Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Status of Application/Amendments/claims
2. Applicant’s amendment filed November 18, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 2-9, 11-15, 17-19 and 22-37 are canceled. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 1, 10, 16, 20-21 and 38-40 are pending in this application. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 18, 2023.
3. Claims 1, 10, 16, 20-21 and 38-40 are under examination with respect to SLE in this office action.
4. Applicant’s arguments filed on November 18, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections/Objections Withdrawn
5. The rejection of claims 1, 8, 10, 16, 20-21 and 38-40 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112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendment to the claims and cancelation of claim 8.
The rejection of claim 8 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Itescu et al. (US8828375) is moot because the claim is canceled.
The rejection of claim 8 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ichim et al. (US2009/0053182) in view of Gronthos et al. (US8367405), Itescu’978 (US9301978) and Itescu’375 (US8828375) is moot because the claim is canceled.
Claim Rejections/Objections Maintained
In view of the amendment filed on November 18, 2025, the following rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Claims 1 and 20-21 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Itescu’375 (US8828375). The rejection is maintained for the reasons of record and the reasons set forth below.
Claims 1 and 20-21 are drawn to a method for treating or delaying progression of SLE in a subject, comprising administering to the subject an amount of a population of cells effective to treat or delay progression of SLE wherein the population of cells consists essentially of STRO-1+ TNAP+ multipotential cells (STRO-1+ TNAP+-MPCs).
Response to Arguments
On p. 5-8 of the response, Applicant argues that i) the invention of Itescu’375 relates to the ex vivo expansion of umbilical cord blood derived hematopoietic precursor cells (HPCs) by co-culturing with STRO-1 cells and then the expanded HPCs, not STRO-1bright TNAP+ cells, are used in the treatment of conditions such as hematopoietic malignancies and allogenic therapy promoting regeneration of bone marrow (col.6, lines 23-24;58-67; col.8, lines 1-8; col. 2, line 19-col.3, line 4; col. 4, line 2, lines 42-54; col. 11-14, Examples 1-4; col. 17-18, claims 1-3, 9 and 18). ii) Itescu’375 does not teach an amount of a population of STRO-1bright TNAP+ cells effective to treat or delay progression of SLE as required by the amended claims.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive. Contrary to Applicant's arguments, the examiner asserts that based on MPEP §2131, Itescu’375 (US8828375) does teach the claimed method because:
i. As acknowledged by Applicant on p. 7-8 of the response, the cells used in the method of Itescu’375 for treating a subject having systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) comprises both hematopoietic precursor cells (HPCs) and a cell population enriched for STRO-1+/bright TNAP+ multipotential cells (STRO-1+/bright TNAP+-MPCs), which meet the limitation “a population of cells comprising STRO-1+ TNAP+ multipotential cells” recited in instant claims.
ii. Itescu’375 teaches a method of treating SLE (see col.4 line 2; col. 17-18, claims 1-3, 9 and 18), comprising administering or transplanting a cell population comprising hematopoietic precursor cells (HPCs) together with a cell population enriched for STRO-1+/bright TNAP+-MPCs to the subject in an amount sufficient to treat the SLE (see col. 6, lines 1-31; col. 6, lines 23-28; lines 40-67, claims 1-3), and wherein the cell population is administered or transplanted via systemic administration (see col.10, lines 1-5), and wherein the cell population enriched for STRO-1+TNAP+-MPCs is autogenic or allogenic as in claim 20 (see col.2, lines 38-39), and wherein the cell population comprising hematopoietic precursor cells together with a cell population enriched for STRO-1+/bright TNAP+-MPCs have been culture-expended prior to administration as in claim 21 (see col. 2, lines 19-59). The Itescu’375’s method meets the limitations recited in claims 1 and 20-21 because the Itescu’375’s method uses the same material and the same active step in the same patient population, and thus anticipates instant claims 1 and 20-21.
Note that the method recited in claims 1 and 20-21 are not limited to any specific amount.
iii. The prior art reference of Itescu’375 is enabling for the instant claims because Itescu’375 discloses the claimed method (see claims 1-3, 9, 18), and a prior art of an issued US patent is a reference containing an “enabling disclosure” that the public was in possession of the claimed invention before the date of invention. In In re Donhue, the court held that
“Such possession is effected if one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the publication' s description of the invention with his [or her] own knowledge to make the claimed invention.” In re Donohue, 766 F.2d 531, 226 USPQ 619 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”. See MPEP 2121.01.
In addition, based on MPEP, an actual working example is not required for compliance with the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
“An example may be ‘working' or ‘prophetic.' A working example is based on work actually performed. A prophetic example describes an embodiment of the invention based on predicted results rather than work actually conducted or results actually achieved.”
and also In in re Borkowski, the court held that
“The specification need not contain an example if the invention is otherwise disclosed in such manner that one skilled in the art will be able to practice it without an undue amount of experimentation. In re Borkowski, 422 F.2d 904, 908, 164 USPQ 642, 645 (CCPA 1970)”. See MPEP § 2164.02.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1 and 20-21 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Itescu et al. (US8828375) is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1, 10, 16, 20-21 and 38-40 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ichim et al. (US2009/0053182) in view of Gronthos et al. (US8367405), Itescu’978 (US9301978) and Itescu’375 (US8828375). The Itescu’375 (US8828375) is necessitated by Applicant’s amendment to the claims. The rejection is maintained for the reasons of record and the reasons set forth below.
Claims 1,10, 16, 20-21 and 38-40 as amended are drawn to a method for treating or delaying progression of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in a subject, comprising administering to the subject an amount of a population of cells effective to treat or delay progression of the SLE, wherein the population of cells comprises STRO-1+ TNAP+ multipotential cells (STRO-1+ TNAP+-MPCs) and wherein the population of cells is administered systemically.
Response to Arguments
On p. 8-12 of the response, Applicant argues that: i) Ichim is directed to the use of pluripotent stem cells derived from menstrual blood or differentiated cells derived from those pluripotent cells, not multipotential cells. Ichim does not teach STRO-1+ TNAP+-MPCs because STRO-1 marker is only discussed in paragraph [0043], and cited paragraphs and Example 17, and the example only describes MS and doses of ERCs but not STRO-1+ TNAP+-MPCs. ii) there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation that would have led a skilled artisan to combine either the disclosure of Gronthos or Itescu with the disclosure of Ichim to arrive at the claimed method because 1) Gronthos discloses that STRO-1+ TNAP+ cells can differentiate into cells for treating bone conditions including spinal disc fusion or removal but not treatment of SLE; and 2) Itescu teaches use of STRO-1+ TNAP+-MPCs to treat GvHD, which is unrelated to SLE. iii) the claimed invention provides surprising and unobvious findings because STRO-1+ TNAP+-MPCs express high levels of immune-protective proteins SDF-1alpha and RANKL compared to STRO-1dull MPCs (Example 3) and reduce or prevent T-cell immune response to a specific antigen such as MOG (Example 5).
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive. Contrary to Applicant's arguments, the examiner asserts that based on MPEP §2141, MPEP2141-I, rationales identified by the Court in KSR (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)), MPEP2141-II, the basic factual inquires of Graham v. John Deere Co.(Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966)),and MPEP §2141.01-2147.03, the cited references do render the claimed invention obvious because:
i. Applicant 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).
It is not necessary that the claimed invention be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references to justify combining their teachings; rather the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Specific statements in the references themselves which would spell out the claimed invention are not necessary to show obviousness, since questions of obviousness involve not only what references expressly teach, but what they would collectively suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. See CTS Corp. v. Electro Materials Corp. of America 202 USPQ 22 (DC SNY 1979); and In re Burckel 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
In this case, Ichim does teach a method for treating a subject having an autoimmune disorder including systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) (see para. [0115]; example 17, para. [0216]-[0218]), comprising administering to the subject in need thereof via systemic administration (see para. [0136]) a cell population enriched for STRO-1+ multipotential cells (STRO-1+ MPCs) or STRO-1bright multipotential cells (STRO-1+/bright MPCs) at a dose range including 0.5x106-500x106 or 1x106-100x106 cells, 3x106 (see para. [0133];[0216]-[0218]). Ichim teaches different regimens and frequencies including one or more times (e.g., 1-10, 1-5 or 1-3 times) per day, week, month, or year; or every second day for a total of 4 injections, 1-7 times per week, for 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, or more weeks, and any numerical value or range or value within such ranges (see para. [0134]; [0004]; [0017]; [0043]; [0114]; [0115]; [0175], [0216]; example 17; [0274], example 31; claims 4, 57-59, 66, 81, 113, 128, in particular). Ichim teaches that the STRO-1+/bright MPCs are administered systemically as in claim 8 (see paragraphs [0136]; [0143]), autogenic or allogeneic STRO-1+/bright-MPCs as related in claim 20 (see para. [0120]; [0132]; [0239]; [0272]), the population of cells is culture expanded prior to administration in claim 21 (see para. [0121]; [0136]).
The dose range disclosed by Ichim is either within or overlapping with the dose range of 2-8x106, 3-6x106, 0.1-3x106 or 3x106 cells per kg recited in claims 10 and 38-40 because based on a subject’s weight at 60kg, the claimed dose range will be 120-480x106, 180-360x106, 6-180x106 or 180x106 per dose per subject, and the dose range disclosed by Ichim is 0.5x106-500x106 or 1x106-100x106 cells, 3x106 per dose (para. [0133]; [0216]-[0218], example 17). The different regimens and frequencies disclosed by Ichim are within the claimed limitation “once weekly or less often or once every four weeks or less often” in claim 16 because Ichim teaches different regimens and frequencies including one or more times (e.g., 1-10, 1-5 or 1-3 times) per day, week, month, or year; or every second day for a total of 4 injections, 1-7 times per week, for 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, or more weeks, and any numerical value or range or value within such ranges (see paragraph [0134], in particular).
The difference between the claimed method and the method of Ichim is STRO-1+/bright TNAP+ multipotent stem cells (STRO-1+/bright TNAP+-MPCs) in the claimed method vs STRO-1+ pluripotent stem cells (STRO-1+-PSCs)/multipotent stem cells (STRO-1+-MPCs) derived from PSCs disclosed in Ichim’s method.
While Ichim does not explicitly teach that the STRO-1+/bright-MPCs or also express TNAP+ or the dose range that is identical to the claimed range in claims 38-40, Gronthos, Itescu’375 and Itescu’978 teach these limitations and provide motivation and an expectation of success in using STRO-1+ TNAP+-MPCs and the claimed dose range in the ichim’s method because i) Gronthos teaches the benefits of using a cell population comprising STRO-1+/bright-MPCs enriched for STRO-1+/bright TNAP+; ii) Itescu’978 teaches human multipotential cells (MPCs) express both STRO-1+/bright and TNAP+ (STRO-1+/bright TNAP+-MPCs) and their use in treatment of immunological diseases; and iii) Itescu’375 teaches a method of treating a subject having systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) using a cell population comprising STRO-1+/bright TNAP+-MPCs and HPCs.
Gronthos teaches the benefits of using a cell population comprising STRO-1+/bright-MPCs enriched for STRO-1+/bright TNAP+ because a cell population comprising STRO-1+/bright-MPCs enriched for STRO-1+/bright TNAP+ has a better outgrowth of forming multipotential cell colonies (see col. 37-38, Examples 4-5, Table 2) and that TNAP+ is a marker for enriching multipotential cells (col. 2, lines 65-col. 3, line 25) as taught by Gronthos.
Itescu’978 teaches human multipotential cells (MPCs) express both STRO-1+/bright and TNAP+ (STRO-1+/bright TNAP+-MPCs) because human MPCs in human bone marrow are exclusively restricted to the TNAP positive fraction of human BM which co-express the STRO-1 antigen brightly (STRO-1+/bright TNAP+-MPCs), and the TNAP+ cells selected using STRO-3 mAb are STRO-1+/bright (see col., lines 40-55; col. 7, lines 63-col.8, line 3; lines 18-20; col. 11, lines 7-15; col. 12, lines 20-2; col.20, Example 3). Itescu’978 teaches the use of a cell composition enriched for STRO-1+/bright TNAP+-MPCs for treating immunological diseases including GvHD (see col.5, lines 31-52), wherein the STRO-1+/bright TNAP+-MPCs are autogenic or allogeneic in claim 20 (see col. 37-38, claims 4), systemic administration in claim 8 (col. 18, lines 5-13;col. 37, claims 5-6), the population of cells is culture expanded prior to administration in claim 21 (see col. 15, line 66-col.16, line 2). Itescu’978 teaches different dose ranges including 0.01-5x106 cells/kg body weight, 0.1-0.5x106 or 0.3x106/kg body weight or 1x105-1x107/kg, 1x106-5x106/kg for treatment (see col. 7, lines 5-20; col. 16, lines 3-11; col. 37-38, claims 7-10) and different regimens and frequencies including once weekly (see col. 18, lines 31-36; col. 38, claim 11).
Itescu’375 teaches a method of treating a subject having SLE, comprising administering or transplanting a cell population comprising HPCs and STRO-1+/bright TNAP+-MPCs (see col. 6, lines 1-31; col. 6, lines 23-28; lines 40-67) to the subject in an amount sufficient to treat the SLE (see col.4 line 2; col. 17-18, claims 1-3, 9 and 18) by systemic administration (see col.10, lines 1-5), wherein the population comprising HPCs and a cell population enriched for STRO-1+TNAP+-MPCs is autogenic or allogenic (see col.2, lines 38-39), and wherein the population comprising HPCs and a cell population enriched for STRO-1+TNAP+ MPCs have been culture-expended prior to administration as in claim 21 (see col. 2, lines 19-59).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that selecting and applying a cell population comprising STRO-1+/bright TNAP+-MPCs disclosed by Gronthos, Itescu’978 and Itescu’375 to the Ichim’s method would have yielded the predictable result of treating SLE, and resulted in an improved method for treatment of SLE because MPCs expressing TNAP+ also express STRO-1+/bright, a cell population comprising STRO-1+/bright-MPCs enriched for STRO-1+/bright TNAP+ has better outgrowth of forming multipotential cell colonies, a cell population comprising STRO-1+/bright TNAP+-MPCs has been used for treatment of immunological diseases, and a cell population comprising HPCs and STRO-1+/bright TNAP+-MPCs has been used for treating SLE.
Using a cell population comprising or consisting essentially of STRO-1+/bright TNAP+-MPCs in the Ichim’s method would treat SLE and expand application of the Ichim’s method for treatment of SLE, and would increase patient’s satisfaction with recommended treatment using a cell population enriched for STRO-1+/bright TNAP+-MPCs because a cell population enriched for STRO-1+/bright TNAP+-MPCs has better outgrowth of forming multipotential cell colonies and has been used for treating immunological diseases including SLE.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select and apply a cell population comprising or consisting essentially of STRO-1+/bright TNAP+-MPCs disclosed by Gronthos, Itescu’978 and Itescu’375 to the Ichim’s method to treat SLE, and yield the predictable result of better treatment of SLE.
ii. The claimed method requires a dose range of 2-8x106, 3-6x106 or 0.1-3x106 or about 3x106 cells/kg body weight, which overlaps with the range of Ichim and Itescu’978 because Ichim teaches different doses including 0.5x106-500x106 or 1x106-100x106 cells, 3x106 per dose and Itescu’978 teaches different dose ranges including 0.01-5x106 cells/kg body weight, 0.1-0.5x106 or 0.3x106/kg body weight or 1x105-1x107/kg, 1x106-5x106/kg. Because the claimed range overlaps with the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and MPEP §2144.05-I. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select and apply the known dose range disclosed by Itescu’978 to the Ichim’s method and yield the predictable result of treating or delaying progression of SLE.
Further, routine optimization of Ichim’s and Itescu’978’s dose ranges would have led to the claimed range of 2-8x106, 3-6x106 or 0.1-3x106 or about 3x106 of STRO-1+TNAP+-MPCs per kg because Ichim teaches different doses including 0.5x106-500x106 or 1x106-100x106 cells, 3x106 for treating autoimmune disease including SLE and , and Itescu’978 teaches different dose ranges including 0.01-5x106 cells/kg body weight, 0.1-0.5x106 or 0.3x106/kg body weight or 1x105-1x107/kg, 1x106-5x106/kg for treatment of immunological diseases. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize within the range taught by Ichim and Itescu’978 because Ichim and Itescu’978 teach that this entire range for treating an autoimmune disease including SLE, and also teaches how to optimize the dose ranges. Note that
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” see Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert.denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and MPEP § 2144.05.
iii. In response to Applicant’s arguments related to surprising findings, the Examiner asserts that the use of the claimed cell population comprising STRO-1+/bright TNAP+-MPCs for treating SLE is not unexpected because human multipotential cells (MPCs) used in the Ichim’s method express both STRO-1+/bright and TNAP+ (STRO-1+/bright TNAP+-MPCs) as taught by Itescu’978, the use of a cell population comprising STRO-1+/bright-MPCs enriched for STRO-1+/bright TNAP+ provides better outgrowth of forming multipotential cell colonies for treatment of immunological diseases as taught by Gronthos and Itescu’978, and a cell population comprising HPCs and a cell population enriched for STRO-1+/bright TNAP+ -MPCs has been used for treatment of SLE as taught by Itescu’375.
Note that any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. See: MPEP §716.02. “A greater than expected result is an evidentiary factor pertinent to the legal conclusion of obviousness ... of the claims at issue.” In re Corkill, 711 F.2d 1496, 226 USPQ 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 716.02(a)-I.
Further, evidence of unexpected results is frequently in the form of a direct comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art which is commensurate in scope with the claims. See: e.g., In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In this case, Applicants fails to provide evidence of side-by-side comparisons to demonstrate unexpected results as claimed. “Evidence of unexpected results must be weighed against evidence supporting prima facie obviousness in making a final determination of the obviousness of the claimed invention. In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978).” See MPEP 716.02(c)-I. Since Applicant fails to provide any evidence to support any unexpected results as claimed, the claimed method is obvious over the prior art, absent evidence to the contrary.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims1,10, 16, 20-21 and 38-40 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ichim in view of Gronthos, Itescu’978 and Itescu’375 is maintained.
Conclusion
8. NO CLAIM IS ALLOWED.
9. 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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chang-Yu Wang whose telephone number is (571)272-4521. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 7:00am-5:30pm EST.
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, Jeffrey Stucker, can be reached on 571-272-0911. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
Chang-Yu Wang
January 7, 2026
/CHANG-YU WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1675