DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant' s claim for domestic benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e). As such, the effective filing date of Claims 1-19 is 03/22/2024.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claims 1-19 are examined herein.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification is lacking a deposit date and a deposit number for the instant hybrid cucumber plant. For example, on pg. 26 the deposit date and a deposit number are missing. It is assumed that Applicant will provide the appropriate information in response to the instant Office Action.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 15-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15, line 1 should be amended to recite “…a seed of a 'E23B.2448'-derived cucumber…”
Claim 16, line 2 should be amended to recite “…crossing a plant grown from a 'E23B.2448'-derived cucumber…”
Claim 16, line 3 should be amended to recite “…to yield an additional 'E23B.2448'-derived cucumber…”
All dependent claims are included in the objections above.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-19 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.
Claims 1, 14-15, and 19 are rejected as being indefinite in their recitation "NCIMB Accession Number X1 " because the NCIMB Accession Number is missing. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claims are not clear. Amending the claims to recite the NCIMB accession number would overcome the rejection.
Dependent claims are also rejected because they fail to overcome the deficiencies of parent claims.
Claims 1, 14-16, and 19 are rejected as being indefinite in their recitation of hybrid cucumber designated as “E23B.2448” because the recitation does not clearly identify the claimed plant cultivar and seed. Furthermore, the recitation does not set forth the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Since the name “E23B.2448” is not known in the art, the use of said name does not carry art recognized limitations as to the specific characteristics or essential characteristics that are associated with that denomination. In addition, the name appears to be arbitrary, and the specific characteristics associated therewith could be modified, as there is no written description of the plant that encompasses all of its traits. This rejection can be obviated by amending the claims to recite the appropriate deposit number.
Dependent claims are also rejected because they fail to overcome the deficiencies of parent claims.
Claims 6 and 14 recite the phrase “having essentially all of the physiological and morphological characteristics”, which render the claims indefinite. One of ordinary skill in the art would not know with reasonable certainty which characteristics of hybrid cucumber ‘E23B.2448’, are required for a plant to be encompassed by the claims.
The Specification states:
[0045] Essentially all the physiological and morphological characteristics. A plant having
essentially all the physiological and morphological characteristics means that the plants share
essentially all physiological and morphological characteristics identified herein, except, e.g.,
where applicable, with respect to characteristics derived from a converted gene that differs
between the plants as a result backcrossing, mutation, or genetic engineering.
(Emphasis added by Examiner)
As such, the plant “having essentially all of the physiological and morphological characteristics” would have undefined numbers of modifications resulted from undefined numbers of “backcrossing, mutation, or genetic engineering”.
See Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc, No. 13-369, in which the Supreme Court held that a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.
On the other hand, the word “essential” is generally understood to mean “absolutely necessary; indispensable"; however, it is unclear which characteristics of hybrid cucumber designated as ‘E23B.2448’ are considered “essential”, and it is unclear how many traits need to be present to satisfy the limitation “essentially all”.
It is clear that this definition encompasses multiple changes in traits, but it is unclear how many changes are allowed. One of skill in the art would not know with reasonable certainty how many characteristics can be changed in a plant and the plant still comprise "essentially all" of the characteristics as required by the claims or by how much the characteristic may change and still be encompassed.
Dependent Claims 7-9 are also rejected for failing to overcome the deficiencies of the parent claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation ""the plant part from the cucumber plant of claim 2" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2, from which Claim 4 depends only recites “a cucumber plant produced by growing the seed of claim 1”, and therefore does not explicitly provide a limitation for a “plant part”. As such, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are unclear. For examination purposes, Examiner will interpret that Claim 4 was likely meant to depend from Claim 3, which does recite a “plant part”. This determination does not relieve Applicant from their duty to amend the claim in any further correspondence.
Dependent Claim 5 is also rejected for failing to overcome the deficiencies of the parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 6 is drawn to a cucumber plant having all, or essentially all, the physiological and morphological characteristics of the cucumber plant of claim 2. The plant of parent claim 2, ‘E23B.2448’, has fixed genetics defined by the deposit, and can only have all of the physiological and morphological characteristics of 'E23B.2448'. A plant with essentially all of the physiological and morphological characteristics of 'E23B.2448' differs from 'E23B.2448' in one or more trait. Thus, the claim fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Dependent Claims 7-9 are also rejected for failing to overcome the deficiencies of the parent claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Deposit of Biological Material
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.
Claims 1-19 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.
The claims all require seed of hybrid cucumber 'E23B.2448'.
Since the seed claimed is essential to the claimed invention, it must be obtainable by a repeatable method set forth in the specification or otherwise be readily available to the public.
The specification does not disclose a repeatable process to obtain the exact same seed in each occurrence and it is not apparent if such a seed is readily available to the public.
If a seed is not so obtainable or available, a deposit thereof may satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112. So long as the number of seeds deposited complies with the requirements of the IDA where the deposit is made, the USPTO considers such a compliant submission as satisfying the rules under 37 CFR 1.801 through 1.809.
It is noted that Applicant intends to deposit seeds for 'E23B.2448' at the NCIMB, but there is no indication that the seeds have been deposited (paragraph 0096). Further, there is no affirmative statement in the specification that all restrictions upon availability to the public will be irrevocably removed upon granting of the patent.
If the deposit of these seeds is made and accepted under the terms of the Budapest Treaty, then an affidavit or declaration by the Applicant, or a statement by an attorney of record over his or her signature and registration number, stating that the seeds will be irrevocably and without restriction or condition released to the public upon the issuance of a patent would satisfy the deposit requirement made herein.
If the deposit has not been made and accepted under the Budapest Treaty, then in order to certify that the deposit, meets the requirements set forth in 37 CFR 1.801-1.809, Applicant may provide assurance of compliance by an affidavit or declaration, or by a statement by an attorney of record over his or her signature and registration number showing that
(a) during the pendency of the application, access to the invention will be afforded to the Commissioner upon request;
(b) all restrictions upon availability to the public will be irrevocably removed upon granting of the patent;
(c) the deposit will be maintained in 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
(d) the viability of the biological material at the time of deposit will be tested (see 37 CFR 1.807).
In addition, the identifying information set forth in 37 CFR 1.809(d) should be added to the specification. See 37 CFR 1.801 - 1.809 [MPEP 2401-2411.05] for additional explanation of these requirements.
Accordingly, Applicant needs to provide a signed statement providing the assurance above as required to overcome this rejection. Compliance with this requirement may be held in abeyance until the application is otherwise in condition for an allowance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-19 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.
Claims 6-9 and 14 are broadly drawn to hybrid cucumber plants that have “essentially all of the physiological and morphological characteristics” of the cucumber plant produced by growing the hybrid cucumber seed designated as 'E23B.2448'.
As discussed above, such plant would, compared with the hybrid cucumber seed designated as 'E23B.2448', comprises undefined number (and nature) of “backcrossing, mutation, or genetic engineering” (Specification, paragraph 0045).
The Applicant’s describe exemplary physiological and morphological characteristics of the hybrid cucumber seed designated as 'E23B.2448' in paragraphs 0056 to 0068, in FIGS. 1-4 and Tables 1-3; and eventually by way of deposit. The breeding history to produce 'E23B.2448' has not been disclosed (See 35 U.S.C. §112(a) written description rejection below).
The Applicant does not describe any cucumber plant that is derived from 'E23B.2448' that does not comprise all (selfed progeny) or at least a full first set of chromosomes (F1) of 'E23B.2448'. Plants produced by any number of crosses with a second distinct plant will produce progeny that have unpredictable genotypes and phenotypes, and these plants have not been described. Plants produced by any number of “mutation” or “genetic engineering” will produce plants that have unpredictable genotypes and phenotypes, and these plants have not been described. As discussed above, the phrase “essentially all” is not adequately defined such that a person of skill in the art would understand the metes and bounds of the claim. It is unclear how many differences are allowed, the degree of difference that is permitted, nor which traits are “essential” and must be retained. Plants having less than “all” of the characteristics have not been described.
These claims are “reach through” claims in which the Applicant has described a starting material and at least one method step, however, they have not described the resulting product, and the genus of products that can be produced by the recited method steps and materials is so large that one of skill in the art is not able to envision the members of the genus. (See Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920-23, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1890-93 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
The Applicants fail to describe a representative number of plants produced by methods comprising unlimited breeding partners, introducing transgenes, or introducing desired traits. The Applicants only describe plants of hybrid cucumber 'E23B.2448' with exemplary characteristics listed in the specification. Plants produced by the claimed methods encompass an undefined number of possible cucumber plants with varying genotypes and phenotypes which have not been described and were not in the possession of the applicant at the time of filing.
Additionally, in regard to Claims 1-19, 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 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).”
The instant invention is a new hybrid cucumber ('E23B.2448'). So, the examiner will evaluate what is an adequate written description for a new hybrid cucumber. 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).
In reviewing Applicant’s specification, there is a phenotypic description of the plant traits as seen in paragraphs 0056 to 0068, in FIGS. 1-4, and Tables 1-3 of the instant specification. However, Applicant has not provided the breeding method for the instantly claimed plant variety in the instant specification, as none of the parents used to produce hybrid cucumber 'E23B.2448' have been disclosed by Applicant by any name or designation. As such, the breeding history information provided is insufficient; thus, the instant application is incomplete as to the breeding history used to produce the claimed plant variety. If none of the parent plant of hybrid cucumber 'E23B.2448' were ever in the public domain, then the Applicant must state clearly for the record that the parents are proprietary internal cucumber lines/varieties/cultivars that have never been made publicly available and have no other alternative names or designations in the art.
The office’s reasonable basis for challenging the adequacy of written description is informed by a review of the following:
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
To overcome 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.
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).
Additionally, Claims 3-4 and 7-8 are broadly directed to a cucumber plant part produced by growing the F1 hybrid cucumber seed designated as “E23B.2448” (Claims 3-4) or a cucumber plant part from a cucumber plant having all, or essentially all, the physiological and morphological characteristics of a cucumber plant grown from the F1 hybrid cucumber seed designated as “E23B.2448” (Claims 7-8). As such, the cucumber plant parts recited by Claims 3-4 and 7-8 broadly encompass F2 embryo tissue, produced by the cucumber plant grown from the F1 hybrid seed, wherein F2 plant parts can have distinct genetic and morphological characteristics that differ from the claimed F1 hybrid cucumber seed and plant grown from the seed. While Applicant has described the characteristics of the claimed hybrid cucumber, Applicant has not adequately described the genetic and morphological characteristics encompassed by the broad genus of all the many possible F2 embryonic tissues (plant parts) encompassed by the instant claims.
Additionally, Claim 12 is broadly directed to tissue or cell culture produced from protoplasts or regenerable cells from the cucumber plant produced by growing the hybrid cucumber seed designated as “E23B.2448”, including those produced from F2 embryo tissues. As noted above with respect to the plant parts of Claim 2, given that the claimed plant is an F1 hybrid, F2 tissues and cell cultures thereof can have distinct genetic and morphological characteristics relative to the claimed hybrid cucumber. While Applicant has adequately described the characteristics of the claimed hybrid cucumber, Applicant has not adequately described the genetic and morphological characteristics encompassed by the broad genus of all of the many possible F2 tissues and cells encompassed in the instant claims. Claim 13 is not included in this written description rejection because the recited Markush group does not include protoplasts or regenerable cells produced from an embryo plant part of the instant hybrid cucumber.
Closest Prior Art
Claims 1-19 appear to be provisionally free of the prior art, given the failure of the prior art to teach or suggesting a hybrid cucumber plant having all of the morphological and physiological characteristics of the deposited variety. It should be noted that this statement is based only on a comparison of the morphological and physiological characteristics of the deposit against the prior art. This is statement is provisional because Applicant has not provided any information regarding the parental lineage or breeding methodology used to produce the deposited hybrid cucumber 'E23B.2448'. Without this information, a meaningful comparison of the genetic and phenotypic basis that would distinguish the deposited hybrid cucumber from prior art plants cannot be made. Thus, this statement will remain provisional until the necessary information requested under the written description rejection above is received, corrections are made to the description, and a complete search of the prior art is can be completed. The closest prior art in regard to Claims 1-19 can be found in Palomares Rius (US Patent Application No. 2022/0192128 A1, effectively filed on 09/20/2021) which teaches hybrid cucumber ‘Coatzin’ which shares a number of characteristics with instant hybrid cucumber 'E23B.2448', including growth type (indeterminate), sex expression (gynoecious), parthenocarpy (present), bitterness (absent), vestiture color (white), and seed presence (absent). However, hybrid cucumber ‘Coatzin’ differs from the instant hybrid cucumber in at least leaf blade attitude (horizontal vs erect), leaf blade intensity of green color (dark vs medium), intensity of ground color of fruit skin at market stage (very dark vs medium), and disease/pest resistances.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY L. MCWILLIAMS whose telephone number is (703)756-4704. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:00-17:30.
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, AMJAD ABRAHAM can be reached at (571) 270-7058. 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.
/KELSEY L MCWILLIAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 1663
/Amjad Abraham/SPE, Art Unit 1663
Prosecution Insights