DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 5 is incomplete with missing number at the bottom of the drawing and also lacks any labelings for x- and y-axis. As an example, what does x-axis stands for. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/376,041 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending application anticipates the claims in the instant application,
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of US Pat no. 11,393,560 and claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,791,019. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in patents anticipates the claims 1-2, 5-12 and 14-26 in the instant application. Furthermore, although the patents do not disclose claims 3-4 and 13, AAPA and Bray discloses as shown below in the rejection. As such it would have been obvious to use AAPA and Bray in patents, so as to compensate for variations across the plates and since the limitations in claims 3 and 4 are known.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 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.
Claim 1 is indefinite as it recites “one or more programs,” under the apparatus claim, and mixing non-apparatus limitation with apparatus limitations.
Similarly, the claim 20 is a method claim, but is mixing with an apparatus limitation “at computer system,”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-11, 15-16, 20-21, 23-24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustafsdottir et al., “Multiplex Cytological Profiling Assay to Measure Diverse Cellular States,” PLOS/one 8(12) (2013) (hereinafter Gustafsdottir) (cited by the Applicant) in views of Lobanov et al., US Pat No. 7,416,524 (hereinafter Lobanov), Kumar et al., US-Pat No. 9,739,783 (hereinafter Kumar) and Applicant Admitted Prior Arts, US-PGPUB 2024/0029832 (hereinafter AAPA) (part as shown below)
Regarding Claims 1, 20 and 26. Gustafsdottir discloses a measurement of a different feature in a plurality of features, across a plurality of instances of a cell context in a plurality of cell contexts upon exposure of an amount of the respective compound to the plurality of instances of the cell context using one or more multi-well plates comprising a plurality of wells (page 5, “Image analysis,” section; Figs. 1-2; Table S2), wherein each respective instance of the plurality of instances of the cell context is imaged via the high throughput screening to form a corresponding two-dimensional pixelated image having a corresponding plurality of native pixel values (Introduction; Results section, Figs. 1-2; “Imaging” section, page 5) (B) repeating the obtaining (A) for each cell context in the plurality of cell contexts, thereby obtaining for each respective compound in the plurality of compounds, a plurality of vectors, each vector in the plurality of vectors for the plurality of features across a different cell context in the plurality of cell contexts (page 2, right column, third paragraph; Abstract, Results section, Figures) (Note: while Gustfsdottir is used as a representative prior arts for the rejection, AAPA in Paragraphs [0120]-[0137] lists various known measurement and imaging techniques)
Gustafsdottir does not disclose identifying a subset of compounds in a plurality of compounds, comprising: one or more processors, a memory, and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and are configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for: (A) obtaining, for each respective compound in the plurality of compounds, a corresponding vector, thereby obtaining a corresponding plurality of vectors, where the obtaining comprises high throughput screening to measure a plurality of instances in one or more cell context for each compound in a test compound library, wherein: each respective vector in the corresponding plurality of vectors comprises a corresponding set of elements, (C) combining, for each respective compound in the plurality of compounds, the plurality of vectors for the respective compound to form a combined vector for the respective compound, thereby forming a plurality of combined vectors, each combined vector in the plurality of combined vectors representing a different compound in the plurality of compounds, (D) pruning the plurality of compounds to the subset of compounds based on a similarity between respective combined vectors in the plurality of combined vectors corresponding to respective compounds in the plurality of compounds, and (E) using the subset of compounds as a reduced size smart compound library to perform additional high throughput screening for pharmaceutical drug discovery.
Lobanov discloses identifying a subset of compounds in a plurality of compounds (Abstract), comprising:
one or more processors, a memory, and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and are configured to be executed by the one or more processors (Figs. 19-20), the one or more programs including instructions for:
(A) obtaining, for each respective compound in the plurality of compounds, a corresponding vector, thereby obtaining a corresponding plurality of vectors (Col. 9, lines 34-36), where the obtaining comprises high throughput screening to measure a plurality of instances in one or more cell context for each compound in a test compound library (Fig. 19, Col. 5, lines 48-59; Col. 14, lines , wherein: each respective vector in the corresponding plurality of vectors comprises a corresponding set of elements
(C) combining, for each respective compound in the plurality of compounds, the plurality of vectors for the respective compound to form a combined vector for the respective compound, thereby forming a plurality of combined vectors, each combined vector in the plurality of combined vectors representing a different compound in the plurality of compounds (Col. 9, lines 24-36, compounds represented by vector of real numbers, each of which corresponds to particular molecular descriptor; Col. 14, lines 1-17, various features)
(D) pruning the plurality of compounds to the subset of compounds based
on a similarity between respective combined vectors in the plurality of combined
vectors corresponding to respective compounds in the plurality of compounds (Col. 11, lines 12-31, “focused library and selection of compounds based on the fitness function; Col. 4, lines 42-62, where fitness function is similarity; Col. 9, lines 34-65; Col. 2, lines 15-67; Col. 3, lines 1-8); and (E) using the subset of compounds as a reduced size smart compound library to perform additional high throughput screening for pharmaceutical drug discovery (Col. 8, lines 4-7; drug discovery)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Lobanov in Gustafdottir and identify a subset of compounds in a plurality of compounds, comprising: one or more processors, a memory, and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and are configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for: (A) obtaining, for each respective compound in the plurality of compounds, a corresponding vector, thereby obtaining a corresponding plurality of vectors, where the obtaining comprises high throughput screening to measure a plurality of instances in one or more cell context for each compound in a test compound library, wherein: each respective vector in the corresponding plurality of vectors comprises a corresponding set of elements
(C) combining, for each respective compound in the plurality of compounds, the plurality of vectors for the respective compound to form a combined vector for the respective compound, thereby forming a plurality of combined vectors, each combined vector in the plurality of combined vectors representing a different compound in the plurality of compounds, (D) pruning the plurality of compounds to the subset of compounds based
on a similarity between respective combined vectors in the plurality of combined
vectors corresponding to respective compounds in the plurality of compounds,
and (E) using the subset of compounds as a reduced size smart compound
library to perform additional high throughput screening for pharmaceutical drug
discovery with efficiency and effectiveness.
The modified Gustafdottir does not further disclose a feature in the plurality of features comprises a result of a convolution or a series of convolutions and pooling operators run against native pixel values in the plurality of native pixel values of the corresponding two-dimensional pixelated image
Kumar discloses disclose a feature in the plurality of features comprises a result of a convolution or a series of convolutions and pooling operators run against native pixel values in the plurality of native pixel values of the corresponding two-dimensional pixelated image (Col. 34, lines 62-67, Col. 35, lines 1-67; Col. 1, lines 26-40)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Kumar in the modified Gustafsdottir and have a feature in the plurality of features comprises a result of a convolution or a series of convolutions and pooling operators run against native pixel values in the plurality of native pixel values of the corresponding two-dimensional pixelated image, so as to accurately perform high throughput screening for pharmaceutical drug discovery.
Regarding Claim 2. Gustafsdottir discloses a respective element in the set of elements comprises a fluorescent microscopy measurement of a respective feature in the plurality of features (“Imaging” section, page 5)
Regarding Claim 3. AAPA discloses a respective element in the set of elements comprises a phase contrast measurement of a respective feature in the plurality of features (Paragraphs [0119]-[0120], NPLs listed in the paragraph)
Regarding Claim 4. AAPA discloses a respective element in the set of elements comprises a bright field measurement of a respective feature in the plurality of features (Paragraph [0119], NPLs listed in the paragraph)
Regarding Claim 5. Gustafsdottir discloses each feature in the plurality of features represents a color, texture, or size of the cell or an enumerated portion of the cell context upon exposure of the cell context to the amount of the respective compound (page 5, “Image analysis,” section; Figs. 1-2; Table S2)
Regarding Claim 6. AAPA discloses the exposure of the respective compound to the plurality of instances of the cell context is done in a presence of one or more optical emitting entities (Paragraphs [0116], NPLs listed in the paragraph)
Regarding Claim 7. AAPA discloses the one or more optical emitting entities are dyes and wherein the vector for each respective compound in the plurality of compounds includes respective measurements of features in the plurality of features for the cell context in a presence of each of at least three different dyes (Paragraph [0116], NPLs listed in the paragraph)
Regarding Claim 8. Gustafsdottir discloses a first amount of the respective compound is tested in a first subset of the plurality of instances of the cell context; and a second amount of the respective compound is tested in a second subset of the plurality of instances of the cell context (page 5, “Finding term-enriched clusters,” section)
Regarding Claims 10 and 21. AAPA discloses the reducing a dimension of each vector in the plurality of vectors using a dimension reduction technique of principal component analysis in which a plurality of principal components is identified based on a variance in the measurement of each different feature in the plurality of features, for a cell context in the plurality of cell contexts, across each compound in the plurality of compounds; and each respective vector in a plurality of concatenated vectors for the cell context is re-expressed as a projection of the respective concatenated vector onto the plurality of principal components (Paragraph [0164], NPLs listed in the paragraph)
Regarding Claim 11. AAPA discloses each respective principal component in the plurality of principal components is associated with a corresponding eigenvalue; and each respective principal component in the plurality of principal components is normalized by a square root of the corresponding eigenvalue prior to using the plurality of principal components to re-express each respective vector in the plurality of vectors (Paragraphs [0164], [0167], NPLs listed in the paragraph)
Regarding Claims 15 and 23. Lobanov discloses the pruning the plurality of compounds to the subset of compounds based on the similarity between the combined vectors corresponding to the plurality of compounds (D) is performed by a procedure that comprises: (a) computing a geometric relationship between respective combined vector pairs in the plurality of combine vectors for all respective pairs of compounds in the plurality of compounds; (b) identifying a pair of compounds, consisting of a first compound and a second compound, from the computing (a) that has a closest geometric relationship; (c) discarding a compound in the pair of compounds identified in the last instance of the identifying (b) that has a closest geometric relationship with respect to the combined vector of another compound remaining in the plurality of compounds; and (d) repeating the identifying (b) and the discarding (c) until a threshold number of compounds have been pruned from the plurality of compounds or a number of compounds in the subset of compounds satisfies a threshold value (Fig. 5-6; Col. 13, lines 65-67; Col. 14, lines 1-67 to Col. 17, lines 1-5, Col. 22, lines 23-26, similarity, based on shape similarity, topological similarity, Euclidean distance, etc., which are all geometric relationship)
Regarding Claims 16 and 24. Lobanov discloses the geometric relationship between the respective combined vector pairs is weighted based on a property of the first compound and the second compound (Col. 9, lines 24-30, weighted)
Claims 9, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustafsdottir et al., “Multiplex Cytological Profiling Assay to Measure Diverse Cellular States,” PLOS/one 8(12) (2013) in views of Lobanov et al., US Pat No. 7,416,524, Kumar et al., US-Pat No. 9,739,783 and AAPA, US-PGPUB 2024/0029832 as applied to Claims 1 and 10, and further in view of Bray et al., “Cell painting, a high -content image-based assay for morphological profiling using multiplex fluorescent dyes,” Nat Protoc 2016 (hereinafter Bray) (cited by the Applicant)
Regarding Claim 9. The modified Gustafsdottir does not discloses a subset of the wells in the plurality of wells in each multi-well plate in the one or more multi-well plates comprise an aliquot of cells of the cell context that have not been exposed to the respective compound, and the measurement of the different feature in the plurality of features, across the plurality of instances of the cell context that has been exposed to the amount of the respective compound, is normalized by a mean of the different feature measured across the instances of the wells in the subset of wells that contain the cell context that have not been exposed to the respective compound.
Bray discloses a subset of the wells in the plurality of wells in each multi-well plate in the one or more multi-well plates comprise an aliquot of cells of the cell context that have not been exposed to the respective compound, and the measurement of the different feature in the plurality of features, across the plurality of instances of the cell context that has been exposed to the amount of the respective compound, is normalized by a mean of the different feature measured across the instances of the wells in the subset of wells that contain the cell context that have not been exposed to the respective compound (page 30, “Normalize morphological features across plates,” section, 54-56)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Bray in the modified Gustafsdottir and have a subset of the wells in the plurality of wells in each multi-well plate in the one or more multi-well plates comprise an aliquot of cells of the cell context that have not been exposed to the respective compound, and the measurement of the different feature in the plurality of features, across the plurality of instances of the cell context that has been exposed to the amount of the respective compound, is normalized by a mean of the different feature measured across the instances of the wells in the subset of wells that contain the cell context that have not been exposed to the respective compound, so as to compensate for variations across the plates.
Regarding Claim 12. The modified Gustafsdottir does not disclose a subset of the wells in the plurality of wells in each multi-well plate in the one or more multi-well plates comprise an aliquot of cells of the cell context that have not been exposed to the respective compound; and each respective element in the respective vector is normalized by a measure of central tendency of the respective element in the vectors representing the subset of the wells that contain the cell context that have not been exposed to the respective compound prior to applying the dimension reduction technique.
Bray discloses a subset of the wells in the plurality of wells in each multi-well plate in the one or more multi-well plates comprise an aliquot of cells of the cell context that have not been exposed to the respective compound; and each respective element in the respective vector is normalized by a measure of central tendency of the respective element in the vectors representing the subset of the wells that contain the cell context that have not been exposed to the respective compound prior to applying the dimension reduction technique (page 30, “Normalize morphological features across plates,” section, last paragraphs 55-58, use principal components analysis to reduce the dimensionality of the data)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Bray in the modified Gustafsdottir and have a subset of the wells in the plurality of wells in each multi-well plate in the one or more multi-well plates comprise an aliquot of cells of the cell context that have not been exposed to the respective compound; and each respective element in the respective vector is normalized by a measure of central tendency of the respective element in the vectors representing the subset of the wells that contain the cell context that have not been exposed to the respective compound prior to applying the dimension reduction technique, so as to compensate for variations across the plates.
Regarding Claim 13. Bray discloses each respective element in the respective vector is normalized by a measure of central tendency of the respective element in the vectors representing the subset of the wells that contain the cell context by: a) subtracting the measure of central tendency of the respective element across the vectors representing the subset of the wells that contain the cell context that have not been exposed to the respective compound; and b) dividing by a measure of dispersion of the respective element in the vector representing the subset of the wells that contain the cell context that have not been exposed to the respective compound (page 30, “Normalize morphological features across plates,” section, paragraph 55)
12. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustafsdottir, “Multiplex Cytological Profiling Assay to Measure Diverse Cellular States,” PLOS/one 8(12) (2013) in views of Lobanov, US Pat No. 7,416,524, Kumar et al., US-Pat No. 9,739,783 and AAPA, US-PGPUB 2024/0029832, as applied to Claim 14 above, and further in view of Johnson et al., US-PGPUB 2017/0233349 (hereinafter Johnson)
Regarding Claim 17. Lobanov discloses determining the structural similarity between the compounds (Fig. 5-6; Col. 13, lines 65-67; Col. 14, lines 1-67 to Col. 17, lines 1-5, Col. 22, lines 23-26, similarity, based on shape similarity, topological similarity, Euclidean distance, etc., which are all geometric relationship)
Lobanov does not explicitly disclose the geometric relationship is an angle formed between the respective combined vector pairs; and the closest geometric relationship with respect to the combined vector of another compound remaining in the plurality of compounds is the smallest angle formed between (i) the combined vector for the first compound or the combined vector for the second compound and (ii) the combined vector for the closest combined vector for another compound remaining in the plurality of compounds.
Johnson discloses structural similarities between the compounds, which includes the similarities with respect to angles (Paragraph [0139])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Johnson in the modified Gustafsdottir and wherein the geometric relationship is an angle formed between the respective combined vector pairs, and the closest geometric relationship with respect to the combined vector of another compound remaining in the plurality of compounds is the smallest angle formed between (i) the combined vector for the first compound or the combined vector for the second compound and (ii) the combined vector for the closest combined vector for another compound remaining in the plurality of compounds, and perform high throughput screening for pharmaceutical drug discovery with efficiency and effectiveness.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14, 18-19, 22 and 25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claims 14 and 22. The prior arts do not teach or suggest a combination, including the one or more programs further include instructions for:
(1) for each respective compound in the plurality of compounds: for each respective cell context in the plurality of cell contexts: computing an angle between each vector representing the respective compound in the respective cell context thereby forming a distribution of angles for the respective compound for the respective cell context; and
determining a distribution p-value for the distribution of angles for the respective compound for the respective cell context; and eliminating any compound from the plurality of compounds that fails a p-value distribution threshold for each cell context in the plurality of cell contexts.
Regarding Claims 18 and 25. The prior arts do not teach or suggest a combination, including the geometric relationship between the respective combined vector pairs is an angular distance computed as:
PNG
media_image1.png
186
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
118
576
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 19. The prior arts do not teach or suggest a combination, including reducing a dimension of each vector in the plurality of vectors using a dimension reduction technique comprising: (i) applying a kernel function to the respective measurement of each measured different feature in the plurality of features, for a cell context in the plurality of cell contexts, across each compound in the plurality of compounds, thereby deriving a kernel matrix; and (ii) applying principal component analysis to the kernel matrix thereby identifying a plurality of principal components and wherein each respective vector in the plurality of combined vectors for the cell context is re-expressed as a projection of the respective combined vector onto the plurality of principal components.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Whitney et al., US-PGPUB 2005/0003367
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights