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 .
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Status of Application and Claims
US Patent 12,053,005 issued on 8/6/24 from application 16/768,421 with claims 1-4. This reissue application was filed on 2/11/25 amending claim 1 and adding new claims 5-20. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Establishment of Ownership
The statement under 37 CFR 3.73 is defective because the document filed on 2/11/25 fails to identify the ’005 patent by number and issue date. The statement refers to an application “TO BE ASSIGNED” as being recorded at a certain reel and frame in the Office’s records. A replacement statement under 37 CFR 3.73 is required to establish ownership of the ’005 patent. Applicant is advised that form PTO/AIA /96 provides all of the information required to show ownership when correctly completed.
Assignee’s Consent to Reissue
The 7/8/22 consent to reissue signed by Alexander B. Stein is defective because it was neither signed by a person with apparent authority as defined in MPEP 325(V) nor signed by a person authorized to act on behalf of the assignee at the time of signing. MPEP 325(V) recognizes that persons with “apparent authority” to sign on behalf of an organization include officers of that organization, e.g., its chief executive officer, president, vice-president, secretary, or treasurer. Consenter Stein is not clearly any of these, because the space on the form for giving his title has been left blank. There is also nothing in the record to indicate that consenter Stein was authorized to act on behalf of the assignee with regard to the ’005 patent because the statement under 37 CFR 3.73 is defective, as discussed above.
This matter would be overcome by submission of a replacement consent of the assignee signed by either a person authorized to act on behalf of the assignee; an officer of the assignee; or a patent practitioner already appointed power of attorney at the time of signing.
Reissue Oath/Declaration
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective because it fails to identify at least one error which is relied upon to support the reissue application. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414. The declaration indicates that claim 1 has been broadened but does not specify which claims are broader or in what respect they are broader.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251 – Defective Reissue Declaration
Claims 1-4 and 10-16 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
Claim Objections
The 2/11/25 claim listing is objected to because it does not comply fully with 37 CFR 1.173(b) and (d). Specifically, claims 2-4 have not been given status identifiers as required by rule 1.173(b)(2). New claims 5-20 are not underlined in their entirety as required by rule 1.173(d). A compliant replacement claim listing is required.
Also, applicant alleges that new claims “21-30” find basis at “column 3, line 8 – column 4, line 28 and column 6, lines 28-45 (and associated figures referenced in these sections).” (Remarks at 8.) First, there are no new claims 21-30. Second, the statement of support for the changes to the claims must account for each claim individually to make the record clear. A replacement statement for all pending claims is required.
Election by Original Presentation
37 CFR 1.176(b) permits the examiner to require restriction in a reissue application between claims newly added in a reissue application and the original patent claims where the added claims are directed to an invention that is separate and distinct from the invention(s) defined by the original patent claims. See MPEP 1450.
Further, in the reissue application, if a restriction requirement is made by the examiner, the original patent claims will be held to be constructively elected.
Where a restriction requirement is made by the examiner, the original patent claims will be held to be constructively elected, except where disclaimer applies. Applicant may file divisional reissue applications directed to the constructively non-elected inventions. See MPEP 1450.
This reissue application contains claims to two distinct inventions:
A method for generating a transglucosylated glycoside using a culture of Lactobacillus mali or its culture supernatant, or a crude enzyme (claims 1-4 and 10-16); and
A composition comprising a transglucosylated glycoside (claims 5-9 and 17-20).
These inventions are independent of and distinct from each other. The composition can be made by chemical synthesis methods that do not involve a culture of L. mali, L. mali culture supernatant, or an enzyme. See MPEP 806.05(f).
Claims 5-9 and 17-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a constructively non-elected invention. Claims 1-4 and 10-16 are under examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the Republic of Korea on 12/15/17. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR 10-2017-0173569 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 365(c):
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, PCT KR2018/015926, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for claims 10-16 of this application for the reasons set forth in detail below in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). No copy or translation of the KR ’569 application is on record to be consulted for support. See rejection below under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of written description. The effective filing date of claims 10-16 is 12/14/18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Indefiniteness
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 4 and 10-16 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 4 depends from claim 1 and refers to steps of “collecting the supernatant” and “reacting the supernatant.” It is unclear whether these steps refer to the supernatant of claim 1, line 5, or to the supernatant that would be produced by claim 4’s centrifuging step. The antecedent basis for these active steps of claim 4 is unclear. See MPEP 2173.05(e) (“two levers” example). Clarification is required.
Claim 10 recites a solution comprising steviol glycoside and sugar at line 2. It then requires that the final product comprises a glucose molecule. It is unclear whether the “sugar” of claim 10 is limited to glucose; the art knew of many sugars that are not glucose and do not contain glucose. Claims 11-16 depend from claim 10 and do not rectify the indefiniteness, so they must also be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Written Description
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(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.
Claims 10-16 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.
Claim 10 is drawn to a method of reducing off-odors of steviol glycoside and recites a step of reacting a “crude enzyme” with a solution of steviol glycoside and sugar in a buffer. Claim 10 requires that the contacting step results in a transglucosylated steviol glycoside comprising a glucose molecule linked via an [Symbol font/0x61]-(1,6) bond to the glucose molecule linked to the 19-OH site of the steviol glycoside.
Applicant defines “steviol glycoside” at column 2, lines 37-55, of the ’130 patent as a natural sweetener having a glucose, rhamnose, xylose, etc. linked to a 13-OH or 19-OH of Chemical Formula 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
434
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Stevioside is a steviol glycoside in which two glucose moieties are attached at the 13-OH position and one is attached at the 19-OH position:
PNG
media_image2.png
486
244
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Curly brace identifies glucose moiety linked to the 19-OH site of the steviol glycoside.) According to the ’130 patent, transglucosylated stevioside with a glucose molecule linked via an [Symbol font/0x61]-(1,6) bond to the 19-OH-linked glucose has the following structure:
PNG
media_image3.png
658
834
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Column 8, lines 1-19; curly brace identifies glucose attached to 19-OH-linked glucose moiety.) Skilled artisans recognized “C-19” as a synonym for the 19-OH position and “C-13” as a synonym for the 13-OH position within stevioside.
In assessing the written-description requirement, patents and printed publications in the art should be relied upon to determine whether an art is mature and what the level of knowledge and skill is in the art. MPEP 2163(II)(A)(3)(a)(i). Before the effective filing date, skilled artisans were aware of the general principle of transglucosylating steviol glycosides. Li et al. (2013, Food Chemistry 138: 2064–2069; reference U) teaches transglucosylating stevioside and rebaudioside A with cornstarch and cyclodextrin glucosyltransferase (CGTase) from several bacteria. (Page 2065.) Li, however, used cornstarch as the glucose donor and did not investigate the nature of the bond between the added glucose and the glucose molecule linked to the 19-OH site. (Page 2065; Figure 1.)
Jaitek et al. (2009, Biotechnology Letters 31:1415–1420; reference V) teaches glucosylating stevioside with [Symbol font/0x62]-cyclodextrin and CTGase as well but added glucose molecules to the glucose moieties linked to the C-13 site of the steviol glycoside. (Page 1416; Figure 2.)
KR 10-1199821 B1 (2012; reference N) discloses a method for adding glucose moieties to stevioside by incubating stevioside with sugar and Leuconostoc mesenteroides B-512FMCM dextran sucrase. (Abstract; page 7 of machine translation provided as reference U2.) KR ’821 discloses generating stevioside with glucose attached at the 19-OH position. (“C ring,” pages 7 and 8 of translation.) KR ’821 used purified L. mesenteroides dextran sucrase for its conversion reaction. (Page 8 of translation at Example 1.) Regarding examined claim 16, KR ’821 does not demonstrate that stevioside with glucose attached at the 19-OH position possesses enhanced sweetness relative to any standard.
Adari et al. (2016, Food Chemistry 200: 154-158; reference W) prepared rebaudioside A from stevioside using Stevia leaf enzymes plus cellulase and soluble starch as the glucose donor. (Page 155, paragraph bridging columns.) Rebaudioside A is stevioside with an extra glucose unit at the C-13 position. (Page 154, column 2.) Adari observes that elongating the glucose chain at the C-19 position of stevioside worsens its taste. (Page 157, column 1.)
Munoz-Labrador et al. (2020, Foods 9: 1753; reference X) also used cornstarch (maize starch) and CGTase to glucosylate stevioside. See section 2.2. Munoz-Labrador produced glucosylated steviol glycosides with up to seven glucoses at the 19-OH (“C-19”) position but did not investigate the nature of the bond between the added glucose and the glucose molecule linked to the 19-OH site. (Section 3.2.)
Around the claims’ effective filing date, then, skilled artisans understood transglucosylation of stevioside by incubating the compound with starch—not sugar—as the glucose donor, and they also appreciated that adding glucose moieties at the 13-OH site was desirable and achievable with bacterial CGTase enzymes and an unidentified enzyme within Stevia leaf. A diligent search of the art, however, revealed no teachings in which sugar was used as the glucose donor with a “crude enzyme” to add glucose molecules at the 19-OH position of a steviol glycoside. The only teaching of generating a 19-OH-glycosylated stevioside is in KR ’814, which used a single purified enzyme, dextran sucrase.
Claim 10 is generic to the “crude enzyme” that adds a glucose molecule to the 19-OH site of a steviol glycoside using sugar as the glucose donor. As demonstrated above, the technology of the invention as applicant claims it is not mature, and knowledge is limited, despite the high skill level of those in the art. The written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, reduction to drawings, or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the inventor was in possession of the claimed genus. MPEP 2163(II)(A)(3)(a)(ii).
Here, the as-filed disclosure teaches a single embodiment in which a culture supernatant (“crude enzyme liquid”) of Lactobacillus mali was provided with stevioside or rebaudioside A and an unidentified sugar to provide transglucosylated steviol glycoside having a glucose molecule linked via an [Symbol font/0x61]-(1,6) bond to the 19-OH glucose moiety. (’005 patent at column 5, lines 21-62; columns 7-8.) The ’005 patent identifies its L. mali-derived enzyme as novel. (Column 5, line 21; see also column 3, lines 12-19 (“the present inventors have first discovered that enzymes derived from the Lactobacillus mali of the present disclosure are advantageous” and that “the sweetness [of steviol glycosides] is remarkably increased”).) The ’005 patent further discloses that prior to the inventors’ work, of the Lactobacilli, only L. reuteri 180 was known to produce transglucosylated steviol glycoside. (Column 1, lines 59-64.) The ’005 patent itself therefore evidences that until applicants’ work, the art recognized few enzymes capable of performing the claimed reaction.
Further regarding claim 16 in particular, according to Adari, adding glucose moieties at the 19-OH position was known to “worsen the taste” of steviol glycosides, and because taste is associated with odor, the skilled artisan would not have expected that a worse-tasting compound would have reduced off-odor. The only teaching of a 19-OH-glucose-conjugated steviol glycoside is KR ’814, and that document provides no evidence to contradict Adari’s characterization of the known flavor properties of these compounds.
To summarize, around the effective filing date, skilled artisans understood that some bacterial CGTases could generate transglucosylated steviol glycosides using starch—not sugar—as a glucose donor. Purified Leuconostoc mesenteroides B-512FMCM dextran sucrase—which is not a “crude enzyme”—was known to provide 19-OH-glucose-conjugated stevioside. Regarding claim 16, 19-OH-glucose-conjugated stevioside was known in the art to possess worse taste than unconjugated stevioside. For inventions in emerging and unpredictable technologies, or for inventions characterized by factors not reasonably predictable which are known to one of ordinary skill in the art, more evidence is required to show possession. MPEP 2163(II)(A)(3)(a)(i). The ’005 patent discloses a single crude enzyme, the culture supernatant of L. mali, as performing the reaction as applicant claims it. The ’005 patent itself characterizes the claimed invention as novel and identifies only one other Lactobacillus species capable of generating glucosylated steviol glycosides of undisclosed structure and using an undisclosed glucose donor.
The art did not recognize methods in which steviol glycosides are transglucosylated with a “crude enzyme” via an [Symbol font/0x61]-(1,6) bond to the glucose molecule linked to the 19-OH position. Claim 10 does not specify the structure or source of the “crude enzyme” that performs the claimed reaction, and the only exemplified “crude enzyme” that does so is a culture supernatant of Lactobacillus mali. The skilled artisan considering the ’005 patent would therefore not have concluded that applicant possessed the invention as recited in claim 10. Claims 11-16 depend from claim 10 and do not rectify the issue, so they must also be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for inadequate written description.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251 – Original-Patent Requirement
Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as failing to satisfy the reissue standard of 35 U.S.C. § 251, specifically the requirement that the reissued patent claim the invention disclosed in the original patent.
Under the original patent requirement, “it is not enough that an invention might have been claimed in the original patent because it was suggested or indicated in the specification.” U.S. Indus. Chemicals, Inc. v. Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corp., 315 U.S. 668, 676 (1942). “Rather, the specification must clearly and unequivocally disclose the newly claimed invention as a separate invention.” Antares Pharma, Inc. v. Medac Pharma Inc., 771 F.3d 1354, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Industrial Chemicals, 315 U.S. at 676). Furthermore:
The “original patent” standard and the written description requirement are not the same. Where the written description requirement is based on what the skilled artisan would have understood was within the possession of the inventor, recent Federal Circuit case law indicates that the original patent requirement under § 251 requires something more.
MPEP 1412.01(I) (quoting Ex parte Sandwick, Appeal No. 2018-008369, op. at 22 (PTAB July 23, 2019)).
Throughout the disclosure, the ’005 patent discusses “crude enzyme” only in the context of L. mali “crude enzyme” (i.e., culture supernatant). (See, e.g., abstract; column 1, lines 8-10; column 4, lines 1-8; column 5, lines 30-65; Examples 2-5.) Claims 10-16 are not so limiting. The invention under examination is not clearly and unequivocally disclosed in the underlying patent as a separate invention, so the original patent requirement has not been met.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 10-12, and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,404,532. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The ’532 patent claims a method of producing a glucosylated steviol glycoside by contacting a steviol glycoside and a glucose donor (sugar) with a glucosyltransferase including SEQ ID NO:1, a microorganism expressing it, or a culture of the microorganism. (Claims 1 and 2.) The sequence listing of the ’532 patent indicates that the enzyme having SEQ ID NO:1 is isolated from L. mali. (Column 13, field <213>.) The ’532 patent claims that the steviol glycoside may be stevioside, rubusoside, dulcoside A, rebaudioside A, rebaudioside C, rebaudioside D, rebaudioside E, rebaudioside F, or rebaudioside M. (Claim 8.) The ’532 patent claims that the glucosylated steviol glycoside contains glucose linked to steviol glycoside via an [Symbol font/0x61]-(1,6) bond at the 19-OH position. (Claims 5 and 6.) Enhanced sweetness (examined claim 16) and off-odor reduction (examined claim 10) would necessarily flow from carrying out the method of claims 1, 5, and 6 of the ’532 patent because the recited active steps are the same.
Examined claims 2 and 11 correspond to claims 3 and 4 of the ’532 patent.
Examined claims 3 and 12 correspond to claim 7 of the ’532 patent.
Claims 1 and 3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7, 15, and 16 of copending Application No. 17/425,631 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ’631 claims anticipate the examined claims.
The ’631 application claims a method for preparing a sweetening composition comprising contacting a mixture of disaccharides comprising glucose (sugars) and steviol glycosides with L. mali to prepare transglucosylated steviol glycosides. (Claim 7.) The ’631 application claims that the glucose molecule is linked to C-19 in the steviol glycoside (claim 7). Specifically, the ’631 application uses stevioside (claim 15) or rebaudioside A (claim 16) as the steviol glycoside and adds one glucose moiety. The generation of a transglucosylated steviol glycoside with a glucose molecule linked via an [Symbol font/0x61]-(1,6) bond to the glucose molecule linked to the 19-OH site of the steviol glycoside would necessarily have flowed from the claims of the ’631 application because the steps are the same.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Relevant Prior Art
Chen et al. (US 20170035814; reference A) teach that L. mali was known before the effective filing date as being useful for treating obesity or metabolic syndrome. (Paragraph 3, e.g.) Takase et al. (US 20110311680; reference B) teach that L. mali was known before the effective filing date as being a lactic-acid bacterium. (Paragraph 46, e.g.) No teachings of L. mali to add glucose molecules to steviol glycosides were located in a diligent search of patent and nonpatent literature.
Yang et al. (2020, US Patent 11,332,770; reference C) teach a method for preparing a transfructosylated steviol glycoside using Arthrobacter microorganisms to attach 1-3 fructose directly to a 19-OH site of the steviol glycoside or to the glucose via a [Symbol font/0x62]-(2,6) bond. (Column 4, lines 8-23.) Yang, however, is not prior art and therefore cannot establish that this reaction was known by skilled artisans before the effective filing date.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Maintenance Fees
Applicant is reminded of the requirement to pay all applicable maintenance fees on the original patent. See MPEP 1415.01.
Duty to Disclose
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 12,053,005 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lora Barnhart Driscoll, whose telephone number is (571)272-1928. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 p.m. ET.
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, Patricia Engle, can be reached at 571-272-6660. 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.
/Lora E Barnhart Driscoll/Patent Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3991
Conferees:
/KSO/Patent Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3991
/Patricia L Engle/SPRS, Art Unit 3991
Prosecution Insights