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 .
Claims 1-34, 39, and 41-42 are cancelled.
Claims 35-38, 40, and 43-45 are pending and under examination on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS submitted 01/27/2026 has been considered.
Maintained-Claim Interpretation
In the absence of Applicant’s definition, the examiner is interpreting the word predominantly (see for example, claim 37 and paragraph 0058 of the specification) to mean for the most part or mainly (“Predominantly.” Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/predominantly. Accessed 10 Jan. 2023; previously cited). The examiner construes this to reasonably mean 51% or greater. Therefore, as applied to the instant claim 37, prior art teaching a flexible linker that is 51% or more serine and glycine would meet the limitation of the instant claim 37.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections
No rejections are withdrawn. All rejections are maintained.
Maintained-Claim Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 35-36, 38, 40 and 42-45 are rejected as being un patentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over HHS (US 20120141413 A1) in view of Jacques et al (US 20090238791 A1), and Brusa et al (The PD-1/PD-L1 axis contributes to T-cell dysfunction in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Haematologica. 2013 Jun;98(6):953-63. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2012.077537. Epub 2013 Jan 8).
Regarding claims 35, 38, and 43-45, HHS which teaches a heterodimer of IL15 and IL15Rα, where the IL15Rα may be soluble and the IL15Rα may be in the form of an Fc fusion protein through linkage to the Fc of an IgG antibody (see for example, paragraphs 0027 and 0057). This fusion may be administered to treat lymphopenia which may be caused by a number of factors, including leukemia (see for example, the abstract and paragraph 0051 of HHS).
HHS does not single out the IL15Rαsushi domain and does not teach the claimed sequences.
However, Jacques et al teach a fusion comprising an IL-15 linked covalently to an IL15Rαsushi (comprising the claimed SEQ ID NOs because SEQ ID NO: 14 of claim 51 of Jacques is 100% homologous to instantly claimed SEQ ID NO: 261) wherein the IL15Rαsushi is covalently linked (such as by a flexible linker, such as the linkers of SEQ ID Nos: 50 and/or 52 of Jacques et al, which are predominantly ser and gly) to IL15, wherein administration of the IL15-IL15Rαsushi fusion may be combined with an anticancer agent for enhanced therapeutic impact through transpresentation and stimulating the survival/proliferation of lymphocytes (such as T cells)(see for example, claims 48-49 and 51 and paragraphs 0010, 0055, and 0245-0246 and Figure 26).
HHS in view of Jacques et al does not teach the use of an anti-PD-L1 antibody.
However, Brusa et al teach PD1-PDL1 binding decreases T cells maturation/proliferation/survival in leukemia (lymphopenia), and teach that treatment of T cells (CLL and control) with blocking anti-PD-L1 antibodies increased secreted IFNγ, used to determine the quality and quantity of T cell stimulation/function. Thus, use of anti PD-L1 antibodies is taught to aid in T cell activation/signalling/regulation of a normal Th2 response (see for example, the abstract and pages 959-960).
It would have been prima facie obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention from the disclosures of HHS, Jacques et al, and Brusa et al. The artisan would have been motivated to make and use the invention as claimed because HHS teaches an IL-15/IL15Rα (looking to the art to supply known and desirable IL15Rα’s for such pairing where the IL15Rαsushi of Jacques et al would be an obvious, art-known candidate to try as it has been successfully paired with IL15 in fusion constructs) fusions which can be paired/attached to an antibody, via the Fc, to treat lymphopenia and its causes, such as leukemia, where Brusa et al teach that anti-PDL1 antibodies are useful for treating leukemia (a known cause of lymphopenia). Here, the prior art components make obvious the claimed components in the claimed format, where combination of the IL15-IL15Rαsu-Fc-IgG is combined with the Fc of an anti-PD-L1 antibody to accomplish their shared, art-known purpose of treating lymphopenia and its causes such as leukemia. The product made obvious by the combine references is presumed to function as claimed to effect the same results because function inherently flows from structure (and the structure resulting from the combined prior art is undistinguishable from the claimed structure) such that a showing to the contrary would likely point to deficiencies with respect to 35 USC §112(a) with the instant claims as presently drafted. The artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success based on the cumulative disclosures of these prior art references.
Regarding claim 36, as discussed above, Jacques et al teach the use of a flexible linker to join the IL15Rαsushi domain to the IL-15 of the IL15-IL15Rαsushi-anti-PD-L1 fusion resulting from the combined references, made obvious for reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 40, as discussed above, the fusion resulting from the prior art reference cited in this rejection make obvious the fusion of instant claim 35. The fusion made obvious by the cited, combined prior art is presumed to perform the same functions/achieve the same results as instantly claimed because function inherently flows from structure and the fusion resulting from the combined prior art references appears to be indistinguishable from the instantly claimed fusion. The MPEP provides that:
"[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1258, 73 USPQ2d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the court held that the claimed promoter sequence obtained by sequencing a prior art plasmid that was not previously sequenced was anticipated by the prior art plasmid which necessarily possessed the same DNA sequence as the claimed oligonucleotides. The court stated that "just as the discovery of properties of a known material does not make it novel, the identification and characterization of a prior art material also does not make it novel." Id. See also MPEP 2112(I) with regard to inherency and product-by-process claims and MPEP § 2141.02 with regard to inherency and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103,”
(see MPEP 2112(I)). Therefore, the cited references are held to make obvious before the filing date a fusion functioning/effecting the claimed results, as instantly claimed, such that evidence to the contrary would likely indicate a failure of the instant claims to meet the requirements of 35 USC §112(a).
Claims 37 is rejected as being un patentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over HHS in view of Jacques et al, and Brusa et al as applied to claims 35-36, 38, 40 and 42-45, in further view of Mortier et al (J Biol Chem. 2006 Jan 20;281(3):1612-9. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M508624200).
As discussed above, the combined references make obvious the fusion of instant claim 36, but do not clearly teach a linker that is 15-20 amino acids long.
This deficiency is remedied by Mortier which teaches the use of such a linker to link an IL-15 receptor alpha sushi domain to IL-15 where the linker is 20 amino acids in length and is predominantly serine and glycine (see for example, linkers 20 and 26 in section: RLI and ILR Fusion Proteins on page 1613). Note that linker 20 of Mortier is 20 amino acids in length and that 18 of the 20 amino acids are serine and glycine. Therefore, Mortier’s linker 20 is 90% serine and glycine.
It would have been prima facie obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention from the disclosures of HHS, Jacques et al, Brusa et al, and Mortier et al. The artisan would have been motivated to make and use the invention as claimed because HHS teaches an IL-15/IL15Rα (looking to the art to supply known and desirable IL15Rα’s for such pairing where the IL15Rαsushi of Jacques et al would be an obvious, art-known candidate to try as it has been successfully paired with IL15 in a fusions) fusions which can be paired/attached to an antibody to treat lymphopenia and its causes, such as leukemia, where Brusa et al teat anti-PDL1 antibodies are useful for treating leukemia (a known cause of lymphopenia). The linkers of Mortier et al and Jacques et al are functional equivalents being used for their art know purpose of linkage such that the use of the linkers of Mortier et al in the construct arising from the combination of HHS, Brusa et al, and Jacques et al would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success based upon the combined closures.
Maintained-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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 35-38, 40, and 43-45 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of US 10,407,502 B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the enumerated claims of the reference and instant applications recite a fusion protein comprising the claimed elements.
Regarding claims 35 and 43-45, claims 1-4 of US 10,407,502 teach a fusion protein comprising: (i) an anti-PD-L1 antibody, (ii) an IL-15R alpha sushi domain comprising amino acids 1-61 of SEQ ID NO: 261, and (iii) an IL-15 comprising amino acids 96-209 of SEQ ID NO: 261. Note that the amino acids 1-61 and 96-209 of SEQ ID NO:261 of US 10,407,502 is a 100% match to the amino acids 1-61 and 96-209 of SEQ ID NO: 261 of the instant application. While the instant claim 35 does not specify a particular anti-PD-L1 antibody, the species of anti-PD-L1 antibody recited in US 10,407,502 anticipates the genus of anti-PD-L1 antibodies recited in the instant claims. Because the components of the reference meet the instant claim limitations, and because function inherently flows from structure, absent evidence to the contrary, the reference fusion is presumed to function as instantly claimed, such that a showing to the contrary would likely indicate a deficiency in the instant claims as drafted with respect to 35 USC §112(a).
Regarding claim 36, claim 5 of US 10,407,502 A1 recites the use of a flexible linker with a fusion protein as recited in the instant claim 36.
Regarding claim 37, claim 6 of US 10,407,502 recites the use of a flexible linker comprising 15-20 amino acids which are predominantly serine and glycine.
Further regarding claim 44, where US 10,407,502 makes obvious a construct comprising a PDL1 antibody and IL15/IL15R complex, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider how to attach PDL1 antibody to the IL15/IL15R covalent complex and would have found it obvious to use a linker as an obvious matter of choice yielding no more than predictable results. As part of determining obviousness, it is to be considered that the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 may bar its patentability. When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” (see MPEP 2141. I.)). Absent evidence to the contrary, a linker as generically recited would not be expected to confer an unpredictably improved outcome.
Regarding claim 38, as discussed above, claims 1-4 of US 10,407,502 recite the limitations of the instant claim 35, thus reciting the fusion protein of claim 35. Moreover, claim 7 of US 10,407,502 recites a fusion protein meeting the limitations of the instant claim 35 further comprising SEQ ID NO:261, where the SEQ ID NO:261 recited in claim 7 of US 10,407,502 is a 100% match to the SEQ ID NO:261 recited in the instant claim 38.
Regarding claim 40, where US 10,407,502 makes obvious the instantly claimed fusion, said fusion is presumed to function as claimed because function inherently flows from structure. Absent evidence to the contrary such that it appears Applicant’s claims are to the mechanism by which the prior art fusion functions upon administration. The MPEP provides that:
"[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1258, 73 USPQ2d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the court held that the claimed promoter sequence obtained by sequencing a prior art plasmid that was not previously sequenced was anticipated by the prior art plasmid which necessarily possessed the same DNA sequence as the claimed oligonucleotides. The court stated that "just as the discovery of properties of a known material does not make it novel, the identification and characterization of a prior art material also does not make it novel." Id. See also MPEP 2112(I) with regard to inherency and product-by-process claims and MPEP § 2141.02 with regard to inherency and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103,”
(see MPEP 2112(I)). Therefore, the cited reference is held to make obvious before the filing date a fusion functioning/effecting the claimed results, as instantly claimed, such that evidence to the contrary would likely indicate a failure of the instant claims to meet the requirements of 35 USC §112(a).
Applicant’s Arguments and Responses
A. Applicant argues for withdrawal of the rejections under 35 USC §103 because Applicant alleges that the references do not teach or suggest the recited fusion (see for example, page 5 of the 01/27/2026 remarks). Applicant points out that HHS does not teach a fusion of IL15-IL15Rαsu (see for example, page 5 of the 01/27/2026 remarks). Applicant points out that HHS does not teach the specifically claimed IL15Rαsu of covalent linking of the IL15 and the IL15Rαsu (see for example, page 6 of the 01/27/2026 remarks). Applicant points out that Jacques does not disclose co-administration or a single fusion of the IL15-IL15Rαsu and an anti-PDL1 (see for example, page 6 of the 01/27/2026 remarks). Applicant points out that Jacques does not disclose linkage of the IL15Rαsu and an Fc region of an anti-PDL1 (see for example, page 6 of the 01/27/2026 remarks). Applicant alleges that Brusa et al, discussing blocking the PD1-PDL1 axis, but do not single out PD-L1 antibodies of use them with an IL15-IL15Rαsu fusion (see for example, page 6 of the 01/27/2026 remarks). Applicant alleges that the constructs of HHS and Jacques are non-compatible, that the references do not make obvious a single fusion construct, and that the artisan would not have been motivated to combine the elements into a fusion (see for example, page 7 of the 01/27/2026 remarks; the arguments are again relied upon at page 10 of said remarks).
Response: Applicant attacks the references individually, but does not rebut the collective teaching of the combined references of the rejections under 35 USC §103. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As noted in the rejections under 35 USC §103 above, HHS teaches a fusion, such as by covalent linkage, of an IL15R to the Fc of an antibody for treating lymphopenia which may be caused by a number of factors, including leukemia. HHS is noted not to teach the IL15-IL15Rαsu fusion explicitly. Jacques teaches the IL15-IL15Rαsu fusion (where the artisan would have viewed the IL15Rαsu of Jacques as obvious to use in the IL15R-Fc fusion of HHS because HHS generically recites IL15R and because Jacques teaches that the IL15Rαsushi is covalently linked (such as by a flexible linker, such as the linkers of SEQ ID Nos: 50 and/or 52 of Jacques et al, which are predominantly ser and gly) to IL15, wherein administration of the IL15-IL15Rαsushi fusion may be combined with an anticancer agent for enhanced therapeutic impact through transpresentation and stimulating the survival/proliferation of lymphocytes (such as T cells; understood to be helpful in combating lymphopenia). Brusa et al teach that anti-PDL1 antibodies Brusa et al teach that anti-PDL1 antibodies are useful for treating leukemia (a known cause of lymphopenia). The prior art teaches that individual components of the instantly claimed fusion are all useful in treating lymphopenia and its causes (leukemia, for example). The prior art them further teaches how the three components may be connected/combined into a single fusion (Jacques teaching the connection of IL15 to IL15Rαsu and HHS teaching the connection of the IL15Rαsu to the antibody Fc, where the Fc is generically recited leading the artisan to understand that the IL15Rαsu may be connected to a wide variety of antibody Fc’s (generically disclosed) with a reasonable expectation of successful connection). The artisan, motivated to treat lymphopenia, would have found it obvious to take the combine the fusion of Jacques to a PDL1 antibody of Brusa according to the method of HHS to create a single fusion with a reasonable expectation of success in treating lymphopenia in light of the cited prior art. The Examiner reviewed the Dubois et al and Chertova et al references Applicant relies upon, but has found them insufficient to overcome the reasonable expectation of success and motivation provided by the combined cited prior art references supporting the rejections under 35 USC §103 (where Applicant’s argument regarding these references only attacks the HHS reference individually and does not fully consider the totality of cited teachings and arguments underlying the rejections of record, reproduced above). The rejections are therefore maintained.
B. Applicant alleges surprising results as the basis for requested withdrawal of the rejections under 35 USC §103 (see for example, pages 7-8 of the 01/27/2026 remarks).
Response: Regarding Applicant’s alleged surprising results in figure 10A-B and 12C, none of the figures show the three components given individually or co-administered. Therefore, there can be no determination of whether the effects are surprisingly synergistic or merely additive, which precludes a full evaluation of whether there is any effect which could be considered surprising in light of the cited prior art. The rejections are therefore maintained.
C. Applicant alleges that the references do not explicitly teach the functions of the claimed construct (see for example, pages 8-9 of the 01/27/2026 remarks).
Response: Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the prior art does not teach the properties disclosed. It is widely accepted within the field that function necessarily flows from structure. Where the prior art teaches and makes obvious the instantly claimed and required structure, any associated function(s) is presumed to follow therefrom. Applicant does not articulate any reason why this presumption should be questioned or rebutted. If any claimed function(s) was/were not inherent to the recited structure, the claims would fail to satisfy the requirements of 35 USC 112(a) absent an evidenced, yet to be articulated rationale. The rejections are therefore maintained.
D. Applicant requests that rejections for double patenting be held in abeyance.
Response: Applicant disagrees with the rejection and requests that the rejection be held in abeyance until there is allowable subject matter in the application (see pages 10-11 of the remarks dated 01/27/2026). This has been fully considered but is not found to be persuasive. Applicant’s attention is respectfully directed to M.P.E.P. § 804(I)(B)(1), which states: “A complete response to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection is either a reply by applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims or the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321 in the pending application(s) with a reply to the Office action (see MPEP § 1490 for a discussion of terminal disclaimers). Such a response is required even when the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is provisional.” “As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance. Only objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. Replies with an omission should be treated as provided in MPEP § 714.03.Therefore, an application must not be allowed unless the required compliant terminal disclaimer(s) is/are filed and/or the withdrawal of the nonstatutory double patenting rejection(s) is made of record by the examiner.” See MPEP § 804.02, subsection VI, for filing terminal disclaimers required to overcome nonstatutory double patenting rejections in applications filed on or after June 8, 1995. (emphasis added). Accordingly, the rejection is maintained and is expressly not held in abeyance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yu, Ping et al (Simultaneous blockade of multiple immune system inhibitory checkpoints enhances anti-tumor activity mediated by interleukin-15 in a murine metastatic colon carcinoma model, Clin Cancer Res. 2010; 16(24): 6019-6028; as cited on the 07/02/2025 IDS) is deemed relevant.
US 20160184399 A1 and EP2537933A1 are deemed relevant to claimed fusion.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY GAO whose telephone number is (571) 272-5695. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
supervisor, Gregory Emch can be reached on (571) 272-8149. The fax phone number for the
organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent
Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications
may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished
applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR
system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR
system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would
like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated
information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Ashley Gao/
Examiner, Art Unit 1678
/GREGORY S EMCH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1678
Prosecution Insights