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 .
Noncompliant Amendment, Claim Interpretation, and Election/Restrictions
2. This Office Action is in response to papers filed 21 August 2026, in which claims 6-7 and 12 were amended and claims 24 and 37 were cancelled.
3. Applicant’s amendments filed 21 August 2026 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.121 for the following reason(s): claim 3 was previously amended to depend upon claim 1 and is marked as “Previously Presented.” However, the claim now depends on claim 12 and the changes are not properly marked, nor is the claim listed as “Currently Amended.”
4. It is emphasized that Applicant’s response has been considered in the interest of customer service and compact prosecution. However, for the response to this Office Action to be complete, Applicant is REQUIRED to file amendments that are compliant with 37 CFR 1.121. Failure to comply with this requirement will be considered nonresponsive.
5. For the purposes of examination, claim 3 is interpreted as depending upon claim 1, based on the previous amendments and because claim 12 actually depends upon claim 3, not the other way around.
6. Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 21 August 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)).
In addition, Applicant has cancelled all non-elected claims. Therefore, claims 1-12 and 14-21 are under prosecution.
Information Disclosure Statement
7. The Information Disclosure Statement filed 14 August 2024 is acknowledged and has 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.
Claim Objections
8. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 contains the text “one type of nucleotides” n step (b), which appears to be a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 and Claim Interpretation
9. 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.
10. Claims 1-12 and 14-21 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.
A. Claim 1 (upon which claims 2-12 and 14-21 depend) is indefinite because the claims do not actually describe how the target polynucleotides are sequenced.
B. Claims 2 and 3 (upon which claims 4-12 and 14-21 depend) are each indefinite in the recitation “the water-soluble macrocycle,” which lacks antecedent basis in the previous recitation of “one or more water-soluble macrocycles.”
C. Claims 6 (upon which clams 7-8 depend), 7, 8, 9,and 10 are each indefinite in the recitation “the water-soluble cyclodextrin,” which lacks antecedent basis in the previous recitation of “water-soluble cyclodextrins.”
D. Claims 10, 15, and 20 are each indefinite in the recitation “at least about.” The phrase “at least” typically indicates a minimum point; however, the phrase “at least” 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 dimensions are encompassed by the claim.
In Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical co., 927 F.2d 1200 (CAFC 1991), the CAFC stated, “[t]he district court held claims 4 and 6 of the patent invalid because their specific activity of “at least about 160,000” was indefinite.” After review, the CAFC states “[w]e therefore affirm the district court’s determination on this issue.” Thus, the CAFC found the phrase “at least about” indefinite where the metes and bounds of the term were not defined in the specification. See MPEP 2173.05(b) III.
E. Claims 11 15, and 16 are each indefinite in the recitation “the water-soluble cucurbituril,” which lacks antecedent basis in the previous recitation of “water-soluble cucurbiturils.”
F. Claims 20 and 21 are each indefinite in the recitation “the water-soluble calixarene,” which lacks antecedent basis in the previous recitation of “water-soluble calixarenes.”
G. With respect to claim interpretation:
It is noted that step (b) of claim 1 requires “incorporating one type of nucleotides [sic] into the sequencing primers…, wherein one of more of the four types of nucleotides comprises a detectable label.” As written, the claim does not necessarily require the incorporated nucleotide to have a label.
The limitation “one of more of the four types of nucleotides comprise a detectable label” is interpreted as only one label per nucleotide, as opposed to more than one nucleotide comprising “a” (i.e., the same) label.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mir (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0327829 A1, published 15 November 2018) and Beckers et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2011/0256592 A1, published 20 October 2011).
Regarding claims 1-7, Mir teaches methods comprising use of a solid support (i.e., array) comprising multiple different target polynucleotides (Abstract and paragraph 0317), wherein the solid support tis contacted with an incorporation mixture comprising DNA polymerase (paragraph 0008), a primer, and at least one nucleotide (paragraph 0040), wherein the nucleotide is fluorescently labeled (i.e., as an alternative to FRET labeling; paragraph 0361) and incorporated to form extended copy polynucleotides (e.g., paragraph 0361) followed by imaging the extended copy polynucleotides (Abstract) by detecting fluorescence (paragraph 0008). Mir also teaches the method have the added advantage of providing lower background fluorescence (paragraph 0361). Thus, Mir teaches the known techniques discussed above.
While Mir teaches enhancement of fluorescence by proximity related effects (paragraph 0515) and detection of fluorescence in aqueous solutions (paragraph 0464), Mir does not teach the use of macrocycles to enhance fluorescence. .
However, Beckers et al. teach methods of extending nucleic acids by adding DNA polymerase, primers, nucleotides (i.e., dNTPS [paragraph 0019]; including labeled dNTPS; paragraph 0082) and a macrocycle in the form of a cyclodextrin (paragraph 0019). Beckers et al. also teach the DNA polymerase, primers and dNTPs, and cyclodextrins are in a single mixture (paragraph 0050), that the cyclodextrins an a-, b-, or g-cyclodextrin (i.e., claims 3-4; paragraph 0043), including 2-hydroxypropyl-b-cyclodextrin (i.e., claims 5-7; paragraph 0044), and that the cyclodextrins are used to enhance (i.e., amplify) fluorescence of labels (paragraph 0014). Thus, Beckers et al. teach the known techniques discussed above.
With respect to claim 2, it is noted that In re Best (195 USPQ 430) and In re Fitzgerald (205 USPQ 594) discuss the support of rejections wherein the prior art discloses subject matter which there is reason to believe includes functions that are newly cited or is identical to a product instantly claimed. In such a situation the burden is shifted to the applicants to “prove that subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on” (205 USPQ 594, second column, first full paragraph).
In the instant case, Beckers et al. teach cyclodextrins engage in host guest chemistry (paragraph 0010). Further, since Beckers et al. teach the same concentrations of the instant claims (see the rejection of claim 9 below), Beckers et al. teach conditions that result in the claimed binding.
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, counsel’s mere arguments cannot take the place of evidence in the record.
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 method 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 method having the added advantages of providing lower background fluorescence as explicitly taught by Mir (paragraph 0361) and the enhancement of fluorescence as explicitly taught by Beckers et al. (paragraph 0014), which is a desired goal of Mir (paragraph 0515). 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 reliable detection of nucleic acids.
Regarding claim 8, the method of claim 3 is discussed above. Beckers et al. teach the cyclodextrin a 2,6-di-O-methyl-b-cyclodextrin (paragraph 0068).
It is noted that the courts have stated:
similar properties may normally be presumed when compounds are very close in structure. Dillon, 919 F.2d at 693, 696, 16 USPQ2d at 1901, 1904. See also In re Grabiak, 769 F.2d 729, 731, 226 USPQ 870, 871 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“When chemical compounds have very close’ structural similarities and similar utilities, without more a prima facie case may be made.”). Thus, evidence of similar properties or evidence of any useful properties disclosed in the prior art that would be expected to be shared by the claimed invention weighs in favor of a conclusion that the claimed invention would have been obvious. Dillon, 919 F.2d at 697-98, 16 USPQ2d at 1905; In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 461, 195 USPQ 426, 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972) (see MPEP 2144.08(d)).
The courts have also stated:
[c]ompounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious) (see MPEP 2144.09).
Therefore, the claimed methyl-b-cyclodextrin is an obvious variant of the a 2,6-di-O-methyl-b-cyclodextrin of the prior art.
Applicant is again cautioned to avoid merely relying upon counsel’s arguments in place of evidence in the record.
Regarding claim 9, the method of claim 3 is discussed above. Beckers et al. teach the concentration of the cyclodextrin is 50 mM (paragraph 0040).
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 further 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 again cautioned against merely relying upon counsel’s arguments in place of evidence in the record.
Regarding claim 10, the method of claim 3 is discussed above.
It is noted that the subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope. It is this subject matter that must be examined. As a general matter, the grammar and intended meaning of terms used in a claim will dictate whether the language limits the claim scope. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. “Wherein” clauses are examples of language that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim. See MPEP 2103 I.C. and MPEP § 2111.04.
It is also noted that a “wherein” clause, such as that in claim 10, must give “meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps.” See MPEP § 2111.04.
Further, Figure 3C of the instant specification shows the estimated binding affinity between 2-hydroxypropyl-b-cyclodextrin and a coumarin dye is in the claimed range. Beckers et al. teach 2-hydroxypropyl-b-cyclodextrin (paragraph 0044) and Mir teaches the use of coumarin dyes (paragraph 0519). Thus, the combination results in the claimed affinity.
It is reiterated that the courts have stated 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 of the cited prior art.
Applicant is again cautioned against merely relying upon counsel’s arguments in place of evidence in the record.
14. Claims 2, 11-12, 14-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0327829 A1, published 15 November 2018) and Beckers et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2011/0256592 A1, published 20 October 2011) as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in combination with Ghale et al. (Accounts of Chemical Research, volume 47, pages 2150-2159; published 2 May 2014).
It is noted that while claim 2 is rejected as described above, the claim is also obvious using the interpretation outlined below.
Regarding claims 2, 11-12, 14, and 17-19, the methods of claims 1 and 3 are discussed above in Section 13.
While Mir teaches enhancement of fluorescence by proximity related effects (paragraph 0515) and detection of fluorescence in aqueous solutions (paragraph 0464), and while Beckers et al. teach macrocycles for enhancing fluorescence of labeled nucleotides (paragraph 0014), none of the previously cited prior art teaches the use of functionally equivalent cucurbiturils or calixarenes.
However, Ghale et al. teach methods of using host-guest chemistry (Abstract) to enhance fluorescence (i.e., claim 2; page 2152) using macrocycles that bind to fluorescent dyes, including the macrocycle cucurbit[6]uril (i.e., claims 11-12) or the macrocycle 4-sulfocalix[4]arene (i.e., p-sulfononato[4]calixarene; claims 17-19; Figure 2).
In addition, it is reiterated that the courts have stated that similar properties may normally be presumed when compounds are very close in structure, and that compounds which are position isomers or homologs are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties.
Therefore, the claimed C1 alkyl derivative of a cucurbituril (i.e., claims 11 and 14) and the sulfonate derivative of a calixarene (i.e., claims 17-19) are obvious variants of the cucurbiturils and calixarenes of the cited prior art.
Applicant is again cautioned to avoid merely relying upon counsel’s arguments in place of evidence in the record.
Ghale et al. also teach the methods have the added advantage of allowing monitoring of time-dependent changes in analyte concentration (Conspectus). Thus, Ghale 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 functionally equivalent macrocycles of Ghale et al. with the previously cited prior art to arrive at the instantly claimed method 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 method having the added advantage of allowing monitoring of time-dependent changes in analyte concentration as explicitly taught by Ghale et al. (Conspectus), which is related to the desire of Mir for real-time monitoring of syntheses processes (paragraph 0328). In addition, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan that the known techniques of Ghale et al. could have been combined with the previously cited prior art with predictable results because the known techniques of Ghale et al. predictably result in macrocycles useful for binding fluorescent dyes.
Further, the Supreme Court ruling for KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. (No 04-1350 (US 30 April 2007) clearly establishes that it is obvious to try when choosing from a finite list of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP 2143 I).
Regarding claims 15 and 20, the method of claim 3 is discussed above.
It is reiterated that the subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope. It is this subject matter that must be examined. As a general matter, the grammar and intended meaning of terms used in a claim will dictate whether the language limits the claim scope. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. “Wherein” clauses are examples of language that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim.
It is also reiterated that a “wherein” clause, such as that in claims 15 and 20, must give meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps.
Further, Figure 3C of the instant specification shows the estimated binding affinity between cucurbit[6]uril and a coumarin dye is in the claimed range. Ghale et al. teach cucurbit[6]uril (Figure 2), and Mir teaches the use of coumarin dyes (paragraph 0519). Thus, the combination results in the claimed affinity of claim 15.
Figure 3B of the instant specification shows the estimated binding affinity between 4-sulfocalix[4]arene (i.e., p-sulfononato[4]calixarene) and a coumarin dye is in the claimed range. Ghale et al. teach p-sulfononato[4]calixarene; Figure 2), and Mir teaches the use of coumarin dyes (paragraph 0519). Thus, the combination results in the claimed affinity of claim 20.
It is reiterated that the courts have stated 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 of the cited prior art.
Applicant is again cautioned against merely relying upon counsel’s arguments in place of evidence in the record.
15. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0327829 A1, published 15 November 2018), Beckers et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2011/0256592 A1, published 20 October 2011), and Ghale et al. (Accounts of Chemical Research, volume 47, pages 2150-2159; published 2 May 2014) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in combination with Nau et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2008/0023646 A1, published 31 January 2008).
Regarding claim 16, the method of claim 3 is discussed above in Section 13.
While Ghale et al. teach cucurbit[6]uril (Figure 2), and while Mir teaches the use of coumarin dyes (paragraph 0519), the previously cited prior art does not explicitly teach the claimed concentration.
However, Nau et al. teach the binding of cucurbit[6]uril to a fluorescent dye (paragraph 0018), including coumarin dyes (paragraph 0019), using a concentration of 1 mM to 10 mM (paragraph 0041), which overlaps the claimed range.
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.
Applicant is again cautioned against merely relying upon counsel’s arguments in place of evidence in the record.
Nau et al. also teach the methods have the added advantage of providing improves photostability of the dyes (paragraph 0007). Thus, Nau 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 Nau et al. with the previously cited prior art to arrive at the instantly claimed method 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 method having the added advantage of providing improved photostability of the dyes as explicitly taught by Nau et al. (paragraph 0007). In addition, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan that the known techniques of Nau et al. could have been combined with the previously cited prior art with predictable results because the known techniques of Nau et al. predictably result in macrocycles useful for binding fluorescent dyes.
Further, it is reiterated that the Supreme Court ruling for KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. clearly establishes that it is obvious to try when choosing from a finite list of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
16. Claims 2 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0327829 A1, published 15 November 2018), Beckers et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2011/0256592 A1, published 20 October 2011), and Ghale et al. (Accounts of Chemical Research, volume 47, pages 2150-2159; published 2 May 2014) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in combination with Ashwin et al. (Journal of Inclusion Phenomena and Macrocyclic Chemistry, volume 90, pages 51-60, published online 16 November 2017).
It is noted that while claims 2 and 20 are rejected as described above, the claims are also obvious using the interpretation outlined below.
Regarding claims 2 and 20-21, the method of claim 3 is discussed above in Section 13.
While Ghale et al. teach p-sulfononato[4]calixarene; Figure 2), and Mir teaches the use of coumarin dyes (paragraph 0519), the previously cited prior art does not explicitly teach the claimed concentration.
However, Ashwin et al. teach the host-guest (i.e., claim 2) binding of p-sulfononato[4]calixarene to a coumarin dye, which has a binding constant or 1000 M-1 (i.e., claim 20; Title and Abstract), using a concentration of 10 mM to 0.5 mM (i.e., claim 21; paragraph 0041), each of which overlap the respective claimed ranges.
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.
Applicant is again cautioned against merely relying upon counsel’s arguments in place of evidence in the record.
Ashwin et al. also teach the methods have the added advantage of having an efficient interaction and spontaneous binding (Conclusion). Thus, Ashwin 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 Ashwin et al. with the previously cited prior art to arrive at the instantly claimed method 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 method having the added advantage of providing an efficient interaction and spontaneous binding as explicitly taught by Ashwin et al. (Conclusion). In addition, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan that the known techniques of Ashwin et al. could have been combined with the previously cited prior art with predictable results because the known techniques of Ashwin et al. predictably result in macrocycles useful for binding fluorescent dyes.
Further, it is reiterated that the Supreme Court ruling for KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. clearly establishes that it is obvious to try when choosing from a finite list of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
17. No claim is allowed.
18. 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