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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/27/2025 has been entered.
Rejections Withdrawn
Rejection of claims 1-3, 7-8, 13-14, 18-19, 21, and 25-29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn with applicant cancelation and amendment of claims.
Applicant amendments necessitated a new search and rejections under the primary art of Wu (US 2018/0078636) (IDS). Applicant arguments related to Wu and the deficiencies of Wu have been read and considered by the Examiner, but have not been responded to as being moot in view of the new rejections.
The rejection of claims under double patenting over Application No. 18/698,008 in view of Wu is withdrawn with applicant amendment of claims and applicant arguments to this rejection were considered but not responded to as being moot in view of the new rejections.
Claim Status
Claims 3-6, 8-12, 15, 18, 20-26, and 28-29 are cancelled. Claims 1-2, 7, 13, 16-17, 19, 27, and 30-39 as filed on 27 October 2025 are pending and under examination.
New Rejection Necessitated by Applicant Amendment of Claims
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2, 7, 13, 16-17, 19, 27, and 30-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou (US 20140154280 A1) (PTO-892) and Raue (WO 2018/213747 A1) (Of Record).
1-2, 7, 19, 30-31, 35-36, and 38, Chou teaches a fusion protein comprising an antigen-presenting cell (APC) binding domain or a CD91 receptor-binding domain, an antigen, and a translocation domain located between the binding domain and the antigen (Abstract). Chou teaches the binding domain is located at the N-terminus (abstract and [004]). Chou teaches embodiments wherein a furin cleavage site is present in the fusion protein between before the translocation domain ([0055]). Chou teaches SEQ ID NO: 2 which comprises instant SEQ ID NO: 5 (page 8) as required by claim 2 which is a PE translocation peptide. SEQ ID NO: 2 of Chou comprises a sequence of Arg His Arg Gln Pro Arg before instant SEQ ID NO: 5 in that sequence which matches instant SEQ ID NO: 2 of Arg Xaa Arg Xaa Xaa Arg wherein Xaa is any naturally occurring amino acid teaches the requirements of claim 7.
Regarding claim 13-14 and 32-33, Chou traches antigens from HPV or breast cancer antigens ([0051]).
Regarding claims 16-17, 34, and 39, Chou teaches a method of treatment comprising the administration of the fusion peptide of Chou ([0033] and claim 20)
Chou then teaches a fusion protein comprising N-terminus to C-terminus: APC or CD91 Receptor Binding Domain – Cleavage Domain – Translocation Domain PE – Antigen, wherein the antigen is a pathogen antigen or a cancer antigen.
Chou does not teach that the binding domain at the N-terminal is a CD40L that binds CD40. Chou does not teach the CD40L either consisting of instant SEQ ID NO: 19.
These deficiencies are filed by Raue.
Raue teaches a bispecific molecule that is a fusion protein that comprises a CD40 agonist moiety, a 4-1BB agonist moiety, and a dendritic cell binding moiety. Raue further teaches the fusion molecule is for use in treatment of CD40 related disorders such as cancer (abstract). Raue further teaches the improved strategies for targeting disease such as cancer using CD40 activity are highly desirable ([0007]). Raue teaches the CD40 agonist of the invention can result in increased efficacy, decreased toxicity, and an increased therapeutic window ([0034]).
Raue teaches the CD40 agonist moiety is a CD40L domain ([0023]). Raue teaches the molecule comprises one or more CD40L domain wherein a CD40L domain is defined as residues 108-261 of SEQ ID NO: 32 ([0025]-[0026]). Raue’s SEQ ID NO: 32 is defined in Table 3 and in particular pages 40-41. Raue teaches SEQ ID NO: 34 which is amino acids 108-261 of Human CD40L and matches instant SEQ ID NO: 19 (Page 41 second row of table on that page). Raue teaches the CD40L domain comprising SEQ ID NO: 34 ([0084]). Thus, Raue teaches instant SEQ ID NO: 19 and teaches its use in the fusion protein of the invention as a CD40L domain wherein the fusion protein can comprise one or more of the CD40L domain. This teaching is confirmed when Raue teaches the CD40L domain as a monomer and specifically teaches a monomer of CD40L domain ([0079]). As previously stated the fusion protein of Raue has: CD40L domain or a 4-1BB agonist moiety attached to a dendritic cell binding moiety. Raue teaches the arrangements of its fusion components. Raue teaches the 4-1BB agonist moiety as attached to the C-terminus or the N-terminus of the dendritic cell binding moiety ([0094]). Raue teaches the CD40 agonist moiety as attached to the C-terminus or the N-terminus of the dendritic cell binding moiety ([0096]). By teaching the CD40L domain as a single domain of SEQ ID NO: 34 Raue teaches the CD40 binding domain consisting instant SEQ ID NO: 19 required by claims 19 and 28.
Raue then teaches a fusion protein comprising N-terminus to C-terminus: CD40L domain or 4-1BBL agonist – Dendritic cell binding moiety. Raue further teaches the CD40L domain at the N-terminus is a single SEQ ID NO: 34 which matches instant SEQ ID NO: 19. CD40L is an APC binding domain ([00183]).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was filed to substitute the CD91/APC targeting domain of Chou with the CD40L binding domain of Raue producing a fusion protein comprising from N-terminus to C-terminus: CD40L – Cleavage domain – Translocation Domain PE – Antigen. Chou and Raue both teach a fusion protein comprising an APC binding domain at the N-terminus for use in treatment of humans. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute the APC binding domain Chou with the CD40L binding domain that binds APCs of Raue as CD40L domain is a known APC binding domain and CD40 modulation in treatment of disease is highly desired. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success as Chou teaches the use of a fusion protein comprising an APC binding domain at the N-terminus and Raue teaches a highly desired and well known in the art APC binding domain functioning at the N-terminus of a fusion protein.
Applicant Arguments
Applicant argues Raue does not teach the components of the fusion peptide comprising furin an/or cathepsin L cleavage site or a PE translocation peptide.
Applicant argues Raue does not support a CD40L monomer based fusion protein as it does not teach it working.
Applicant again points to art not relied upon in the rejection to teach away from using a CD40L monomer for binding CD40 and again alleges examiner has not considered or responded to previous arguments this is stated by applicant in Remarks dated 10/27/2025 page 19 by applicant in section 1.3.
Applicant argues three citations of Karnell (2019), Tang (2021), and Richards (2020).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Raue is not relied upon to teach the furin an/or cathepsin L cleavage site or a PE translocation peptide.
Raue teaches CD40 agonist moiety is a CD40L monomer explicitly teaching CD40 binding would occur with a CD40L monomer ([0079]).
The art relied upon in the rejection, Raue, teaches one of skill in the art the use of a CD40L monomer for use in binding CD40. Additional art is not relied upon for teaching towards as Raue is teaching one of skill to use a monomeric CD40L. Additionally, the application was filed 05/06/2020, Tang is dated 2021 after the filing of the application.
The Examiner has considered the entire prosecution history and all filings of the applicant of the current application with each office action.
New Rejection Necessitated by Applicant Amendment of Claims
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 7, 17, 19, 27, 30-31, 33, and 35-38 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 and 12-23 of copending Application No. 18/270,856 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 1, 21, and 25-29, the reference application recites fusion proteins comprising a CD40L of 154-261 amino acids with 90% identical to SEQ ID NO: 19 which matches instant SEQ ID NO: 19 and a furin and/or cathepsin L cleavage site. The fusion protein further comprises either a translocation domain of Shiga toxin with the pathogen antigen at the N-terminal or pseudomonas exotoxin with the CD40L at the N-terminal (claims 1 and 18). This would include CD40 binding domains that consist of instant SEQ ID NO: 19.
Regarding claims 2-3 and 19 the reference application recites translocation domain of PE of the instant sequences of claims 2-3 and 19 (claims 2-5).
Regarding claims 7-8, the reference application recites the furin and/or cathepsin L cleavage site permits removal of the CD40 binding domain, comprises the sequence of the instant SEQ ID NOs: 1 or 2, and is located between the CD40 binding domain and the translocation domain (claims 6-8).
Regarding claims 14, the reference application recites a pathogen antigen that is of instant claim 14 including influenza and rotavirus (claim 1).
Regarding claim 18, the reference application recites the fusion protein further comprising a CD-28 activating peptide located between the CD40 binding domain and the cleavage site wherein the CD28-activating peptide is between 28-53 amino acids in length and comprises the sequence of the instant claim 18 (claim 13).
Regarding claim 19, the reference application recites the fusion protein comprising a PE translocation peptide of the instant sequences of instant claim 19 (claim 16).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Applicant Arguments
Applicant argues the elements of subpart (d) of the instant claim are not recited by the reference claims.
Applicant argues the copending application is later filed and would be later issued and later expired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The reference claim recites the furin and/or cathepsinL cleavage site is located immediately adjacent to the CD40 binding domain and the translocation domain. Examiner is unable to identify the difference between subpart d of the pending claim 1 and reference claims 1 and 18. The reference claim does not require additional elements between the elements of subpart (d).
The issue of double patenting relates not just to patent term but to manage issues of infringement to prevent the possibility of multiple suits against an accused infringer or that ownership of the same invention is not sold to different entities that would then own the same invention. Further, there are additional rejections of record so the double patenting rejection over the later filed application is maintained. See MPEP 1504.06.
Claims 1, 13, 16, 30, 32, 34, and 39 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of 1-9 and 12-23 of copending Application No. 18/270,856 (reference application) in view of Deisseroth (US 8,119,117 B2) (Of Record).
The recitations of the reference application from the previous rejection are incorporated here in full.
The reference application recites the fusion proteins of claims 1 and 30 as previously described/
The reference application does not recite constructs comprising tumor antigens.
This deficiency is filed by Deisseroth.
Deisseroth teaches a fusion polypeptide comprising a tumor antigen and a CD40 ligand (which is an APC binding domain), as required by claim 13. Deisseroth further teaches the use of that fusion polypeptide for methods of generating an immune response against cells expressing that tumor antigen (Abstract). Regarding the cancers of claim 13, Deisseroth teaches an antigen for the E7 protein of human papilloma virus, and antigens for cervical cancer (col 2 in lines 31-37). Deisseroth further teaches a method of treatment by administering an effective amount of the fusion polypeptide that expresses a tumor antigen wherein the subject has a cancer that expresses that antigen (col 2 in lines 48-53 and Example 6-8 in cols 12-14). The CD40L of Deisseroth is 47-261 amino acids of CD40L, which would be 214 amino acids in length which meets the requirements of claim 1 (col 18 in lines 12-13 in claims 10-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to substitute the antigens of the reference application with the tumor antigens of Deisseroth. The reference application and Deisseroth both teach the treatment of disease using fusion proteins comprising CD40L as a binding domain and disease targeting antigens for the treatment of human subjects. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success as the reference application and Deisseroth teach antigens used in combination with CD40L for the treatment of human subjects.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Applicant Arguments
Applicant argues that Deisseroth does not fill the deficiencies of the reference application.
Applicant argues the copending application is later filed and would be later issued and later expired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
There are no deficiencies to fill.
The issue of double patenting relates not just to patent term but to manage issues of infringement to prevent the possibility of multiple suits against an accused infringer or that ownership of the same invention is not sold to different entities that would then own the same invention. Further, there are additional rejections of record so the double patenting rejection over the later filed application is maintained. See MPEP 1504.06.
Claims 1-2, 7, 17, 19, 27, 30-31, 33, and 35-38 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/698,008 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 1 and 25-29, the reference application recites fusion proteins comprising a CD40L of 154-261 amino acids with 95% identical to SEQ ID NO: 19 which matches instant SEQ ID NO: 19 and a furin and/or cathepsin L cleavage site. The fusion protein further comprises either a translocation domain of Shiga toxin with the pathogen antigen at the N-terminal or pseudomonas exotoxin with the CD40L at the N-terminal (claims 1-2 and 8).
Regarding claims 2-3, 7-8, 19, and 21, the reference application recites the furin and/or cathepsin L cleavage site permits removal of the CD40 binding domain, comprises a furin and/or cathepsin L cleavage site, and is located between the CD40 binding domain and the translocation domain (claims 1, 3, and 14).
Regarding claim 14, the reference application recites a pathogen antigen that is for SARS-CoV-2 (claim 1).
Regarding claims 15, 17, and 24, the reference application recites the fusion protein eliciting a response to a SARS-CoV2 infection 9claims 15).
Regarding claims 19, and 21, the reference application recites SEQ ID NO: 19 which matches instant SEQ ID NO: 19 (claims 1 and 8) and SEQ ID NO: 5 which matches instant SEQ ID NO: 5 (claim 5).
Applicant Arguments
Applicant argues the elements of subpart (d) of the instant claim are not recited by the reference claims.
Applicant argues the copending application is later filed and would be later issued and later expired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The reference claim recites the furin and/or cathepsinL cleavage site is located between the CD40 binding domain and the translocation domain and further recites the CD40 binding domain is located at the N-terminus of the fusion peptide and does not require additional elements between the furin and the CD40L and the PE translocation domain.
The issue of double patenting relates not just to patent term but to manage issues of infringement to prevent the possibility of multiple suits against an accused infringer or that ownership of the same invention is not sold to different entities that would then own the same invention. Further, there are additional rejections of record so the double patenting rejection over the later filed application is maintained. See MPEP 1504.06.
Claims 1, 13, 16, 30, 32, 34, and 39 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18698008 (reference application) in view of Deisseroth (US 8,119,117 B2) (Of Record).
The recitations of the reference application from the previous rejection are incorporated here in full.
The reference application does not recite the use of tumor antigens as required by claims 13, 16, and 23.
This deficiency is filled by Deisseroth.
Deisseroth teaches a fusion polypeptide comprising a tumor antigen and a CD40 ligand (which is an APC binding domain). Deisseroth further teaches the use of that fusion polypeptide for methods of generating an immune response against cells expressing that tumor antigen (Abstract). Regarding the cancers of claim 13, Deisseroth teaches an antigen for the E7 protein of human papilloma virus, and antigens for cervical cancer (col 2 in lines 31-37). Deisseroth further teaches a method of treatment by administering an effective amount of the fusion polypeptide that expresses a tumor antigen wherein the subject has a cancer that expresses that antigen (col 2 in lines 48-53 and Example 6-8 in cols 12-14). The CD40L of Deisseroth is 47-261 amino acids of CD40L, which would be 214 amino acids in length which meets the requirements of claim 1 (col 18 in lines 12-13 in claims 10-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to substitute the antigens of the reference application with the tumor antigens of Deisseroth. The reference application and Deisseroth both teach the treatment of disease using fusion proteins comprising CD40L and disease targeting antigens for the treatment of human subjects. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success as the reference application and Deisseroth teach antigens used in combination with CD40L for the treatment of human subjects.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Applicant Arguments
Applicant argues the copending application is later filed and would be later issued and later expired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The issue of double patenting relates not just to patent term but to manage issues of infringement to prevent the possibility of multiple suits against an accused infringer or that ownership of the same invention is not sold to different entities that would then own the same invention. Further, there are additional rejections of record so the double patenting rejection over the later filed application is maintained. See MPEP 1504.06.
Claims 1-2, 7, 13, 16-17, 19, 27, and 30-39 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of copending Application No. 18697859 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 1 and 25-29, the reference application recites fusion proteins comprising a CD40L of 154-261 amino acids with 95% identical to SEQ ID NO: 19 which matches instant SEQ ID NO: 19 and a furin and/or cathepsin L cleavage site. The fusion protein further comprises either a translocation domain of Shiga toxin with the pathogen antigen at the N-terminal or pseudomonas exotoxin with the CD40L at the N-terminal (claims 1 and 18). The reference application recites the fusion protein either comprises or consists of a CD40L of SEQ ID NO: 19 (claim 1). The claims of the copending are to a combination with further elements, this would recite every component of the instant claims.
Regarding claims 2-3, 7-8, 19, and 21, the reference application recites a furin and/or cathepsin L cleavage site (claim 1), and the translocation domains of instant SEQ ID NO: 5 (claim 2), further teaches the amino acid sequences of those cleavage sites of instant SEQ ID NOs: 1 or 2 (claim 7).
Regarding claim 13, the reference application recites tumor antigens including breast cancer (claim 11).
Regarding claim 14, the reference application recites a pathogen antigen that is of instant claim 14 including influenza and rotavirus (claim 12).
Regarding claims 15-17, the reference application recites a method of treating disease including cancer (claims 20-21).
Regarding claim 18, the reference application recites a fusion protein comprising SEQ ID NO: 35 which matches instant SEQ ID NO: 35 (claim 16).
Regarding claims 12-14, the reference application recites SEQ ID NO: 19 which matches instant SEQ ID NO: 19 (claim 1).
Regarding claims 17-20 and 23-24, the reference application recites a method of eliciting an antigen-specific response to a disease by administering the fusion protein including treating a tumor (claims 20-21).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Applicant Arguments
Applicant argues the elements of subpart (d) of the instant claim are not recited by the reference claims.
Applicant argues the reference application recites additional elements of an immune checkpoint antibody.
Applicant argues these additional elements are not recited in the instant claims.
Applicant argues the copending application is later filed and would be later issued and later expired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The reference application recites the furin is located between the CD40L monomer and the PE translocation domain and further recites the CD40L monomer is at the N-terminus. This claim does not require elements between the furin and either the CD40L or the PE translocation domain, the reference claims teach nothing located between them.
The instant claims are to a fusion protein comprising the elements of its fusion peptide. A provisional double patenting rejection is built from the claims of the copending application to determine if the copending claims either anticipate or render obvious in view of the art the pending claims of the application. The copending claims are to the fusion protein of the claims (b) and an immune checkpoint antibody (a) this would include a pharmaceutical composition or a fusion comprising both elements (a) and (b). The instant claims are to a fusion protein comprising the elements stated in subparts (a)-(d), thus a fusion protein with all of subparts (a)-(d) with additional elements would recite the fusion protein of the claims.
The issue of double patenting relates not just to patent term but to manage issues of infringement to prevent the possibility of multiple suits against an accused infringer or that ownership of the same invention is not sold to different entities that would then own the same invention. Further, there are additional rejections of record so the double patenting rejection over the later filed application is maintained. See MPEP 1504.06.
The issue of double patenting relates not just to patent term but to manage issues of infringement to prevent the possibility of multiple suits against an accused infringer or that ownership of the same invention is not sold to different entities that would then own the same invention. Further, there are additional rejections of record so the double patenting rejection over the later filed application is maintained. See MPEP 1504.06.
Conclusion
No claims allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCESCA EDGINGTON-GIORDANO whose telephone number is (571)272-8232. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Julie Wu can be reached at 571-272-5205. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/F.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1643
/JULIE WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1643
Prosecution Insights