within the natural variation expected in a backcrossing breeding process. Without a breeding history in these cases, a complete comparison with the prior art could not have been possible.
As seen above in Ex Parte C and Ex Parte McGowan, a trait table is insufficient to differentiate varieties by itself. It has been long established that intracultivar heterogeneity exists in crop species. Haun et al. (Plant Physiology, Feb. 2011, Vol. 155, pp. 645-655 (Y)) teaches that the assumption that elite cultivars are composed of relatively homogenous genetic pools is false. (p. 645, left column). Segregation, recombination, DNA transposition, epigenetic processes, and spontaneous mutations are some of the reasons elite cultivar populations will maintain some degree of plant-to-plant variation (p. 645, right column and p. 646, left column). In addition to genetic variation, environmental variation may lead to phenotypic variation within a cultivar. (Großkinsky et al., J. Exp. Bot., Vol. 66, No. 11, pp. 5429-5440, 2015 (Z), p. 5430, left column, 1st full paragraph, and right column, 2nd full paragraph). In view of this variability, a breeding history is an essential and the least burdensome way to provide genetic information needed to adequately describe a newly developed plant.
The above factual evidence provides a reasonable basis that a breeding history is necessary written description. With this information the examiner has met the initial burden of presenting by a preponderance of evidence why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize in an applicant’s disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. (See MPEP 2163.04). Please note, the citations above are not for legal authority, the legal authority relied upon by the examiner is the 35 USC 112(a) statute. The citations are presented to support the finding of fact that a breeding history is necessary to the adequate description of a plant.
Although not directly relied upon for the above written description position, a complete written description additionally helps drive examination and help with infringement verification.
MPEP 2163 (I) states “The written description of the deposited material needs to be as complete as possible because the examination for patentability proceeds solely on the basis of the written description. See, e.g., In re Lundak, 773 F.2d 1216, 227 USPQ 90 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also 54 Fed. Reg. at 34,880 ("As a general rule, the more information that is provided about a particular deposited biological material, the better the examiner will be able to compare the identity and characteristics of the deposited biological material with the prior art.").”
MPEP 2163(I) states “The description must be sufficient to permit verification that the deposited biological material is in fact that disclosed. Once the patent issues, the description must be sufficient to aid in the resolution of questions of infringement." Id. at 34,880.)” (Quoting the Deposit of Biological Materials for Patent Purposes, Final Rule, 54 Fed. Reg. 34,864 (August 22, 1989) at 34,880).
The breeding history aids in the resolution of patent infringement by providing information necessary to determine whether differences in the plants are genetic differences, differences caused by the environment, or differences within the accepted variation within a variety.
Moreover, a specification devoid of a complete breeding history hampers the public’s ability to resolve infringement analysis with plants already in the prior art as well as plants that have not yet been patented. Because the instant specification lacks the complete breeding history, the public will not be able to fully resolve questions of infringement. Since the breeding history, including the parents, is not known to the public, the public could only rely on the phenotypes of the claimed plants for assessing potential infringement.
Thus, an application that does not clearly describe the breeding history does not provide an adequate written description of the invention.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant must amend the specification/drawing to provide the breeding history used to develop the instant cultivar. When identifying the breeding history, Applicant should identify any and all other potential names for all parental lines utilized in the development of the instant cultivar/variety and all other potential names for the claimed cultivar/variety. If Applicant’s breeding history uses proprietary cultivar names, Applicant should notate in the specification all other names of the proprietary cultivars, especially publicly disclosed or patented cultivar information. If the breeding history encompasses a locus conversion or a backcrossing process, Applicant should clearly indicate the recurrent parent and the donor plant and specifically name the trait or transgenic event that is being donated to the recurrent parent. If one of the parents is a backcross progeny or locus converted line of a publicly disclosed line, Applicant should provide the breeding history of the parent line as well (i.e., grandparents). Applicant should identify the breeding method used, such as single seed descent, bulk method, backcross method, etc., and the filial generation in which the instant plant was chosen. Information pertaining to the homozygosity or heterozygosity of the parents as well as the instant plant should be set forth.
Applicant is reminded that they have a duty to disclose information material to patentability. Applicant should also notate the most similar plants which should include any other plants created using similar breeding history (such as siblings of the instant cultivar). If there any patent applications or patents in which sibs or parents of the instant plant are claimed, the serial numbers and names of the sibs or parents should be disclosed. This information can be submitted in an IDS with a notation of the relevancy to the instant application or as information submitted as described in MPEP 724 (e.g., trade secret, proprietary, and Protective Order).
35 USC 112(a) clearly states “The specification (emphasis added) shall contain a written description of the invention”. Thus, the breeding history for the claimed cultivar as disclosed in the Specification is incomplete. Additionally, paragraph [0039] states the term “plant” includes “derivative” and is not required to have the same genetic makeup as the plant from which it is obtained. Thus, the claims are not directed to the deposited seeds or plants grown therefrom. The claims are directed to a genus of lettuce plants and seeds that are genotypically and phenotypically different from the deposit, and have different traits from those disclosed in the specification. Given these differences, the complete breeding history for producing the claimed cultivar, including all names for the parents and for the claimed cultivar, are material for patentability. A specification devoid of a complete breeding history hampers the public’s ability to fully resolve questions of infringement.
Claim 19 is specifically rejected for an inadequate written description of the broad genus of plants that the claim encompasses. The claim is directed to a lettuce plant produced by mutating a target gene in a NUN 08249 LTL lettuce plant by gene editing. There is no limit to how much of the genome can be edited relative to the seeds that will be deposited and no limit to how many traits can be changed relative to plants grown from the deposited seeds and relative to the traits disclosed in the trait table. Because there is no particular genomic DNA that is required to remain the same and no particular trait that is required to remain the same, this genus of lettuce plants is not described by either a shared structure (genomic DNA) or by a shared function (phenotypic traits). For this reason, the genus of plants encompassed by claim 19 is not sufficiently described across the breadth of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Van Zee, J. (US Pre-Grant Publication US 2020/0396933 A1; published on Dec. 24, 2020.
The claims are directed to a plant, plant part, or seed of lettuce variety NUN 08249LTL, and to products derived from said plants, plant parts, and seeds, and to methods of making and using the plants, plant parts, seeds, and products. As discussed, above, in the indefiniteness rejection under 35 USC 112B, it is completely unclear what the metes and bounds of the claims are. It is unclear which physiological and morphological characteristics are required, and it is unclear which genetic material, if any, is required. For this reason, a lettuce plant that appears to be similar is not excluded from the claims.
Van Zee teaches lettuce variety NUN 09093 LTL (abstract). Comparing Van Zee’s Tables 1 and 2 (Munoz 16-19) with the instant Trait tables 1-3 (Spec 44-49), many of the traits are the same: absent or weak overlapping leaves, semi-erect leaf attitude, concave longitudinal section, absent or very weak anthocyanin coloration, green leaves, thick leaves, absent or weak blistering, medium undulation of margin, flabellate venation, and Frillice type.
Instant claims 1-5 are almost identical in wording to Van Zee’s claims 1-5 other than the name of the variety.
Instant claim 6 maps to Van Zee’s claim 9.
Instant claim 7 maps to Van Zee’s claim 12.
Instant claims 8-15 map to Van Zee’s claims 13-20.
Instant claims 16 and 17 map to Van Zee’s claims 22 and 24, respectively.
Instant claims 18 and 19 map to Van Zee’s claims 25 and 28, respectively.
Instant claims 19-23 map to Van Zee’s claims 29-32.
Instant claims 24 and 25 map to Van Zee’s claims 35 and 36.
For the obviousness portion of this rejection, in the event Applicant can point to a limitation that distinguishes between the instantly claimed plants and Van Zee’s plants, then Examiner will perform a Deere analysis to determine if such differences are non-obvious. Currently the Examiner can not identify any distinguishing characteristics given the breadth of the claims and the lack of any breeding history.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-35 of U.S. Patent No. 11,445,672 B2; issued on Sep. 20, 2022. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are quite broad and do not include any limitations that would exclude the lettuce plants claimed in the ‘672 patent (see analysis in 102/103 rejection, above).
The double patenting rejection is over the issued patent for the same application that was published for Van Zee which was relied upon for the 102/103 rejection. Therefore, the analysis is identical.
Summary
No claim is allowed.
Examiner’s Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHY KINGDON whose telephone number is (571)272-8784. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:30 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, Amjad A Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-7058. 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.
CATHY KINGDON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1663
/CATHY KINGDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1662