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 .
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/29/2026 has been entered.
3. Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 11-12, 16, 18, 20, 22, 25, 33-34, 38, 46, 49, 52, 56-64, 66-67, 71, 77, 85, 99, 102-103, 105-107 and 121-127 are pending.
4. Claims 20, 56-58, 122-123 and 125 stand withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/14/2024. Newly added claims 122-123 and 125 and newly amended claim 20 are included in the withdrawn claims.
5. Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 11-12, 16, 18, 22, 25, 33-34, 38, 46, 49, 52, 59-64, 66-67, 71, 77, 85, 99, 102-103, 105-107, 121, 124 and 126-127 are under consideration as they read on the elected species.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 11-12, 16, 18, 22, 25, 33-34, 38, 46, 49, 52, 59-64, 66-67, 71, 77, 85, 99, 102-103, 105-107, 121, 124 and 126-127 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10-11, 13-14, 16, 21, 24-25, 30, 32-33, 35-38, 41, 44, 48-50, 54, 57-60, 64, 66-68, 78 and 89-91 of copending Application No. 17/957,302 (reference application) as evidenced by Rizzetto et al. (PTO-892 mailed on 09/30/2024; Reference U) Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of 17/957,302 are directed to methods which are encompassed by the instant claims.
Rizzetto et al. is being used as an evidentiary reference to teach that the programmed death (PD-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab was shown to increase survival in metastatic patients. In three clinical trials in patients with advanced melanoma, therapy with pembrolizumab alone resulted in a 30–40% complete clinical response. Specifically, in a study on advanced melanoma, pembrolizumab monotherapy resulted in a 3-year overall survival (OS) of 41% in patients previously treated with ipilimumab and 45% in therapy-naïve patients.
All melanoma patients are at risk of becoming resistant to or failing to respond to pembrolizumab. The claims do not require that pembrolizumab is administered.
The reference teachings anticipate the claimed invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues:
“Applicant respectfully requests that this rejection be held in abeyance until the claims of the present application are indicated as being otherwise allowable.”
It is the Examiner’s position that the rejection stands for reasons of record.
8. Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 11-12, 16, 18, 22, 25, 33-34, 38, 46, 49, 52, 59-64, 66-67, 71, 77, 85, 99, 102-103, 105-107, 121, 124 and 126 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 85, 87-93, 95-97 and 99-111 of copending Application No. 16/891,796 (reference application) as evidenced by Rizzetto et al. (PTO-892 mailed on 09/30/2024; Reference U) Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of 16/891,796 are directed to methods of treating melanoma cancer which are encompassed by the instant claims.
Rizzetto et al. is being used as an evidentiary reference to teach that the programmed death (PD-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab was shown to increase survival in metastatic patients. In three clinical trials in patients with advanced melanoma, therapy with pembrolizumab alone resulted in a 30–40% complete clinical response. Specifically, in a study on advanced melanoma, pembrolizumab monotherapy resulted in a 3-year overall survival (OS) of 41% in patients previously treated with ipilimumab and 45% in therapy-naïve patients.
All melanoma patients are at risk of becoming resistant to or failing to respond to pembrolizumab. The claims do not require that pembrolizumab is administered.
The reference teachings anticipate the claimed invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
9. Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 11-12, 16, 18, 22, 25, 33-34, 38, 46, 49, 52, 59-64, 66-67, 71, 77, 85, 99, 102-103, 105-107, 121, 124 and 126-127 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4, 8-10, 20-21, 30-31, 33-36, 38-39, 44, 47, 51-53, 55, 61, 80-81, 84 and 116-124 of copending Application No. 17/628,382 (reference application) as evidenced by Rizzetto et al. (PTO-892 mailed on 09/30/2024; Reference U) Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of 17/628,382 are directed to methods which are encompassed by the instant claims.
The reference teachings anticipate the claimed invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
10. Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 11-12, 16, 18, 22, 25, 33-34, 38, 46, 49, 52, 59-64, 66-67, 71, 77, 85, 99, 102-103, 105-107, 121, 124 and 126-127 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent 12,589,150 (IDS filed on 07/29/2026) as evidenced by Rizzetto et al. (PTO-892 mailed on 09/30/2024; Reference U) Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of U.S. Patent 12,589,150 are directed to the same antibodies and pharmaceutical compositions thereof for the treatment of cancer which are encompassed by the instant claims.
Rizzetto et al. is being used as an evidentiary reference to teach that the programmed death (PD-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab was shown to increase survival in metastatic patients. In three clinical trials in patients with advanced melanoma, therapy with pembrolizumab alone resulted in a 30–40% complete clinical response. Specifically, in a study on advanced melanoma, pembrolizumab monotherapy resulted in a 3-year overall survival (OS) of 41% in patients previously treated with ipilimumab and 45% in therapy-naïve patients.
All melanoma patients are at risk of becoming resistant to or failing to respond to pembrolizumab. The claims do not require that pembrolizumab is administered.
The reference teachings anticipate the claimed invention.
11. Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 11-12, 16, 18, 22, 25, 33-34, 38, 46, 49, 52, 59-64, 66-67, 71, 77, 85, 99, 102-103, 105-107, 121, 124 and 126 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-62 of copending Application No. 19/547,225 (reference application) as evidenced by Rizzetto et al. (PTO-892 mailed on 09/30/2024; Reference U) Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of 19/547,225 are directed to the same antibodies, immunoconjugates thereof, pharmaceutical compositions thereof and methods of treatment of cancer which are encompassed by the instant claims.
Rizzetto et al. is being used as an evidentiary reference to teach that the programmed death (PD-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab was shown to increase survival in metastatic patients. In three clinical trials in patients with advanced melanoma, therapy with pembrolizumab alone resulted in a 30–40% complete clinical response. Specifically, in a study on advanced melanoma, pembrolizumab monotherapy resulted in a 3-year overall survival (OS) of 41% in patients previously treated with ipilimumab and 45% in therapy-naïve patients.
All melanoma patients are at risk of becoming resistant to or failing to respond to pembrolizumab. The claims do not require that pembrolizumab is administered.
The reference teachings anticipate the claimed invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
12. Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 11-12, 16, 18, 22, 25, 33-34, 38, 46, 49, 52, 59-64, 66-67, 71, 77, 85, 99, 102-103, 105-107, 121, 124 and 126 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 10,201,607 (IDS filed on 06/29/2022; Reference 1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because are directed to the same antibodies, immunoconjugates thereof and pharmaceutical compositions for treatment of cancer which are encompassed by the instant claims.
Rizzetto et al. is being used as an evidentiary reference to teach that the programmed death (PD-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab was shown to increase survival in metastatic patients. In three clinical trials in patients with advanced melanoma, therapy with pembrolizumab alone resulted in a 30–40% complete clinical response. Specifically, in a study on advanced melanoma, pembrolizumab monotherapy resulted in a 3-year overall survival (OS) of 41% in patients previously treated with ipilimumab and 45% in therapy-naïve patients.
All melanoma patients are at risk of becoming resistant to or failing to respond to pembrolizumab. The claims do not require that pembrolizumab is administered.
The reference teachings anticipate the claimed invention.
13. Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 11-12, 16, 18, 22, 25, 33-34, 38, 46, 49, 52, 59-64, 66-67, 71, 77, 85, 99, 102-103, 105-107, 121, 124 and 126 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-35 of U.S. Patent No. 10,500,276 (IDS filed on 06/29/2022; Reference 2). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-35 are directed to the same immunoconjugates and pharmaceutical compositions for the treatment of cancer encompassed by the instant claims.
Rizzetto et al. is being used as an evidentiary reference to teach that the programmed death (PD-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab was shown to increase survival in metastatic patients. In three clinical trials in patients with advanced melanoma, therapy with pembrolizumab alone resulted in a 30–40% complete clinical response. Specifically, in a study on advanced melanoma, pembrolizumab monotherapy resulted in a 3-year overall survival (OS) of 41% in patients previously treated with ipilimumab and 45% in therapy-naïve patients.
All melanoma patients are at risk of becoming resistant to or failing to respond to pembrolizumab. The claims do not require that pembrolizumab is administered.
The reference teachings anticipate the claimed invention.
14. Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 11-12, 16, 18, 22, 25, 33-34, 38, 46, 49, 52, 59-64, 66-67, 71, 77, 85, 99, 102-103, 105-107, 121, 124 and 126 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,512,688 (IDS filed on 06/29/2022; Reference 4). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to the administration of antibodies encompassed by the claims to cancer patients.
Rizzetto et al. is being used as an evidentiary reference to teach that the programmed death (PD-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab was shown to increase survival in metastatic patients. In three clinical trials in patients with advanced melanoma, therapy with pembrolizumab alone resulted in a 30–40% complete clinical response. Specifically, in a study on advanced melanoma, pembrolizumab monotherapy resulted in a 3-year overall survival (OS) of 41% in patients previously treated with ipilimumab and 45% in therapy-naïve patients.
All melanoma patients are at risk of becoming resistant to or failing to respond to pembrolizumab. The claims do not require that pembrolizumab is administered.
The reference teachings anticipate the claimed invention.
15. Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 11-12, 16, 18, 22, 25, 33-34, 38, 46, 49, 52, 59-64, 66-67, 71, 77, 85, 99, 102-103, 105-107, 121, 124 and 126 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-46 of U.S. Patent No.10,765,743 (IDS filed on 07/29/2026; Reference 1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to the same methods of administration as encompassed by the instant claims.
Rizzetto et al. is being used as an evidentiary reference to teach that the programmed death (PD-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab was shown to increase survival in metastatic patients. In three clinical trials in patients with advanced melanoma, therapy with pembrolizumab alone resulted in a 30–40% complete clinical response. Specifically, in a study on advanced melanoma, pembrolizumab monotherapy resulted in a 3-year overall survival (OS) of 41% in patients previously treated with ipilimumab and 45% in therapy-naïve patients.
All melanoma patients are at risk of becoming resistant to or failing to respond to pembrolizumab. The claims do not require that pembrolizumab is administered.
The reference teachings anticipate the claimed invention.
16. Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 11-12, 16, 18, 22, 25, 33-34, 38, 46, 49, 52, 59-64, 66-67, 71, 77, 85, 99, 102-103, 105-107, 121, 124 and 126 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-91 of U.S. Patent No. 12,115,227 (IDS filed on 07/29/2026; Reference 2). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to formulations comprising the same antibodies and pharmaceutical compositions thereof for the treatment of cancer encompassed by the claims.
Rizzetto et al. is being used as an evidentiary reference to teach that the programmed death (PD-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab was shown to increase survival in metastatic patients. In three clinical trials in patients with advanced melanoma, therapy with pembrolizumab alone resulted in a 30–40% complete clinical response. Specifically, in a study on advanced melanoma, pembrolizumab monotherapy resulted in a 3-year overall survival (OS) of 41% in patients previously treated with ipilimumab and 45% in therapy-naïve patients.
All melanoma patients are at risk of becoming resistant to or failing to respond to pembrolizumab. The claims do not require that pembrolizumab is administered.
The reference teachings anticipate the claimed invention.
17. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
18. 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.
19. Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 11-12, 16, 18, 22, 25, 33-34, 38, 46, 49, 52, 59-61, 63, 102-103, 105-107, 121, 124 and 126 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over WO 2016/005593 (PTO-892 mailed on 09/30/2024; Reference O) as evidenced by Rizzetto et al. (PTO-892 mailed on 09/30/2024; Reference U).
WO 2016/005593 teaches the antibody of SEQ ID NOs 1 and 2 which correspond with instant SEQ ID NOs 1 and 2.
The reference teaches the following in the claims:
wherein said antibody comprises a heavy chain of an isotype selected from the group consisting of IgGl, lgG2, lgG3, and lgG4
wherein the antibody is a human antibody.
A bispecific antibody comprising a first binding region of an antibody, and a second binding region which binds a different target or epitope than said first binding region
The reference teaches an immunoconjugate comprising the antibody and a therapeutic moiety, such as a cytotoxic agent, a chemotherapeutic drug, a cytokine, an immunosuppressant, antibiotic, or a radioisotope.
wherein the therapeutic moiety is a cytotoxic agent.
wherein said cytotoxic agent is linked to said antibody with a cleavable linker, such as /V-succinimydyl 4-(2-pyridyldithio)-pentanoate (SSP), maleimidocaproyl-valine-citrulline-p-aminobenzyloxycarbonyl (mc-vc-PAB) or AV-1 K-lock valine-citrulline.
wherein said cytotoxic agent is linked to said antibody, or fragment thereof, with a non-cleavable linker, such as succinimidyl-4(/V-maleimidomethyl)cyclohexane-l-carboxylate (MCC) or maleimidocaproyl (MC).
wherein said cytotoxic agent is selected from the group: DNA-targeting agents, e.g. DNA alkylators and cross-linkers, such as calicheamicin, duocarmycin, rachelmycin (CC-1065), pyrrolo[2,l-c] [l,4] benzodiazepines (PBDs), and indolinobenzodiazepine (IGN); microtubule-targeting agents, such as duostatin, such as duostatin-3, auristatin, such as monomethylauristatin E (MMAE) and monomethylauristatin F (M MAF), dolastatin, maytansine, /V(2')-deacetyl-/V(2')-(3-marcapto-l-oxopropyl)-maytansine (DM1), and tubulysin; and nucleoside analogs; or an analogs, derivatives, or prodrugs thereof.
wherein said immunoconjugate comprises a combination of;
i) said cytotoxic agent and said cleavable linker having bystander kill capacity;
ii) said cytotoxic agent and said cleavable linker not having bystander kill capacity;
iii) said cytotoxic agent and said non-cleavable linker having bystander kill capacity; or
iv) said cytotoxic agent and said non-cleavable linker not having bystander kill capacity.
wherein said linker is mc-vc-PAB and the cytotoxic agent is MMAE; or the linker is SSP and the cytotoxic agent is DM1.
and pharmaceutical compositions thereof.
wherein the composition is lyophilized and comprising excipients.
“Pharmaceutical compositions of the present invention may also comprise isotonicity agents, such as sugars, polyalcohols, such as mannitol, sorbitol, glycerol or sodium chloride in the compositions.”
“An effective dose of an anti-AXL antibody, bispecific antibody or ADC of the invention may also be administered using a weekly, biweekly or triweekly dosing period. The dosing period may be restricted to, e.g., 8 weeks, 12 weeks or until clinical progression has been established.
For example, in one embodiment, the anti-AXL antibody, bispecific antibody or ADC is administered by infusion in a weekly dosage of between 10 and 500 mg/m2, such as between 200 and 400 mg/m2. Such administration may be repeated, e.g., 1 to 8 times, such as 3 to 5 times. The
administration may be performed by continuous infusion over a period of from 1 to 24 hours, such as of from 1 to 12 hours.
In another embodiment, the anti-AXL antibody, bispecific antibody or ADC is administered by infusion every three weeks in a dosage of between 10 and 500 mg/m2, such as between 50-200 mg/m2. Such administration may be repeated, e.g., 1 to 8 times, such as 3 to 5 times. The administration may be performed by continuous infusion over a period of from 1 to 24 hours, such as of from 1 to 12 hours.
In one embodiment, an anti-AXL ADC is administered as a single dose of about 0.1-10 mg/kg, such as about 1-3 mg/kg, every week or every third week for up to twelve times, up to eight times, or until clinical progression. The administration may be performed by continuous infusion over a period of from 1 to 24 hours, such as of from 1 to 12 hours. Such regimens may be repeated one or more times as necessary, for example, after 6 months or 12 months. The dosage may be determined or adjusted by measuring the amount of compound of the present invention in the blood upon administration by for instance taking out a biological sample and using anti-idiotypic antibodies which target the antigen binding region of the anti-AXL antibodies of the present invention.
In one embodiment, the anti-AXL antibodies are administered as maintenance therapy, such as, e.g., once a week for a period of six months or more.
As non-limiting examples, treatment according to the present invention may be provided as a daily dosage of a compound of the present invention in an amount of about 0.1-100 mg/kg, such as 0.2, 0.5, 0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 40, 45, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 or 100 mg/kg, per day, on at least one of days 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, or 40, or alternatively, at least one of weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 or 20 after initiation of treatment, or any combination thereof, using single or divided doses every 24, 12, 8, 6, 4, or 2 hours, or any combination thereof.”
“In one embodiment the cancer is resistant to chemotherapy, thyrosine kinase inhibitors and or BRAF inhibitors. In one embodimenet the cancer is resistant to EGFR targeted therapy.”
In particular, whole document.
Rizzetto et al. is being used as an evidentiary reference to teach that the programmed death (PD-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab was shown to increase survival in metastatic patients. In three clinical trials in patients with advanced melanoma, therapy with pembrolizumab alone resulted in a 30–40% complete clinical response. Specifically, in a study on advanced melanoma, pembrolizumab monotherapy resulted in a 3-year overall survival (OS) of 41% in patients previously treated with ipilimumab and 45% in therapy-naïve patients.
As such all melanoma patients are encompassed by the recitations of being “predicted to be or become resistant to” and “predicted to fail to respond to” the programmed death (PD-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab. All melanoma patients are predicted to be become resistant to or to fail to respond to pembrolizumab because 60-70% of patients do not have a complete clinical response and any particular patient may be predicted to become one of the patients that does not have a complete clinical response. It is noted that these recitations do not require that pembrolizumab is ever administered to the encompassed patient.
The reference teachings anticipate the claimed invention.
Alternatively, from the combined teachings of the reference, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
20. No claim is allowed.
21. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NORA MAUREEN ROONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9937. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8:00am to 4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Misook Yu, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-0839. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
September 28, 2026
/Nora M Rooney/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1641
