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 .
Detail Action
Claims 1- 12 submitted on 5/22/2024 are pending for examination.
Applicants on 5/29/2026 without traverse elected group I Claims 1-5; directed to genetically modified succinate-producing yeast strain, having activity or enhanced activity of NADPH-dependent malate dehydrogenase optionally further having activity or enhanced activity of at least one of: (i) soluble fumarate reductase optionally wherein the 3'-end glyoxysome-localized peptide of said soluble fumarate reductase is partially or completely truncated, (ii) pyruvate carboxylase (iii) fumarase optionally wherein the 5'-end mitochondrion-localized peptide of said fumarase is partially or completely truncated, and (iv) succinate transport protein, preferably, said NADPH-dependent malate dehydrogenase is derived from a plant, more preferably a C4 plant, more preferably a plant of the family Gramineae, Cyperaceae, Compositae, Euphorbiaceae, Chenopodiaceae, Portulacaceae or Amaranthaceae, or derived from the genus Euglena or Thermobacillus, more preferably from Sorghum bicolor, Zea mays, Saccharum officinarum, Pisum sativum, Cicer arietinum, Spinacia oleracea, Euglena gracilis or Methanothermobacter thermautotrophicus, more preferably, said NADPH-dependent malate dehydrogenase is a Sorghum bicolor- derived NADPH-dependent malate dehydrogenase, preferably, said soluble fumarate reductase is derived from Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Trypanosoma brucei, Leishmania mexicana or Trypanosoma cruzi, more preferably Trypanosoma brucei; preferably, said succinate transport protein is selected from a group consisting of SpMAE1 protein, AnDCT-02 protein, EcDcuB protein and EcDcuC protein, more preferably SpMAE1 protein; preferably, said pyruvate carboxylase is derived from Aspergillus oryzae or Pichia kudriavzevii, more preferably Aspergillus oryzae. Groups II-III of election restriction of 4/3/2026 comprising claims 6-12 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-5 are for examination. Election made final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/22/2024, 7/12/2024 and 8/12/2025in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner has considered the IDS statement.
Claim Rejections
Claim Rejections: 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite in recitation of -- Preferably -- more preferably—in multiple places of the claim.” because “preferably” is an adverb that expresses a preference for a particular feature, but it is generally considered optional language. Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and MPEP 2173.05(h)(II), optional phrasing like “preferably” can make a claim indefinite if it suggests an element is not required, because the “all elements” rule applies to claims.
Claim 1 is rejected being indefinite because it recites the limitation “Preferably -- more preferably” indefiniteness arises because claim includes a broad range and a narrow range within the same claim (e.g., Preferably -- more preferably,"). A claim with both a broad and a narrow range (e.g., Preferably -- more preferably) can be indefinite because it's unclear if the narrow part is required or just exemplary.
Claim 1 is indefinite in recitation of,.” derived from in multiple places in the claim.” AS for example “malate dehydrogenase is derived from a plant”, because it is unclear exactly what type of malate dehydrogenase is from the plant obtained because derive malate dehydrogenase enzyme can comprise fragment, mutant or recombinant form with unknown structure . It should be obtained from plant. Same apply for every place where derived recited and should be obtained from.
Claim 3 is indefinite in recitation of ‘preferably .” because “preferably” is an adverb that expresses a preference for a particular feature, but it is generally considered optional language. Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and MPEP 2173.05(h)(II), optional phrasing like “preferably” can make a claim indefinite if it suggests an element is not required, because the “all elements” rule applies to claims.
Claim 4 is indefinite in recitation of ‘preferably in multiple places of the claim.” because “preferably” is an adverb that expresses a preference for a particular feature, but it is generally considered optional language. Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and MPEP 2173.05(h)(II), optional phrasing like “preferably” can make a claim indefinite if it suggests an element is not required, because the “all elements” rule applies to claims.
Claim 4 is rejected being indefinite because it recites the limitation “Preferably -- more preferably” indefiniteness arises because claim includes a broad range and a narrow range within the same claim (e.g., Preferably -- more preferably,"). A claim with both a broad and a narrow range (e.g., Preferably -- more preferably) can be indefinite because it's unclear if the narrow part is required or just exemplary.
Claim 4 is indefinite in recitation of,.” derived from in multiple places in the claim.” AS for example “pyruvate carboxylase derived from Aspergillus oryzae”, because it is unclear exactly what type of pyruvate carboxylase is from Aspergillus oryzae because derive pyruvate carboxylase enzyme can comprise fragment, mutant or recombinant form with unknown structure . It should be obtained from plant. Same apply for every place where derived recited and should be obtained from.
Claim 5 is indefinite in recitation of ‘preferably .” because “preferably” is an adverb that expresses a preference for a particular feature, but it is generally considered optional language. Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and MPEP 2173.05(h)(II), optional phrasing like “preferably” can make a claim indefinite if it suggests an element is not required, because the “all elements” rule applies to claims.
Claim 5 is indefinite in recitation of ‘for example.” It is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 is rejected being indefinite because it recites the limitation “Preferably -- more preferably” indefiniteness arises because claim includes a broad range and a narrow range within the same claim (e.g., Preferably -- more preferably,"). A claim with both a broad and a narrow range (e.g., Preferably -- more preferably) can be indefinite because it's unclear if the narrow part is required or just exemplary.
Claim Rejections, 35 U.S.C 112(a)
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as containing 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims are directed to genetically modified succinate-producing yeast strain, having activity or enhanced activity of NADPH-dependent malate dehydrogenase optionally further having activity or enhanced activity of at least one of: (i) soluble fumarate reductase optionally wherein the 3'-end glyoxysome-localized peptide of said soluble fumarate reductase is partially or completely truncated, (ii) pyruvate carboxylase (iii) fumarase optionally wherein the 5'-end mitochondrion-localized peptide of said fumarase is partially or completely truncated, and (iv) succinate transport protein, preferably, said NADPH-dependent malate dehydrogenase is derived from a plant, more preferably a C4 plant ( claims 1,2, 4-5) or at least 75% sequence identity to SEQ id NO: 1-8 of said enzymes ( claim 3).
It is noted that MPEP 2111.01 states that "[d]uring examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow." In this case, in light of the specification, the examiner has broadly interpreted the claims by reciting “modified succinate-producing yeast strain, having activity or enhanced activity of NADPH-dependent malate dehydrogenase having any structure optionally further having activity or enhanced activity of at least one of: (i) soluble fumarate reductase having any structure optionally wherein the 3'-end glyoxysome-localized peptide of said soluble fumarate reductase having any structure is partially or completely truncated, (ii) pyruvate carboxylase having any structure (iii) fumarase having any structure optionally wherein the 5'-end mitochondrion-localized peptide of said fumarase is partially or completely truncated, and (iv) succinate transport protein having any structure ( claims 1,2, 4-5) or at least 75% sequence identity to SEQ id NO: 1-8 of said enzymes which can be 25% variation of the said sequence anywhere resulting many variants ( claim 3).
Therefore in light of the above interpretation the claims are broadly interpreted any modified yeast having overexpressing any NADPH-dependent malate dehydrogenase having any structure and further soluble fumarate reductase having any structure pyruvate carboxylase having any structure or at least 75% sequence identity to SEQ id NO: 1-8 of said enzymes which can be 25% variation of the said sequence anywhere resulting many variants ( claim 3).
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has recently held that a "written description of an invention involving a chemical genus, like a description of a chemical species, 'requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula [or] chemical name,' of the claimed subject matter sufficient to distinguish it from other materials." University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 18221, at *23, quoting Fiers v. Revel, 25 USPQ2d 1601, 1606 (Fed. Cir. 1993). To fully describe a genus of genetic material, which is a chemical compound, applicants must (1) fully describe at least one species of the claimed genus sufficient to represent said genus whereby a skilled artisan, in view of the prior art, could predict the structure of other species encompassed by the claimed genus and (2) identify the common characteristics of the claimed molecules, e.g., structure, physical and/or chemical characteristics, functional characteristics when coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or a combination of these (paraphrased from Enzo Biochemical).University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co. (69 USPQ2d 1886 (2004)) specifically points to the applicability of both Lilly and Enzo Biochemical to methods of using products, wherein said products lack adequate written description. While in University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co. the methods were held to lack written description because not a single example of the product used in the claimed methods was described, the same analysis applies wherein the product, used in the claimed methods, must have adequate written description (see Enzo paraphrased above).
In this case, there is no structure associated with function with regard to the members of the genus modified yeast having any modified yeast having overexpressing any NADPH-dependent malate dehydrogenase having any structure and further soluble fumarate reductase having any structure pyruvate carboxylase having any structure or at least 75% sequence identity to SEQ id NO: 1-8 of said enzymes which can be 25% variation of the said sequence anywhere resulting many variants wherein said yeast having the activity of producing succinate and enhanced activity of NADPH-dependent malate dehydrogenase.
The genus of modified yeast strain having any polypeptides and encoding polynucleotides having specified activity modified in the claimed invention is an extremely large structurally and functionally variable genus. An argument can be made that the recited genus of polypeptides is adequately described by the disclosure of the structure of Pichia kudriavzevii deposited in China General Microbiological Culture Collection Center (CGMCC) under the deposit number of CGMCC No. 20885 or modified yeast strain having polypeptides having SEQuence ID NO: 1-8 , and one could use structural homology to isolate those polypeptides the encoding polynucleotides. However, the art clearly teaches there is a practical limits to predict function of a polypeptide based structural homology:
A. Devos et al., (Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics, 2000, Vol. 41: 98-107), teach that the results obtained by analyzing a significant number of true sequence similarities, derived directly from structural alignments, point to the complexity of function prediction. Different aspects of protein function, including (i) enzymatic function classification, (ii) functional annotations in the form of key words, (iii) classes of cellular function, and conservation of binding sites can only be reliably transferred between similar sequences to a modest degree. The reason for this difficulty is a combination of the unavoidable database inaccuracies and plasticity of proteins (Abstract, page 98) and the analysis poses interesting questions about the reliability of current function prediction exercises and the intrinsic limitation of protein function prediction (Column 1, paragraph 3, page 99) and conclude that "Despite widespread use of database searching techniques followed by function inference as standard procedures in Bioinformatics, the results presented here illustrate that transfer of function between similar sequences involves more difficulties than commonly believed. Our data show that even true pair-wise sequence relations, identified by their structural similarity, correspond in many cases to different functions (column 2, paragraph 2, and page 105).
B. Whisstock et al., (Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics 2003, Vol. 36 (3): 307-340,) also highlight the difficulties associated with "Prediction of protein function from protein sequence and structure": "To reason from sequence and structure to function is to step onto much shakier ground", closely related proteins can change function, either through divergence to a related function or by recruitment for a very different function, in such cases, assignment of function on the basis of homology, in the absence of direct experimental evidence, will give the wrong answer (page 309, paragraph 4), it is difficult to state criteria for successful prediction of function, since function is in principle a fuzzy concept. Given three sequences, it is possible to decide which of the three possible pairs is most closely related. Given three structures, methods are also available to measure and compare similarity of the pairs. However, in many cases, given three protein functions, it would be more difficult to choose the pair with most similar function, although it is possible to define metrics for quantitative comparisons of different protein sequences and structures, this is more difficult for proteins of different functions (page 312, paragraph 5), in families of closely related proteins, mutations usually conserve function but modulate specificity i.e., mutations tend to leave the backbone conformation of the pocket unchanged but to affect the shape and charge of its lining, altering specificity (page 313, paragraph 4), although the hope is that highly similar proteins will share similar functions, substitutions of a single, critically placed amino acid in an active-site residue may be sufficient to alter a protein's role fundamentally (page 323, paragraph 1).
C. This finding is reinforced in the following scientific teachings for specific proteins in the art that suggest, even highly structurally homologous polypeptides do not necessarily share the same function and many functionally similar proteins will have little or no structural homology to disclosed proteins. For example, proteins having similar structure have different activities (structure does not always correlate to function); Witkowski et al., (Biochemistry 38:11643-11650, 1999) teaches that one conservative amino acid substitution transforms a beta -ketoacyl synthase into a malonyl decarboxylase and completely eliminates beta-ketoacyl synthase activity. The art also teaches that functionally similar molecules have different structures; Kisselev L., (Structure, 2002, Vol. 10: 8-9) teach that polypeptide release factors in prokaryotes and eukaryotes have same function but different structures.
As stated above, no information beyond the characterization of a few species; modified yeast strain Pichia kudriavzevii deposited in China General Microbiological Culture Collection Center (CGMCC) under the deposit number of CGMCC No. 20885 and modified yeast strain expressing polypeptides having SEQuence ID NO: 1-8 , and one could use structural homology to isolate those polypeptides the encoding polynucleotides having specific activity, has been provided by the applicants’, which would indicate that they had the possession of the claimed genus of polypeptides. The claimed genera of polypeptides and the encoding polynucleotides have widely variable structures and associated functions. As it is discussed above, a minor changes in structure may result in changes affecting function, since, the specification provided no additional information (species/variant/mutant) correlating structure with function, and one skilled in the art cannot reasonably conclude that applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the instant application was filed. Furthermore, "Possession may not be shown by merely describing how to obtain possession of members of the claimed, genus or how to identify their common structural features" (See University of Rochester, 358 F.3d at 927, 69 USPQ2d at 1895). A definition by function, as we have previously indicated, does not suffice to define the genus because it is only an indication of what the .gene does (function), rather what it is (structure), see University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 43 USPQ2d 1938, thus above claims lack adequate written description.
Applicants' are referred to the revised guidelines concerning compliance with the written description requirement of U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, published in the Official Gazette and also available at www.uspto.gov
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 5 refer to Pichia kudriavzevii deposited in China General Microbiological Culture Collection Center (CGMCC) under the deposit number of CGMCC No. 20885.. However, the specification does not indicate that these strains have been deposited under the Budapest Treaty and therefore, without guarantee of the availability of the strains, the strains are not enabled.
Deposits under the terms of the Budapest Treaty are, in themselves, insufficient to satisfy 37 CFR 1.805-1.807 unless they are disclosed on the record to be freely available to the public should a U.S. patent issue on the instant application. See, Ex parte Hildebrand, 15 USPQ2d 1662, 1664 (1990) (restrictions must "be irrevocably removed upon the issuance of [a] patent" since Rule 9.2 of the Budapest Treaty contains a residual requirement of secrecy). See also, MPEP 608.01 (p)(C)(3).
Application of 37 CFR 1.801, et seq., to any deposit, including a deposit made under the Budapest Treaty, requires that an enabling disclosure based upon such a deposit be provided by submission of a declaration or averment, either by the assignee or the attorney of record over his or her signature and registration number, that gives the following assurances:
1) that the biological material was accepted by the depository,
2) that all restrictions on the availability to the public of the deposited material
will be removed, and,
3) that the viability of the deposits will be maintained,
for the duration of the patent term or for a period of twenty years in accordance with 37 CFR 1.805-1.807. See, MPEP 2405-2411.05, wherein the latter section requires an amendment to the specification that introduces specific information concerning any deposit of biological materials. Such an amendment does not constitute new matter.
Applicants may take one of two actions.
One: Insure that 1) that the biological material was accepted by the depository,
2) that all restrictions on the availability to the public of the deposited material will be removed, and,
3) that the viability of the deposits will be maintained, for the duration of the patent term or for a period of twenty years in accordance with 37 CFR 1.805-1.807 via a statement from the assignee or the attorney of record.
AS WELL AS
amend the specification that introduces specific information 1), 2), and 3) concerning the deposit of biological materials. Basically, reiterate what Applicants wrote at pages 6-7 of their response regarding the viability and maintenance of the deposited E. coli.
Two: delete reference to the deposit from the claims.
Claim Rejections: 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non obviousness.
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 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.
According to MPEP 2143:"Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictableresults;(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;(E) "Obvious to try" - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.Note that the list of rationales provided is not intended to be an all-inclusive list. Other rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness may be relied upon by Office personnel."
Claims 1-2, 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1: Zang Et. al. FEMS Microbiology. letter. 2015, 10 April, 362, pp 1-5, ids) in view of D2: Ziang, Master's Theses Full-Text Database (Engineering Science and Technology I)), 15 September 2021, pp 1-86, IDS, abstract), IDS) and D3: Sanchez et al. Biotechnol. Prog, 02 March 2005, 21, pp 108-117. IDS) and Musrati et al. Gn. Physiol. Biophys. 1998, 17, pp 193-210).
D1 discloses: a method for producing C4-dicarboxylic acid by overexpressing the reductive TCA pathway in Pichia pastoris ( teach claims 1, 5). A pyruvate carboxylase gene (pc), a cytoplasmic malate dehydrogenase gene (mdh1) and a fumarase gene (Tfum) of which the N-terminal mitochondrial targeting sequence is deleted are individually or jointly integrated onto the chromosome DNA of Pichia pastoris GS115 ( teach claims 1-2,4-5). Results show that fumaric acid, maleic acid and amber acid (i.e., succinic acid) having the highest titer are obtained within 96 hours by means of coexpression of the pc and the mdh1 in Pichia pastoris (see D1, abstract, and page 2, right column) ( obvious over claims 1-2, 4-5).
Though D1 do not disclose an NADPH-dependent malate dehydrogenase and also has or has at least one of an enhanced soluble fumarate reductase and a succinic acid transporter, and does not disclose sources of the NADPH-dependent malate dehydrogenase.
The NADPH dependent malate dehydrogenase is well known in the art (see Musrati et al. Gn. Physiol. Biophys. 1998, 17, pp 193-210).
Musrati et al. disclose NADPH- dependent Malate dehydrogenase (MDH) is a widely distributed enzyme. The preferred substrate for MDH is oxaloacetate. It plays a crucial role in many important metabolic pathway including the tricarboxylic acid cycle, glyoxylate bypass, amino acid synthesis, gluconeogenesis and facilitation of exchange of metabolites between cytoplasm and subcellular organelles.
D2 discloses that: overexpression of succinic acid transporters in Yarrowia lipolytica improves the titer of succinic acid (see D2, abstract,( teach claim 1-2, 4-5 ).
D3 discloses that: inactivation of ethanol dehydrogenase in an Escherichia coli strain producing succinic acid can improve the production of succinic acid (see D3, page 359, right column to page 360, left column, teach claim 2)
-------------------------- Consequently, It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the teaching of D1:Zang Et. al; D2: Ziang et al., D3: Sanchez et al. and Musrati et al. to modify the succinate-producing yeast strain by expressing NADPH-dependent malate dehydrogenase ( as Murati et al) to the modified yeast of D1 wherein said yeast overexpressing the reductive TCA pathway in Pichia pastoris; A pyruvate carboxylase gene (pc), a cytoplasmic malate dehydrogenase gene (mdh1) and a fumarase gene (Tfum) of which the N-terminal mitochondrial targeting sequence is deleted are individually or jointly integrated onto the chromosome DNA of Pichia pastoris GS115 that produce fumaric acid, maleic acid and amber acid (i.e., succinic acid) having the highest titer and further introducing succinic acid transporters enhance the further improves the titer of succinic acid ( as taught by D2: Ziang et al., ) and delete ethanol dehydrogenase for maximum yield of succinic acid (as taught by Sanchez et al. ) One of skill in art would motivated to do so; Because NADPH-dependent malate dehydrogenase widely available and used, succinic acid transporters enhance the further improves the titer of succinic acid ( as taught by D2: Ziang et al., ) and deleting ethanol dehydrogenase from the said modified yeast results maximum yield of succinic acid .
Conclusion
Claims 1-5 are rejected and no claim is allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Mohammad Meah whose telephone number is 571-272-
1261. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
supervisor, Robert Mondesi can be reached on 4089187584. The fax phone number
for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for
published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should
you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system.
/MOHAMMAD Y MEAH/Examiner, Art Unit 1652
Prosecution Insights