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 .
Status of the application
Claims 1-20 are pending. The filing date or 371(c) date of the instant application is 1/30/2025. No drawings have been submitted in this application. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/27/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required.
Note: text that has been bolded in this OA has been done for emphasis only.
Election
Applicant’s election without traverse of species EE2121690 in the reply filed on 06/19/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-20, which recite both elected and non-elected species, will be examined in view of the of the election.
Claim Interpretation
Prior to analysis of the art, the claims must be construed. As noted in MPEP 2111, citing
Phillips V. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d (321 (Fed. Cir. 2005), "During patent examination,
the pending claims must be 'given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification.' As pointed out in In re Mott, 190 U.S.P.Q. 536 (CCPA 1975), "Claims must be given
broadest reasonable construction their language will permit in ex parte prosecution, and applicant
who uses broad language runs the risk that others may be able to support the same claim with a
different disclosure."
The specification comprises 10 specific references to the phrase “all the physiological and morphological characteristics of cultivar” or “having essentially all the physiological and morphological characteristics of cultivar.”
At page 6 of the specification applicant’s state: “The invention in one aspect covers a soybean plant, or parts thereof, or a cell of the soybean plant, having all of the physiological and morphological characteristics of the soybean variety of the invention.” “Another aspect of the current invention is a soybean plant further comprising a single locus conversion. In one embodiment, the soybean plant is defined as comprising the single locus conversion and otherwise capable of expressing all of the morphological and physiological characteristics of soybean variety EE2121690…”
The specification asserts, in reference to locus conversions that “introduce a given locus that is transgenic in origin, wherein essentially all of the morphological and physiological characteristics of a variety are recovered in addition to the characteristics of the locus or possibly loci which has been transferred into the variety.
The also specification asserts “[T]he present invention comprises a soybean plant, plant part, plant cell, and seed, characterized by molecular and physiological data obtained from the representative sample of said variety deposited with a recognized International Depository under the Budapest Treaty.
The specification asserts “Plants of the invention include any plant having at least 90%, 91 %, 92%, 93%, 94%, 95%, 96%, 97%, 98%, 99%, 99.5%, or 99.9% of the markers in the genotypic profile, and that retain 90%, 91 %, 92%, 93%, 94%, 95%, 96%, 97%, 98%, 99%, 99.5%, or 99.9% of the morphological and physiological characteristics of variety EE2121690.
The specification asserts: “The last backcross generation is then selfed to give pure breeding progeny for the gene(s) being transferred. The resulting plants have essentially all of the morphological and physiological characteristics of a cultivar of the present invention, in addition to the gene trait(s) transferred to the inbred.”
The phrases "essentially all" and "all" of the physiological and morphological characteristics is interpreted in view of the disclosure. Since the specification only disclose selected characteristics listed at pages 11-13 and Tables 5 & 6 (at page 53-54), a soybean plant of variety EE2121690 is interpreted as comprising all of the, or essentially all of, physiological and morphological characteristics of the instant invention when compared to pages 11-13 and Tables 5 & 6 and when grown in the same or substantially similar environment.
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 1-17 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 refers to the soybean cultivar EE2121690, having been deposited under NCMA Accession No. _____. Accordingly, claim 1 and claims 2-17 which depends therefrom are indefinite for failing to particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Amending claim 1 to include the actual deposit accession number would obviate this rejection.
Claims 18-20 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 18 is drawn to a method of isolating nucleic acid from a plant, a plant part to a seed of soybean EE2121690, however, this material is not tied to the deposit of the material and thus fails to particularly point out the subject matter of the invention because the term EE2121690 has no recognized meaning in the art. As claims 19 and 20 depend from claim 18 they too fail to particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Improper Markush
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117.
The Markush grouping of soybean varieties EE2120266, EE2121213, EE2121690, EE2222812, EE2121738, EE2121575, EE2121454, EE2220052, EE2121489, EE2140484, EE2140255 and EE2140583 is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons: Each soybean variety was developed through a non-disclosed breeding program and as such share no similarities with the broad exception of each comprising a soybean.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use.
Enablement
Biological Deposits
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL. —The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
22. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the 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.
23. Applicants statement at page 45 of the specification fails to evidence an actual deposit in compliance with the Budapest Treaty and/or under US rules of practice innumerate at 37 CFR 1.801-1.809. There is no evidence that the deposit has actually been made of the instant invention comprising seed of soybean cultivar EE2121690 which is contrary to the explicit statement in 45-46 indicating that:
Applicants have made a deposit of seeds of soybean cultivar EE2120266, EE2121213, EE2121690, EE2222812, EE2121738, EE2121575, EE2121454, EE2220052, EE2121489, EE2140484, EE2140255 and/or EE2140583 with the Provasoli-Guillard National Center for Marine Algae and Microbiota (NCMA), 60 Bigelow Drive East Boothbay, ME 04544, USA. The NCMA numbers of the deposits are NCMA Accession No. 202312065, NCMA Accession No. 202312066, NCMA Accession No. 202312068, NCMA Accession No_____. , NCMA Accession No. _______, NCMA Accession No. ______, NCMA Accession No. 202312067, NCMA Accession No. , NCMA Accession No. _______, NCMA Accession No. 202312069, NCMA Accession No. ______ , and NCMA Accession No. _______, respectively. The date of deposit for NCMA Accession No. 202312065, NCMA Accession No. 202312066, NCMA Accession No. 202312068, NCMA Accession No._______ , NCMA Accession No. ______, NCMA Accession No. ______, NCMA Accession No. 202312067, NCMA Accession No. ______ , NCMA Accession No. ______ , NCMA Accession No. 202312069, NCMA Accession No. ______, and NCMA Accession No. was December 12, 2023. All seed was tested for viability on December 21, 2023 and found viable. Access to this deposit will be available during the pendency of the application to the Commissioner for Patents and persons determined by the Commissioner to be entitled thereto upon request. Upon granting of a patent on any claims in the application, the Applicants will make the deposit available to the public pursuant to 37 CFR $1.808. Additionally, Applicants will meet the requirements of 37 CFR $1.801-1.809, including providing an indication of the viability of the sample when the deposit is made. The NCMA deposit will be maintained in that depository, which is a public depository, for a period of 30 years, or 5 years after the last request, or for the enforceable life of the patent, whichever is longer, and will be replaced if it becomes nonviable during that period.
24. While deposits of some of the varieties have actual deposit accession number, the instant invention is drawn to EE2121690 for which no deposit number, date of deposit or other necessary information is provided. Furthermore, although reference is made to the Budapest Treaty at page 21, the actual deposit statement at pages 45-46 does not reference the Budapest Treaty. Specifically, The specification states that all seed tested for viability on December 12, 2023 was found viable, however, the instant invention was not deposited on that date. The method of testing viability and who or how the test was performed is not stated. Under 37 CFR 1.807 the following information must be presented in the specification.
1.807 Viability of deposit.[AltContent: rect]
(a) A deposit of biological material that is capable of self-replication either directly or indirectly must be viable at the time of deposit and during the term of deposit. Viability may be tested by the depository. The test must conclude only that the deposited material is capable of reproduction. No evidence is necessarily required regarding the ability of the deposited material to perform any function described in the patent application. [AltContent: rect]
(b) A viability statement for each deposit of a biological material defined in paragraph (a) of this section not made under the Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Microorganisms for the Purposes of Patent Procedure must be filed in the application and must contain:
(1) The name and address of the depository;
(2) The name and address of the depositor;
(3) The date of deposit;
(4) The identity of the deposit and the accession number given by the depository;
(5) The date of the viability test;
(6) The procedures used to obtain a sample if the test is not done by the depository; and
(7) A statement that the deposit is capable of reproduction.
[AltContent: rect]
(c) If a viability test indicates that the deposit is not viable upon receipt, or the examiner cannot, for scientific or other valid reasons, accept the statement of viability received from the applicant, the examiner shall proceed as if no deposit has been made. The examiner will accept the conclusion set forth in a viability statement issued by a depository recognized under 1.803(a)
25. Although reference to 37 CFR 1.808 is made in the specification, this statement does not comply with the explicit requirement 1.808(a)(2) that “Subject to paragraph (b) of this section, all restrictions imposed by the depositor on the availability to the public of the deposited material will be irrevocably removed upon the granting of the patent” as the metes and bounds of what applicant’s intend that applicants will meet the requirements of 37 CFR 1.801-1.809.
26. Since no evidence of an enabling deposit has been proffered for the instant invention applicant may provide evidence of the deposit made and accepted under the Budapest Treaty by providing form BP/4 and BP/9 for the instant invention or a statement by a person capable of making that statement.
Written Description
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL. —The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
27. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
28. The instant disclosure describes features of soybean cultivar EE2121690 but is silent on the particulars of the breeding program used to develop this variety. The described features are insufficient, because the specification fails to disclose defining features of the claimed invention such that a person of skill in the art could distinguish the claimed subject matter from other plant materials. Additionally, 35 USC 112 (a) states that “The specification shall contain a written description of the invention.” In evaluating written description, the threshold question is what is “an adequate written description.” This is a question of fact that is evaluated by the factfinder (examiner). MPEP 2163.04 clearly states that “The inquiry into whether the description requirement is met must be determined on a case-by-case basis and is a question of fact. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976).”
29. The instant invention is soybean variety EE2121690. In reviewing this question of fact, the examiner analyzed how plant varieties are evaluated in the public domain. The review concluded that generally the minimum requirements for an adequate description of a new plant variety has a trait table and genetic information (via a breeding history).
30. In reviewing Applicant’s specification, there is a phenotypic description of the plant traits as beginning at page 52 and summarized in Tables 5 & 6 of the specification. While Applicant has provided the no breeding method for the claimed plant cultivar in the specification the specification does state that EE2121690 has similar yields to GS1513XF and S16-K2X and more than GS1553E3 and less than GS1656XF (LSD 0.05 = 2.0 bu/a). EE2121690 is similar in maturity to GS1513XF, S16-K2X, GS1553E3, and GS1656XF (LSD 0.05 =1.1). EE2121690 lodging score is similar to GS1513XF, S16-K2X, GS1553E3, and GS1656XF (LSD 0.05=0.8). EE2121690 is similar in plant height when compared to GS1513XF and taller than GS1656XF, S16-K2X, and GS1553E3 (LSD 0.05 = 1.9). EE2121690 is similar for SDS tolerance when compared to GS1656XF and GS1553E3 and better than S16-K2X and GS1513XF (LSD 0.05 =1.7). EE2121690 has similar tolerance for SWM to S16-K2X and GS1656XF and less tolerance than GS1513XF and GS1553E3 (LSD 0.05 = 1.3). EE2121690 is similar in IDC tolerance when compared to GS1656XF and GS1513XF and better than S16-K2X and GS1553E3 (LSD 0.05 = 1.1). EE2121690 is most similar to Syngenta variety GS1553E3. It can be differentiated from GS1553E3 since EE2121690 has purple flower color, gray pubescence, tan pod wall, buff hilum, the Rps1c and Rps3a genes for phytophthora resistance, Peking SCN resistance, resistance to glufosinate and contains the DAS-44406-6 gene for resistance to 2,4-D herbicide. GS1553E3 has white flower color, gray pubescence, tan pod wall, buff hilum, the Rps1 k and Rps3a genes for phytophthora resistance, P188788 SCN resistance source, a gene for resistance to glufosinate and contains the DAS-44406-6 gene for resistance to 2,4-D herbicide. GS1656XF has purple flower color, light tawny pubescence, brown pod wall, black hilum, the Rps1c gene for phytophthora resistance, the P188788 SCN resistance, a gene for resistance to glufosinate and does not contain the DAS-44406-6 gene for resistance to 2,4-D herbicide. GS1513XF has purple flower color, light tawny pubescence, brown pod wall, brown hilum, the Rps1c gene for phytophthora resistance, the P188788 SCN resistance, does have a gene for resistance to glufosinate and does not contain the DAS-44406-6 gene for resistance to 2,4-D herbicide. S16-K2X has purple flower color, light tawny pubescence, tan pod wall, black hilum, the Rps1 k and Rps 3a genes for phytophthora resistance, the P188788 SCN resistance, and does not have a gene for resistance to glufosinate and does not contain the DAS- 44406-6 gene for resistance to 2,4-D herbicide.
31. Given the lack of any breeding history, the instant application is incomplete as none of the parents were disclosed. Because of this Applicant must state clearly for the record that the parents used to produce the claimed invention are internal soybean lines that has never been made publicly available. Including the use of the parents of the claimed invention in the production of other soybean varieties to reasonably determine if there are any conflicting patents or patent applications which may require analysis for obvious double patenting and statutory double patenting.
32. The office’s reasonable basis for challenging the adequacy of written description is informed by a review of the following:
25. With regard to Plant Patents, MPEP 1605 states that a complete detailed description of a plant includes “the origin or parentage”.
A breeding history, including information about parentage and breeding methodology, is part of the requirements of Plant Variety Protection (PVP) applications. That information is used to “determine if development is sufficient to consider the variety new” (See “Applying for a Plant Variety Certificate of Protection”, USDA, https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/pv po/application-help/apply, downloaded 05/01/2023, (U)).
The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) considers breeding history and methodology part of its evaluation of essentially derived plant varieties (UPOV, Explanatory Notes on Essentially Derived Varieties Under the 1991 Act of the UPOV Convention, April 6, 2017, See UPOV EDV Explanatory Notes 14 and 30 (V)).
Historically, the USPTO has considered breeding history information when determining the patentability of a new plant variety. (See Ex Parte C (USPQ 2d 1492 (1992) (W) and Ex Parte McGowen Board Decision in Application 14/996,093, decided June 15, 2020 (X)). In both of these cases, there were many differences cited by the Applicant when comparing the prior art and the new plant variety. However, because the breeding history was available, these differences were deemed to be obvious and within the natural variation expected in a backcrossing breeding process. Without a breeding history in these cases, a complete comparison with the prior art could not have been possible.
As seen above in Ex Parte C and Ex Parte McGowan, a trait table is insufficient to differentiate varieties by itself. It has been long established that intracultivar heterogeneity exists in crop species. Haun et al. (Plant Physiology, Feb. 2011, Vol. 155, pp. 645-655 (Y)) teaches that the assumption that elite cultivars are composed of relatively homogenous genetic pools is false. (p. 645, left column). Segregation, recombination, DNA transposition, epigenetic processes, and spontaneous mutations are some of the reasons elite cultivar populations will maintain some degree of plant-to-plant variation (p. 645, right column and p. 646, left column). In addition to genetic variation, environmental variation may lead to phenotypic variation within a cultivar. (Großkinsky et al., J. Exp. Bot., Vol. 66, No. 11, pp. 5429-5440, 2015 (Z), p. 5430, left column, 1st full paragraph, and right column, 2nd full paragraph). In view of this variability, a breeding history is an essential and the least burdensome way to provide genetic information needed to adequately describe a newly developed plant.
33. The above factual evidence provides a reasonable basis that a breeding history is necessary written description. With this information the examiner has met the initial burden of presenting by a preponderance of evidence why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize in an applicant’s disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. (See MPEP 2163.04). Please note, the citations above are not for legal authority, the legal authority relied upon by the examiner is the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) statute. The citations are presented to support the finding of fact that a breeding history is necessary to the adequate description of a plant.
34. Although not directly relied upon for the above written description position, a complete written description additionally helps drive examination and help with infringement verification.
MPEP 2163 (I) states “The written description of the deposited material needs to be as complete as possible because the examination for patentability proceeds solely on the basis of the written description. See, e.g., In re Lundak, 773 F.2d 1216, 227 USPQ 90 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also 54 Fed. Reg. at 34,880 ("As a general rule, the more information that is provided about a particular deposited biological material, the better the examiner will be able to compare the identity and characteristics of the deposited biological material with the prior art.").”
MPEP 2163(I) states “The description must be sufficient to permit verification that the deposited biological material is in fact that disclosed. Once the patent issues, the description must be sufficient to aid in the resolution of questions of infringement." Id. at 34,880.)” (Quoting the Deposit of Biological Materials for Patent Purposes, Final Rule, 54 Fed. Reg. 34,864 (August 22, 1989) at 34,880).
35. The breeding history aids in the resolution of patent infringement by providing information necessary to determine whether differences in the plants are genetic differences, differences caused by the environment, or differences within the accepted variation within a variety.
36. Moreover, a specification devoid of a complete breeding history hampers the public’s ability to resolve infringement analysis with plants already in the prior art as well as plants that have not yet been patented. Because the instant specification lacks the complete breeding history, the public will not be able to fully resolve questions of infringement. Since the breeding history, including the parents, is not known to the public, the public could only rely on the phenotypes of the claimed plants for assessing potential infringement. Thus, an application that does not clearly describe the breeding history does not provide an adequate written description of the invention.
37. To obviate this rejection, Applicant should identify any and all other potential names for all parental lines utilized in the development of the instant cultivar and all other potential names for the claimed cultivar. If Applicant’s breeding history uses proprietary cultivar names, Applicant should notate in the specification all other names of the proprietary cultivars, especially publicly disclosed or patented cultivar information. If the breeding history encompasses a locus conversion or a backcrossing process, Applicant should clearly indicate the recurrent parent and the donor plant and specifically name the trait or transgenic event that is being donated to the recurrent parent. If one of the parents is a backcross progeny or locus converted line of a publicly disclosed line, Applicant should provide the breeding history of the parent line as well (i.e., grandparents). Applicant should identify the breeding method used, such as single seed descent, bulk method, backcross method, etc., and the filial generation in which the instant plant was chosen. Information pertaining to the homozygosity or heterozygosity of the parents as well as the instant plant should be set forth.
38. Applicant is reminded that they have a duty to disclose information material to patentability. Applicant should also notate the most similar plants which should include any other plants created using similar breeding history (such as siblings of the instant cultivar). If there any patent applications or patents in which siblings or parents of the instant plant are claimed, the serial numbers and names of the siblings or parents should be disclosed. This information can be submitted in an IDS with a notation of the relevancy to the instant application or as information submitted as described in MPEP 724 (e.g., trade secret, proprietary, and Protective Order).
39. Applicants have a duty to disclose information material to patentability. Applicant should also notate the most similar plants, which should include any other plants created using similar breeding history (such as siblings of the instant variety). This information can be submitted in an IDS with a notation of the relevancy to the instant application or as information submitted as described in MPEP 724 (e.g., trade secret, proprietary, and Protective Order).
40. It is noted that none of the comparison lines in Table 6 compare the instant soybean plant to non-propriety plants. The varieties GS1656 XF, GS 15112XF, S16-K2X and GS1553E3 can be found at Product Search - NK Soybeans Seed | Syngenta US. No information on the parents or breeding history can be located in publicly available databases. EE2121690 is listed as part of a broader set of soybean lines being developed for agricultural use. It is grouped with other EE2121-series varieties, which are likely developed for traits such as yield potential, disease resistance, and adaptability to specific growing conditions.
Prior art
41. The claims are provisionally free of the prior art given the failure of the prior art to teach or suggest a soybean cultivar having all or the morphological and physiological characteristics of soybean variety designated EE2121690. Without breeding information, including parentage, a meaningful comparison of the EE2121690 cannot be made.
Conclusion
42. No Claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gary Benzion whose telephone number is (571)272-0782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am to 5pm.
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, Yvonne Eyler can be reached at 571-272-1200. 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.
GARY BENZION, Ph.D.
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1681
/GARY BENZION/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1681
Prosecution Insights