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 .
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.
Claim 21 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 broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 21 recites the broad recitation “biomarkers”, and the claim also recites “biomolecules absorbed by the cell, biomolecules secreted by the cell, biomolecules dissociating from cell surfaces, biomolecules being cleaved off or shed from the surface, macromolecular complexes budded, released of cleaved of the surface, biomolecules passively released by the cell, conventionally and unconventionally released proteins, apoptotic release of biomolecules, necrotic released biomolecules, post-translation modifications, cell to cell interactions, cell to cell communications” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 21 recites “conventionally and unconventionally released proteins,” but this is unclear because it seems to encompass all released proteins. Furthermore, the terms “conventionally” and “unconventionally” are subjective and not specially defined in the disclosure. What specifically determines conventionality in the field of proteomics/secretomics? In the interest of compact prosecution, examiner interprets “conventionally and unconventionally released proteins” to mean “released proteins.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9, 12-13, 15-16, 20-22, 29-30, 34-35 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims will be analyzed below according to MPEP 2106.
Inquiry 1: Is the claim directed to a statutory category of invention (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter)?
Claims 1-9, 12-13, 15-16, 20-22, 29-30, 34-35 are directed to a process.
Inquiry 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Claim 1 recites “identifying one or more biomolecules generated by the cell,” which reads as a mental process that can occur in the human mind and/or with pen and paper by observing the outcome of the “detecting at least a subset of the set of biomolecules” (for example, by observing mass spectrometry data). As such, claim 1 recites an abstract idea; see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 21 recites “determining one or more protein to protein interactions, biomarkers… or any combination thereof c which reads as a mental process that can occur in the human mind and/or with pen and paper by contemplating the outcome of the “detecting at least a subset of the set of biomolecules” and “identifying one or more biomolecules generated by the cell” then determining based on that. As such, claim 21 recites an abstract idea; see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claims 2-9, 12-13, 15-16, 20, 22, 29-30, 34-35 are all dependent on claim 1 and therefore recite an abstract idea as well.
Inquiry 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No they do not.
Regarding claim 1, there is nothing that occurs after the “identifying” step. Furthermore, the steps prior to the “identifying” step amount to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data-gathering; steps (a)-(e) are directed to collecting a sample and preparing it for analysis, and step (f)’s “detecting at least a subset of the set of biomolecules” represents when the data is actually gathered. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 21 is dependent on claim 1, and the “determining” is described as being “based at least in part on the identification.” However, nothing occurs after the “determining,” and everything prior to the “identification” step of claim 1 amounts to mere data-gathering as discussed above. Furthermore, because claim 21 recites two distinct mental processes, note that when one mental process (“determining”) occurs after another mental process (“identifying”), this is insufficient to amount to a practical application of either abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Claims 2-9, 12-13, 15, 20, 22, 29-30, 34-35 are all dependent on claim 1, but they are all directed to the data-gathering steps discussed above. Claim 16 introduces repeated steps, but the repetition still ends with a “identifying” step and therefore it does not amount to a practical application of claim 1’s “identifying” step.
Inquiry 2B: Does the claim recite additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No they do not.
Regarding claim 1, the steps prior to the “identifying” step amount to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data-gathering; steps (a)-(e) are directed to collecting a sample and preparing it for analysis, and step (f)’s “detecting at least a subset of the set of biomolecules” represents when the data is actually gathered. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 21 is dependent on claim 1, and the “determining” is described as being “based at least in part on the identification.” However, everything prior to the “identification” step of claim 1 amounts to mere data-gathering as discussed above. Furthermore, because claim 21 recites two distinct mental processes, note that when one mental process (“determining”) occurs after another mental process (“identifying”), this is insufficient to amount to significantly more than either abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Claims 2-9, 12-13, 15, 20, 22, 29-30, 34-35 are all dependent on claim 1, but they are all directed to the data-gathering steps discussed above and therefore do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Claim 16 introduces repeated steps, but the repetition still ends with a “identifying” step and therefore it does not amount to significantly more than claim 1’s “identifying” step.
Furthermore, the concepts recited in claims 1-9, 12-13, 15-16, 20-22, 29-30, 34-35 are well-understood, routine, conventional in the art. Blume et al. (Nature Communication, Vol. 11, No. 3662, pp. 1-14, 22 July 2020, as submitted in the IDS submitted on 10/07/2024) teaches: a plurality of magnetic nanoparticles (affixed with a plurality of surfaces to recognize biomolecules) to analyze biomolecules released from cells derived from blood/plasma samples from humans diagnosed with cancer to identify over 2,000 proteins from the samples using an LC-MS/MS method; the nanoparticles bind to the biomolecules in the samples with 1 hour of incubation and are magnetically separated from the sample to reduce the dynamic range of the proteins then released via a protease. Emmert-Buck et al. (Molecular Carcinogenesis, Vol. 27, 7 March 2000, pgs. 158-165) also teaches a MS based proteomics analysis method using tumor-derived tissue samples from humans to identify biomolecules/biomarkers associated with cancer and tumorigenesis. Kostarelos et al. (US20210132071A1, as cited in the IDS submitted on 10/07/2024) also teaches a nanoparticle-based method for identifying and detecting potential disease specific biomarkers from human-derived “biofluids”. Farokhzad et al. (US 20210072255 A1, as cited in the IDS submitted on 10/07/2024) teaches another nano-particle based LC-MS method to detect/differentiate biomarkers associated with various disease states, and utilizes a variety of organism-derived biological samples including “systemic blood, plasma, serum, lung lavage, cell lysates, menstrual blood, urine, processed tissue samples, amniotic fluid, cerebrospinal fluid, tears, saliva, semen and the like” ([0177] of Farokhzad). Baumann et al. (Clinical Chemistry, Vol. 51, Issue 6, 1 June 2005, pp. 973-980, as cited in the IDs submitted on 10/07/2024) teaches a magnetic bead purification for the analysis of low-abundance proteins in body fluids. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, 12-13, 15, 20-22, 29-30, 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blume et al. (Nature Communication, Vol. 11, No. 3662, pp. 1-14, 22 July 2020, as submitted in the IDS submitted on 10/07/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Blume teaches a method for identifying one or more biomolecules generated by a cell (abstract) (NPs translates to distinct protein corona patterns enabling differential and reproducible interrogation of biological samples, including deep sampling of the plasma proteome… in a pilot non-small cell lung cancer classification study), comprising:
(a) providing a supplemented medium (pg. 11 left column second and fifth paragraph) (Plasma and serum samples (BioIVT, Hicksville NY) were diluted 1:5 in a dilution buffer and obtaining blood samples from patients… 141 age- and gender-matched subjects from the healthy and early-stage NSCLC groups was selected for analysis);
(b) generating a set of biomolecules by incubating the cell in the supplemented medium under conditions sufficient for the cell to generate the set of biomolecules (pg. 11 left column fifth paragraph and pg. 6 left column second paragraph) (Subjects with pathology-confirmed NSCLC… Sample types collected included EDTA plasma tubes… Streck Blood Cell Collection tubes... the samples were centrifuged within 1 h of collection and the plasma fraction was aspirated and frozen within one hour of centrifugation and we investigated the effect of hemolysis using a human-derived red blood cell hemolysate spiked into a pooled plasma sample at low and high concentrations, as well as a control with no spike);
(c) contacting at least a portion of the supplemented medium with one or more surfaces to adsorb the set of biomolecules (pg. 11 left column second paragraph) (100 μL of NP suspension…was mixed with 100 μL of diluted biological samples in microtiter plates. The plates were sealed and incubated at 37 °C for 1 h with shaking at 300 rpm.) (Note that “NP” is nanoparticle which is interpreted to comprise the one or more surfaces);
(d) removing the one or more surfaces and the set of biomolecules from the at least the portion of the supplemented medium to produce a separated sample (pg. 11 left column second paragraph) (After incubation, the plate was placed on top of a magnetic collection device for 5 min to draw down the NPs. Unbound proteins in supernatant were pipetted out);
(e) releasing the set of biomolecules from the one or more surfaces (pg. 11 left column fourth paragraph) (To digest the proteins bound onto NPs, a trypsin digestion kit); and
(f) detecting at least a subset of the set of biomolecules, thereby identifying one or more biomolecules generated by the cell (pg. 10 left column first paragraph and bottom paragraph) (this initial study provides a proof-of-concept for employing multiple NPs to identify protein biomarkers in a clinical cohort and the peptide eluates were lyophilized and reconstituted in 0.1% TFA. A 2 μg aliquot from each sample was analyzed by nano-LC-MS/MS… Identifications were quantified based on protein intensities… requiring at least one razor peptide).
Regarding claim 2, Blume teaches the method of claim 1 as rejected above, wherein, subsequent to the contacting of (c), the set of biomolecules comprises a reduced dynamic range when adsorbed on the one or more surfaces compared to an original dynamic range of the set of biomolecules in the supplemented medium (pg. 4 right column first paragraph) (The decreasing slopes for the fitted models for particle intensities indicate a reduction in the dynamic range of protein signal intensities as a function of abundance. This is consistent with previous observations60,61 that NPs can effectively reduce the measured dynamic range for abundances in the corona).
Regarding claim 3, Blume teaches the method of claim 1 as rejected above, wherein, in (a), the incubating the cell in the supplemented medium is performed for less than about 5 hours (pg. 11 left column second paragraph) (incubated at 37 °C for 1 h with shaking at 300 rpm).
Regarding claim 4, Blume teaches the method of claim 1 as rejected above, wherein the cell is afflicted with an infection or a mutation (pg. 11 left column fifth paragraph) (Subjects with pathology-confirmed NSCLC… Sample types collected included EDTA plasma tubes… Streck Blood Cell Collection tubes). Note that NSCLC stands for non-small-cell lung cancer, which is derived from at least one mutation.
Regarding claim 6, Blume teaches the method of claim 1 as rejected above, wherein a particle comprises a surface of the one or more surfaces (pg. 11 left column second paragraph) (100 μL of NP suspension…was mixed with 100 μL of diluted biological samples). Note that “NP” stands for nanoparticle which is interpreted to comprise the one or more surfaces.
Regarding claim 7, Blume teaches the method of claim 6 as rejected above, wherein the particle is a nanoparticle. (pg. 11 left column second paragraph) (100 μL of NP suspension…was mixed with 100 μL of diluted biological samples). “NP” stands for nanoparticle as discussed above.
Regarding claim 8, Blume teaches the method of claim 1 as rejected above, wherein the contacting in (c) further comprises contacting the biological sample with a second surface to adsorb a second plurality of biomolecules onto the second surface (pg. 4 left column second paragraph) (we investigated the capacity of the three initial NPs to interrogate the complex proteome of blood plasma…Each NP (100 μL) was first incubated with plasma for 1 h at 37 °C allowing for equilibrium of proteins that associate with NPs).
Regarding claim 9, Blume teaches the method of claim 1 as rejected above, wherein the detecting comprises mass spectrometry (pg. 11 left column bottom paragraph) (each sample was analyzed by nano-LC-MS/MS…).
Regarding claim 12, Blume teaches the method of claim 1 as rejected above, wherein the supplemented medium comprises as a fraction or in whole a serum, a plasma, cerebral spinal fluid (CSF), synovial fluid (SF), urine, tears, crevicular fluid, semen, whole blood, milk, nipple aspirate, needle aspirate, ductal lavage, vaginal fluid, nasal fluid, ear fluid, gastric fluid, pancreatic fluid, trabecular fluid, lung lavage, prostatic fluid, sputum, fecal matter, bronchial lavage, fluid from swabbings, bronchial aspirants, sweat, saliva, or any combination thereof (pg. 11 left column second paragraph) (Plasma and serum samples (BioIVT, Hicksville NY) were diluted 1:5 in a dilution buffer).
Regarding claim 13, Blume teaches the method of claim 1 as rejected above, wherein the supplemented medium comprises a supernatant of a cell culture, a secretome of co-cultures, an exosome, a tissue or cell lysate, or any combination thereof (pg. 11 left column fifth paragraph and pg. 6 left column second paragraph) (Sample types collected included EDTA plasma tubes… Streck Blood Cell Collection tubes... and we investigated the effect of hemolysis using a human-derived red blood cell hemolysate).
Regarding claim 15, Blume teaches the method of claim 1 as rejected above, wherein a biomolecule of the set of biomolecules is a protein (pg. 10 left column first paragraph) (this initial study provides a proof-of-concept for employing multiple NPs to identify protein biomarkers in a clinical cohort).
Regarding claim 20, Blume teaches the method of claim 1 as rejected above, wherein the conditions are varied over time (pg. 11 left column third paragraph) (For the 10-NP screen, the five additional assay conditions evaluated were identical to those described above, with one of the following exceptions. First, a low concentration of NPs was evaluated that was 50% the original concentration).
Regarding claim 21, Blume teaches the method of claim 1 as rejected above, further comprising determining one or more protein to protein interactions, biomarkers, molecular signatures, biomolecules absorbed by the cell, biomolecules secreted by the cell, biomolecules dissociating from cell surfaces, biomolecules being cleaved off or shed from the surface, macromolecular complexes budded, released of cleaved of the surface, biomolecules passively released by the cell, conventionally and unconventionally released proteins, apoptotic release of biomolecules, necrotic released biomolecules, post-translation modifications, cell to cell interactions, cell to cell communications, or any combination thereof based at least in part on the identification, wherein molecular signatures are any patterns of proteins/proteoforms indicative of a biological state (pg. 10 left column first paragraph) (this initial study provides a proof-of-concept for employing multiple NPs to identify protein biomarkers in a clinical cohort).
Regarding claim 22, Blume teaches the method of claim 1 as rejected above, further comprising a plurality of cells comprising the cell, wherein the plurality of cells is comprised in a tissue, an organoid, an organism, or a plurality of organisms (pg. 11 left column fifth paragraph and pg. 6 left column second paragraph) (Sample types collected included… Streck Blood Cell Collection tubes... and we investigated the effect of hemolysis using a human-derived red blood cell hemolysate).
Regarding claim 29, Blume teaches the method of claim 1 as rejected above, wherein the releasing comprises use of a protease (pg. 11 left column fourth paragraph) (To digest the proteins bound onto NPs, a trypsin digestion kit). Note that trypsin is a protease.
Regarding claim 30, Blume teaches the method of claim 1 as rejected above, wherein the one or more surfaces comprise at least two surfaces comprising distinct physicochemical properties such that the at least two surfaces adsorb a different pattern of biomolecule abundance from the set of biomolecules (abstract) (Varying the physicochemical properties of engineered NPs translates to distinct protein corona patterns enabling differential and reproducible interrogation of biological samples, including deep sampling of the plasma proteome).
Regarding claim 34, Blume teaches the method of claim 1 as rejected above, wherein the set of biomolecules comprises at least 2000 biomolecules (abstract) (We screened 43 NPs and selected a panel of 5, which detect more than 2,000 proteins).
Regarding claim 35, Blume teaches the method of claim 1 as rejected above, wherein a surface of the one or more surfaces is disposed on a magnetic substrate, and wherein the removing in (d) comprises using a magnetic field to separate the magnetic substrate from the at least a portion of the supplemented media (pg. 11 left column second paragraph) (After incubation, the plate was placed on top of a magnetic collection device for 5 min to draw down the NPs). See also figure 1b, which shows the use of a magnetic field (step 2 below):
PNG
media_image1.png
467
952
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blume et al. (Nature Communication, Vol. 11, No. 3662, pp. 1-14, 22 July 2020, as submitted in the IDS submitted on 10/07/2024), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Emmert-Buck et al. (Molecular Carcinogenesis, Vol. 27, 7 March 2000, pgs. 158-165).
Regarding claim 5, Blume teaches the method of claim 1 as rejected above. Blume teaches the cell being one or more of a red blood cell (pg. 11 left column fifth paragraph and pg. 6 left column second paragraph) (Sample types collected included EDTA plasma tubes… Streck Blood Cell Collection tubes... and we investigated the effect of hemolysis using a human-derived red blood cell hemolysate).
Blume does not teach wherein the cell is a viable cell comprising a cancer cell, an epithelial cell, a bone cell, a muscle cell, a fat cell, a tissue cell, a senescent cell, a pluripotent cell, a stem cell, or a nerve cell.
In the analogous art of studying proteomes in relation to cancer, Emmert-Buck teaches studying viable cancer cells derived from cancerous tissue samples (abstract of Emmert-Buck) (tumor cells from two patients were procured by laser-capture microdissection… determination of the identity of selected proteins through high-sensitivity MS-MS microsequencing are possible from microdissected cell populations… capable of detecting tumor-specific alterations). Emmert-Buck teaches that studying the proteome of cancerous tissues (tumors) is advantageous because it allows for studying protein alterations that arise during tumorigenesis and it accounts for patient variability (pg. 164 left column third-fourth paragraphs) (These efforts may reveal patient-unique protein profiles related to cancer susceptibility and/or disease progression… proteomic analysis of microdissected cell samples is feasible and can uniquely reveal tumor-specific alterations).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the red blood cells of Blume with cancer cells derived from cancerous tissue samples as taught by Emmert-Buck because it would allow for studying protein alterations that arise during tumorigenesis and accounting for patient variability with a reasonable expectation of success (see pg. 11 left column fifth paragraph and pg. 6 left column second paragraph of Blume; abstract and pg. 164 left column third-fourth paragraphs of Emmert-Buck).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blume et al. (Nature Communication, Vol. 11, No. 3662, pp. 1-14, 22 July 2020, as submitted in the IDS submitted on 10/07/2024), as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16, Blume teaches the method of claim 1 as rejected above. Blume teaches of incubating the cell in the supplemented medium for 1 hour for presumably all samples (pg. 11 left column second paragraph) (The plates were sealed and incubated at 37 °C for 1 h). Blume teaches at least two different kinds of supplemented media, as evidenced by the number of patient samples that were studied (pg. 11 left column fifth paragraph) (141 age- and gender-matched subjects from the healthy and early-stage NSCLC groups was selected for analysis… the 141 plasma samples were randomized across sets of 96-well plates, one set for each NP). Blume teaches that a major hurdle in LC-MS proteomics is the time required to fully process/analyze a sample, and teaches of shortening the time needed to perform LC-MS on a sample (pg. 8 second paragraph) (We used short a gradient (20 min gradient, 33 min sample-to-sample time) and a panel of five NPs selected from the original 10, optimized for maximum protein group coverage, in order to further reduce total experiment time)
Blume does not teach wherein the second supplemented medium is generated by incubating the cell in the supplemented medium for a different length of time.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to try a shortened incubation time via routine optimization because it would lead to shortening the total experiment time with a reasonable expectation of success (see pg. 11 left column second/fifth paragraph and pg. 8 second paragraph of Blume). MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Amici et al. (RSC Adv., 2017, Vol. 7, pp. 1137-1145, as cited in the IDS submitted on 10/7/2024) teaches a method of using nanoparticles to form and detect a protein corona using in vivo mouse samples; Bertoli et al. (Small, Vol. 10, Issue 16, 27 August 2014, pp. 3307-3315, as cited in the IDS submitted on 10/7/2024) teaches magnetic nanoparticles to recover cellular organelles and study the time Resolved Nanoparticle-Cell “Interactome” throughout uptake; Machado et al. (American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Vol. 171, 2005, pp 1286-1291, as cited in the IDS submitted on 10/7/2024) teaches of analyzing breath samples for cancer detection using an array.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOUSTON D COLE whose telephone number is (571)272-8405. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00am-5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/H.D.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
