DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicants’ Remarks
1) Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s remarks filed 03/20/26 in response to the non-final Office Action mailed 09/22/25.
Status of Claims
2) Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 18-22 are pending.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 20-22 are under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
3) Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement 03/20/2026. The information referred to therein has been considered and a signed copy is attached to this Office Action.
Prior Citation of Title 35 Sections
4) The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action References.
Prior Citation of References
5) The references cited or used as prior art in support of one or more rejections in the instant Office Action and not included on an attached form PTO-892 or form PTO-1449 have been previously cited and made of record.
Rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C § 103 Maintained
6) 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 of this title, 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 claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 148 USPQ 459, that are applied 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 unobviousness.
7) The rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 20-22 set forth at paragraph 39 of the Office Action mailed 12/26/24 and maintained in paragraph 14 of the Office Action mailed 09/22/25 under 35 U.S.C § 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitz-Winnenthal et al. (OncoImmunology 4:4, e1001217-1 to e1001217-13, published online 16 March 2015, of record) (Schmitz-Winnenthal et al., March 2015, of record) as evidenced by Lubenau et al. (WO 2013091898 A1, of record) (‘898) and in view of Brahmer et al. (J. Clin. Oncol. 28: 3167-3175, 2010, of record) (Brahmer et al., 2010) and Bender (US 20140248211 A1, of record) is maintained.
Applicant presents arguments on pages 2-5 of the REMARKS filed 03/20/26. Applicant’s arguments with regard to the teachings of Schmitz-Winnenthal et al. (March 2015, of record) (Schmitz-Winnenthal et al., March 2015, of record), Brahmer et al., 2010) and Bender have been addressed previously. Applicant is referred to the Office’s previous response and rebuttal on these.
Applicant, in essence, requests withdrawal of the art rejection based on the assertions of ‘surprising good tolerability’ and ‘surprising efficacy’. Briefly, Applicant points to sections [00184] and [00185] of the as-filed specification and asserts that combinations of the claimed anti-cancer vaccines with an anti-CTLA4 immune checkpoint inhibitor showed no autoimmune side effects. Applicant further refers to Wahner, page 2, PR Newswire and states that “the presently claimed combination” was shown to have ‘good safety and tolerability’ in human cancer subjects.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but are not persuasive.
The crux of Applicant’s argument is of the asserted ‘surprising efficacy’ and ‘synergistic effect’ of ‘the presently claimed combination’. The presently claimed solid tumor-treating method comprises and thus requires oral administration to a human patient a composition comprising an attenuated strain of Salmonella typhi Ty21a comprising at least one copy of a DNA molecule comprising a eukaryotic expression cassette encoding a human VEGFR-2 comprising SEQ ID N: 1 or a protein having at least 95% sequence identity (i.e., up to 5% non-identity) with SEQ ID NO: 1, wherein the method further comprises administering to said patient an anti-PD-1 antibody checkpoint inhibitor as claimed, not anti-CTLA4 immune checkpoint inhibitor. Sections [00184] and [00185] of the as-filed specification referred to by Applicant are not relevant to the instantly claimed method since there is no evidence of administration of an anti-PD-1 antibody checkpoint inhibitor concomitantly or on alternate days with the oral administration of VXM01. Further, Applicant refers to Awada et al., 2020 reporting phase 2 clinical trial of Axitinib plus avelumab in the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma and states that these “results demonstrate the synergistic effect of the treatment of VXM01 and an anti-PD-1 antibody in a particularly challenging human tumor treatment setting”. However, these are not relevant to the instantly claimed invention, which requires treating a solid tumor via oral administration of an attenuated strain of Salmonella typhi Ty21a comprising at least one copy of a DNA molecule comprising a eukaryotic expression cassette encoding a human VEGFR-2 comprising SEQ ID NO: 1 or a protein having at least 95% sequence identity (i.e., up to 5% non-identity) with SEQ ID NO: 1, wherein the method further comprises administering concomitantly or on alternate days to said patient an anti-PD-1 antibody, the elected immune checkpoint inhibitor species. Wahner-PR Wire is pertinent to VXM01 combined with avelumab and there is no evidence that avelumab is an anti-PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor. Awada et al., 2020 pertains to phase 2 clinical trial of Axitinib plus avelumab in the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma and there is no evidence that avelumab is an anti-PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor and Axitinib represents an attenuated strain of Salmonella typhi Ty21a comprising at least one copy of a DNA molecule comprising a eukaryotic expression cassette encoding a human VEGFR-2 comprising SEQ ID N: 1, let alone a protein having at least 95% sequence identity (i.e., up to 5% non-identity) with SEQ ID NO: 1. Furthermore, as set forth previously, Figure 30 of the as-filed specification is of tumor samples from animals treated with a combination of VXM01 and ‘cyclophosphamide (CYP)’, and nothing in the as-filed specification or in the art indicates that CYP and anti-PD1 antibody are structurally identical. Contrary to Applicant’s statements, Wahner’s page 2, Awada et al. 2020, and sections [00184] to [00185] of the as-filed specification fail to demonstrate the asserted “the synergistic effect” of the treatment of VXM01 plus “an anti-PD1 antibody” in a particularly challenging human tumor treatment setting. Furthermore, safety and tolerability are not equivalent to surprising synergistic anti-cancer and anti-glioblastoma therapeutic effects. Each and every element is taught in the prior art references and the combination has a beneficial result; however, the combination amounts to no more than a predictable use of the known elements according to their established functions.
Applicant further contends that VXM01 treatment increases the susceptibility of tumors towards the treatment with an anti-PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor. However, none of the claims recite such a feature. The asserted unexpected results must be due to the claimed features, not to unclaimed features. Nothing in the as-filed specification including sections [00184] and [00185] or in Wahner-page 2, and Awada et al. 2020 indicates that (i) cyclophosphamide (CYP), (ii) Axitinib, and (iii) Avelumab represent and are equivalent to either one of the two recited elements, the attenuated S. typhi Ty21a as claimed and the antibody against PD-1, administered in the claimed method including administered simultaneously. In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of Applicant’s invention, it is noted that the feature(s) upon which Applicant relies is not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The Office maintains that the prior art references, as a whole, render obvious the instantly claimed invention.
Applicants’ arguments have been carefully considered, but are not persuasive. The rejection as set forth stands.
Double Patenting Rejection(s) Maintained
8) The provisional rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 20-22 set forth at paragraph 27 of the Office Action mailed 06/03/24 and at paragraph 32 of the Office Action mailed 12/26/24 and maintained in paragraph 15 of the Office Action mailed 09/22/25 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12-14, 16-18, 5, 4 and 1 of the co-pending application 17273590 application in view of Brahmer et al. (J. Clin. Oncol. 28: 3167-3175, 2010, of record) (Brahmer et al., 2010) is maintained.
Applicant contends that the pending claims of the '590 application require that the Salmonella typhi Ty21a strain comprises five or more neoantigens identified in the solid tumor, which is very different than the entire VEGFR-2 sequence as recited in the instant claims. Applicants state that claims 5 and 12 of this co-pending application do not teach or suggest any combination of an anti-cancer vaccine encoding a VEGFR-2 sequence and an antibody against PD-1 or PD-L1 and therefore they cannot make the claims obvious either alone or in combination with Brahmer. Applicant points to the asserted ‘synergistic effects’ addressed supra in this Office Action to argue that the instant claims are non-obvious over other combinations of art including Brahmer and the ‘590 claims do not rectify the gaps of Brahmer. Applicant cites Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSNLabs. Private LTD., 111 F.4th 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2024) and submits that the purpose of obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP) is to prevent patentees from obtaining a second patent on a patentably indistinct invention to effectively extend the life of a first patent to that subject matter. Applicant cites Ex parte Baurin, Appeal No. 2024-002920, at 6-7 (PTAB 2024) and states that later-filed, later-expiring patents are not valid OTDP references. Applicant submits that the '590 application is a National Stage Entry of PCT/EP2019/073564, which has a filing date of September 4, 2019, and therefore a 20-year term of September 4, 2039 and the instant application, however, is a continuation of US application 15/737,659, which is a National Stage Entry of PCT/EP2016/001004, which has a filing date of June 16, 2016, and therefore a 20-year term of June 16, 2036. Applicant refers to MPEP § 804(I)(B)(1)(b)(i) (when "a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection is the only rejection remaining in an application having the earlier patent term filing date," examiners should "withdraw the rejection in the application having the earlier patent term filing date and permit that application to issue as a patent."). With these, Applicant states that in accordance with USPTO policy, this rejection should be withdrawn once the claims are allowable on all other grounds.
Applicants’ arguments have been carefully considered, but are not persuasive.
With regard to Applicant’s argument asserting ‘synergistic effects’, Applicant is referred to the Office’s rebuttal set forth supra in this Office Action. With regard to Applicant’s reference to Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSNLabs Private LTD and Ex parte Baurin, Applicant is referred to the recent precedential decision on obviousness-type double patenting (NSDP) in Ex parte Baurin reversing the PTAB decision and reinstating examiner’s rejection of claims for NSDP. MPEP 1504.16 states:
The doctrine of nonstatutory double patenting also seeks to prevent the possibility of multiple suits against an accused infringer by different assignees of patents claiming patentably indistinct variations of the same invention. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 944-48, 214 USPQ 761, 767-70 (CCPA 1982). The submission of a terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b) to overcome a double patenting rejection ensures that a patent owner with multiple patents claiming obvious variations of one invention retains all those patents or sells them as a group.
In Ex Parte Barin, the Appeals Review Panel overturned the PTAB decision and elaborated on why the anti-harassment rationale is also an important rationale for NSDP. The Appeal Review Panel noted that there are 2 rationales for NSDP:
As discussed above, the primary and historically dominant rationale for OTDP is preventing unjustified timewise extension of a patent’s term. Cases such as AbbVie, Gilead, and Allergan focused on whether the challenged patent improperly extended exclusivity beyond the point at which the public should be free to practice the invention and obvious variants.
The courts, however, also have recognized a second policy rationale behind OTDP: preventing harassment from separate lawsuits brought by multiple assignees asserting patents covering the same invention or obvious variants thereof (the “anti-harassment rationale”). See, e.g., In re Fallaux, 564 F.3d 1313, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (stating that “there is a second justification for obviousness-type double patenting - harassment by multiple assignees”). We discuss this second rationale in more detail below because it plays a pivotal role in our decision.
The NSDP rejection in the instant case follows the guidance as outlined in MPEP. Furthermore, the instant provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection is not the only rejection remaining in this application at this time. The rejection as set forth stands.
9) The rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 20-22 set forth in paragraph 40 of the Office Action mailed 12/26/24 and maintained in paragraph 16 of the Office Action mailed 09/22/25 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of US patent 10293037 B2 (of record) and Brahmer et al. (J. Clin. Oncol. 28:3167-3175, 2010, of record) in view of Bender (US 20140248211 A1, of record) is maintained.
Applicant acknowledges that the claims of the ‘037 patent are directed to a method of providing cancer treatment comprising orally administering to a patient the VXM01 DNA vaccine. Applicant argues that the claims of the ‘037 patent do not disclose the combination treatment of the VXMO1 vaccine with a checkpoint inhibitor and submits that for reasons discussed above, the present claims are non-obvious over ‘037 patent in view of Brahmer or Bender alone or together.
Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered, but are not persuasive. With regard to Applicant’s argument asserting ‘synergistic effects’, Applicant is referred to the Office’s rebuttal set forth supra in this Office Action. The rejection as set forth stands.
10) The rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 20-22 set forth in paragraph 41 of the Office Action mailed 12/26/24 and maintained in paragraph 17 of the Office Action mailed 09/22/25 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of US patent 9415098 B2 (of record) and Brahmer et al. (J. Clin. Oncol. 28:3167-3175, 2010, of record) in view of Bender (US 20140248211 A1, of record) is maintained.
Applicant acknowledges that the claims of the '098 patent are directed to a method of providing pancreatic cancer treatment comprising orally administering to a patient the VXMO1 DNA vaccine. Applicant argues that the claims of the '098 patent do not disclose the combination treatment of the VXMO1 vaccine with a checkpoint inhibitor and submits that for reasons discussed above, the present claims are non-obvious over ‘098 patent in view of Brahmer or Bender alone or together.
Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered. With regard to Applicant’s argument asserting ‘synergistic effects’, Applicant is referred to the Office’s rebuttal set forth supra in this Office Action. The rejection as set forth stands.
11) The rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 20-22 set forth in paragraph 42 of the Office Action mailed 12/26/24 and maintained in paragraph 18 of the Office Action mailed 09/22/25 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of US patent 10980868 B2 (of record) and Brahmer et al. (J. Clin. Oncol. 28:3167-3175, 2010, of record) in view of Bender (US 20140248211 A1, of record) is maintained.
Applicant states that the claims of the '868 patent are silent with regard to any checkpoint inhibitor and, thus, the Office is required to rely on Brahmer and Bender for this disclosure. Applicant submits that the synergistic effects described earlier in this response show that the instant claims are non-obvious over a reference referring to VXMO1 in combination with Brahmer and Bender both individually and together. Applicant contends that since the '868 patent is silent on checkpoint inhibitors, the '868 patent does not rectify the gaps of Brahmer and/or Bender. Applicant cites Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSNLabs. Private LTD., 111 F.4th 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2024) and submits that the purpose of obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP) is to prevent patentees from obtaining a second patent on a patentably indistinct invention to effectively extend the life of a first patent to that subject matter. Applicant cites Ex parte Baurin, Appeal No. 2024-002920, at 6-7 (PTAB 2024) and states that later-filed, later-expiring patents are not valid OTDP references. Applicant submits that the '868 patent is a National Stage Entry of PCT/EP2018/053918, which has a filing date of February 16, 2018. Applicant states that the instant application is a continuation of US application 15/737,659, which is a National Stage Entry of PCT/EP2016/001004 which has a filing date of June 16, 2016, and therefore a 20-year term of June 16, 2036. Applicant opines that the ‘868 patent should not be available as an OTDP as any terminal disclaimer to this patent does not address the Office’s purpose of avoiding extension of the life of a first patent due to issuance of a second patent.
Applicants’ arguments have been carefully considered, but are not persuasive. With regard to Applicant’s argument asserting ‘synergistic effects’, Applicant is referred to the Office’s rebuttal set forth supra in this Office Action. Applicant is further referred to the Office’s response set forth supra with regard to Applicant’s remarks on Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSNLabs. Private LTD and Ex parte Baurin.
12) The rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12 (not 11 as mistyped inadvertently) and 20-22 set forth in paragraph 43 of the Office Action mailed 12/26/24 and maintained in paragraph 19 of the Office Action mailed 09/22/25 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12, 11, 4, 3, 1, 14, 7-9, 6 and 5 of US patent 10815455 B2 (of record) in view of Brahmer et al. (J. Clin. Oncol. 28: 3167-3175, 2010, of record) and Bender (US 20140248211 A1, of record) is maintained.
Applicant contends that the claims of the '455 patent are directed to a method of providing a Wilms' Tumor Protein (WT1) expressing cancer treatment comprising orally administering to a patient the VXMO1 DNA vaccine. Applicant asserts that claims 1, 3-6, 7-9, 11, 12, and 14 of the '455 patent do not disclose the combination treatment of the VXMO 1 vaccine with a checkpoint inhibitor and states that the current claims are non-obvious in view of claims 1, 3-6, 7-9, 11, 12, and 14 of the '455 patent in combination with Brahmer and Bender for all of the reasons provided earlier.
Applicants’ arguments have been carefully considered, but are not persuasive. With regard to Applicant’s argument asserting ‘synergistic effects’, Applicant is referred to the Office’s rebuttal set forth supra in this Office Action. The rejection as set forth stands.
13) The rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 20-22 set forth in paragraph 20 of the Office Action mailed 09/22/25 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11, 3, 2, 1, 14, 7-9, 6, 5 and 12 of US patent 10441645 B2 (of record) is maintained.
Applicant states that the pending claims of the present invention relates to a method of treating a human patient against cancer through oral administration of a composition comprising an attenuated strain of Salmonella, wherein the attenuated strain is Salmonella typhi T21a, and wherein the attenuated strain comprises at least one copy of a DNA molecule comprising a eukaryotic expression cassette encoding a VEGFR-2, wherein the method further comprises administering an antibody against PD-1 or an antibody against PD-L1. Applicant states that all claims of the '645 patent require treatment with a Salmonella strain encoding MSLN and the '645 patent requires immune targeting of MSLN-expressing cancer cells to achieve a therapeutic anti-cancer effect. Applicant asserts that the present invention does not claim any Salmonella strain encoding MSLN and thus the present claims are patentably distinct from those of the '645 patent. Applicant submits that claims 11 and 5 of the '645 patent in this rejection teach the skilled person two technically distinct embodiments regarding the Salmonella strain expressing MSLN according to claim 1, and they do not suggest any combination of a cancer vaccine expressing VEGFR-2 with any immune checkpoint inhibitor. Applicant acknowledges that claim 11 and its reference to claim 3 teach the skilled person that treatment with the Salmonella strain expressing MSLN can be accompanied by treatment with a further Salmonella strain expressing VEGFR-2 and claim 5 teaches the skilled person that treatment with the Salmonella strain expressing MSLN can be accompanied by administration of a checkpoint inhibitory antibody. Applicant argues that the claims of this patent do not explicitly suggest combining any further cancer vaccine expressing VEGFR-2 together with a checkpoint inhibitory antibody. Applicant asserts that the claim dependencies from claim 11 to claim 3 to claim 1 and from claim 5 to claim 1 of the '645 patent demonstrate that a combination of a Salmonella strain expressing VEGFR-2 with a checkpoint inhibitory antibody is not encompassed by the granted claims of the '645 patent. Since pending claim 1 of the present invention is limited to the specific combination of VEGFR-2 with a checkpoint inhibitory antibody against PD-1 or PD-L1 and the claims of the '645 patent are not directed to the combination of VEGFR-2 with a checkpoint inhibitory antibody for the treatment of cancer, even considering the open claim language of pending claim 1 of the present invention, the claims cannot be construed to comprise the subject matter of the claims from the '645 patent. Applicant further states that even if the skilled person were to combine the teachings of claims 11 and 5 of the '645 patent, the synergistic effects described earlier in this Response show that the instant claims are non-obvious over Brahmer and Bender in combination with references referring to VXMO1 or Salmonella strains expressing VEGFR-2.
Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered, but are not persuasive. The disclosure of claims 11, 3, 1, 2, 12 and 4-8 of ‘645 patent as a whole, based on the coverage and meaning of the claims per In re Basell, reading on instant claims has been set forth previously. The composition administered in the method of instant claims comprises administering a composition comprising Salmonella typhi Ty21a strain expressing VEGFR-2, and further comprising administering an antibody against PD-1. The transitional limitation "comprising" similar to the limitations such as "having" "including," "containing," or "characterized by" represents open-ended claim language and therefore does not exclude additional, unrecited elements. See M.P.E.P 2111.03 [R-1]. See Moleculon Research Corp. V. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 229 USPQ 805 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686, 210 USPQ 795, 803 (CCPA 1981); Ex parte Davis, 80 USPQ 448, 450 (Bd. App. 1948) ("comprising" leaves "the claim open for the inclusion of unspecified ingredients even in major amounts"). On the other hand, the limitation "consisting of" represents closed claim language and excludes any element, step, or ingredient not specified in the claim. In re Gray, 53 F.2d 520, 11 USPQ 255 (CCPA 1931); Ex parte Davis, 80 USPQ 448, 450 (Bd. App. 1948). A Salmonella typhi Ty21a strain expressing MSLN is not excluded from the composition administered in the method and the scope of instant claims. The term 'comprising' is considered non-exhaustive and therefore, a composition 'comprising' Salmonella typhi Ty21a strain expressing VEGFR-2 comprises the Salmonella typhi Ty21a strain expressing VEGFR-2 and can comprise other elements even in major amounts. In the instant case, that a Salmonella typhi Ty21a strain expressing MSLN is permitted to be comprised in the composition, or that administering of one or more Salmonella strain(s) encoding MSLN is permitted to be comprised in the claimed method is well within the coverage and meaning of the claims (In re Basell) is evident from Applicant’s as-filed specification. For example, see sections [0023], [0087], or [00125]. That the VEGFR-encoding S. typhi 21a is expected to exert an anti-cancer effect on its own, i.e., independent of the MSLN-encoding S. typhi 21a, was known in the art at the time of the invention as is evident from the teachings of Schmitz-Winnenthal et al. (March 2015, of record) or Schmitz-Winnenthal et al. (May 2013, of record), both co-authored by Heinz Lubenau.
Conclusion
14) No claims are allowed.
15) THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 C.F.R 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.
Correspondence
16) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to S. Devi, Ph.D., whose telephone number is (571) 272-0854. A message may be left on the Examiner’s voice mail system. The Examiner is on a flexible work schedule, however she can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 8.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. (EST). If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's Supervisor, Jeffrey Stucker, can be reached at (571) 272-0911. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned (571) 273-8300.
17) Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, 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) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/S. DEVI/
S. Devi, Ph.D.Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1645
September, 2026
