SYNTHETIC BINDING AGENTS FOR LIMITING PERMEATION THROUGH MUCUS

§103 §112 §DOUBLEPATENT

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 . Status of the Claims Claims 1-126 were originally filed on 19 March 2021. The preliminary amendment filed 19 March 2021 and 24 March 2021 have been entered and acknowledged. Claims 130-132 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 17 June 2024. Claims 127, 128, 137, 142, 144, 145, 147, 148, 151, and 153 are under consideration. Priority The instant application claims priority to provisional application 62/734,771 filed 21 September 2018 and PCT application US2019/052396 filed 23 September 2019. It is noted the provisional application does not disclose or contemplate all the limitations of the instant claim 137 which are drawn to synthetic binding agents with Seq ID Nos: 134 and 138. These sequences are not disclosed in the provisional application. Therefore, the instant application claim 137 will receive benefit of PCT/US2019 filed 23 September 2019. Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 In view of Applicant amending the claims the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 127 regarding the scope of the additional immunoglobulin Fab domains is hereby withdrawn. Claim Interpretation For the purposes of applying prior art, the claim scope has been interpreted as set forth below per the guidance set forth in MPEP § 2111. If Applicant disputes any interpretation set forth below, Applicant is invited to unambiguously identify any alleged misinterpretations or specialized definitions in the subsequent response to the instant action. Applicant is advised that a specialized definition should be properly supported and specifically identified (see, e.g., MPEP § (IV), describing how Applicant may act as their own lexicographer). Claim 127 is drawn to a synthetic binding agent comprising “a human or humanized Immunoglobulin G (IgG)” in lines 2-3. The specification does not provide a limiting definition for a human or humanized IgG; however several references to an Fc region are made throughout the specification and depicted in Figure 1 as an intact Fc region with no reference to Fc fragments (see specification pgs. 10-11 para [00040], pg. 36 para [000148], pg. 61 para [000223], figure 1A-G, figure 9). Therefore, a human or humanized IgG is interpreted as full length Fc region and antibodies with Fc fragments (i.e., one amino less than a full length Fc region) are not within the scope of claim 127. In addition, claim 151 is drawn to wherein “a pair of fragment antigen binding (IgG Fab)” in lines 3-4 and one or more additional fab domains in lines 4-7 wherein each Fab domain binds “a same epitope” in line 10. The specification does not provide a limiting definition for when an epitope is considered the same and when it is not. Therefore, “same” is given its plain and customary meaning and understood to mean all the Fab domains make physical contact with identical residues on RSV (see MPEP § 2111). Therefore, antibodies that make 1 or more/fewer physical contacts are not within the scope of claim 151. Claim 153 is similarly interpreted. Withdrawn Claim Objections In view of Applicant’s amendments to claim 137 said claim objection is hereby withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 127, 128, 137, 142, 144, 145, 147, 148, 151, and 153 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 127 is drawn to wherein the synthetic binding agent reduces an average mobility of the RSV in mucus to less than 50% relative to its native mobility in mucus. The scope of “native mobility” is unclear. For example, when is the mobility considered native and when is it not. To put another way, does “native mobility” encompass wherein naturally occurring structures (e.g., naturally occurring antibodies, cells) are bound to RSV or alternatively is “native mobility” limited unbound RSV in mucus. Applicant's arguments filed 27 April 2026 (referred to herein as Remarks) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the specification discloses “native mobility” as in the absence of any virus specific Ab and points to para [0072] of the specification (see Remarks pg. 12 last para). However, Applicant has pointed to a part of the disclosure that describes figures 2A and B. The particular line Applicant is quoting is not a definition but an example of “native mobility”. Therefore, the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 127 is hereby maintained. Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite, “...so that the synthetic binding agent binds RSV and reduces an average mobility of the RSV in mucus to less than 50% relative to an average mobility of RSV in the absence of the synthetic binding agent”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 127, 128, 137, 142, 145-147, 151, and 153 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2009/018386 A1 (referred to herein as Wu) as evidenced by US Patent Publication 2006/0216284 A1 (referred to herein as Tous, as cited on the PTO-892 mailed 12/29/2025) and US Patent 6,818,216 B2 (referred to herein as Young2, as cited on the PTO-892 mailed 12/29/2025). Applicant's arguments filed 27 April 2026 (referred to herein as Remarks) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, Applicant argues amendments to claims 127, 151, and 153 to specifically recite, “each Fab domain comprises a heavy chain consisting of a variable heavy (VH) domain and a constant heavy 1 (CH1) domain” precludes the presence of light chain elements (see Remarks para spanning pgs. 6-7). This claim amendment raises new issues under 35 USC 112(b) (see below). However, in so far as Applicant is intending to amend claims 127, 151, and 153 to preclude the presences of light chain elements this is not persuasive. The original rejection pointed to the embodiment disclosed in figure 4T (see below) which comprises, in order, VL2-Cκ/λ-VH1-CH1-hinge-CH2-CH3. PNG media_image1.png 453 672 media_image1.png Greyscale However, Wu also discloses an alternative embodiment in figure 4N (see below) which comprises, in order, VH2-CH1-VH1-CH1-hinge-CH2-CH3 which precludes the presence of light chain elements on the heavy chain. PNG media_image2.png 448 675 media_image2.png Greyscale Therefore, Wu discloses the claimed structure as intended by the claim amendments. Second, Applicant argues the teachings of Tous and Young2 do not remedy the deficiencies of Wu (see Remarks pg. 7, 2nd para). Given Wu teaches the claimed structure the 35 USC 103 rejection is hereby maintained. Claims 127 and 144 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2009/018386 A1 (referred to herein as Wu) and Zhao (see Zhao as cited on the PTO-892 mailed 12/29/2025) as evidenced by US Patent Publication 2006/0216284 A1 (referred to herein as Tous as cited on the PTO-892 mailed 12/29/2025) and US Patent 6,818,216 B2 (referred to herein as Young2 as cited on the PTO-892 mailed 12/29/2025). Applicant's arguments filed 27 April 2026 (referred to herein as Remarks) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the teachings of Zhao, Tous, and Young2 do not remedy the deficiencies of Wu (see Remarks pg. 8, 1st full para). The 35 USC 103 rejection is maintained for the reasons set forth above. Claims 148 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2009/018386 A1 (referred to herein as Wu) and Smith (see Smith as cited on the PTO-892 mailed 12/29/2025). Applicant's arguments filed 27 April 2026 (referred to herein as Remarks) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the teachings of Zhao, Smith, Tous, and Young2 do not remedy the deficiencies of Wu (see Remarks pg. 8, middle para). The 35 USC 103 rejection is maintained for the reasons set forth above. 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 127, 128, 137, 142, 143, 145-148, 151, and 153 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, and 9 of U.S. Patent 12,115,219 B2 (referred to herein as ‘219 patent) and Wu. Applicant's arguments filed 27 April 2026 (referred to herein as Remarks) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Wu does not teach or suggest the claimed structure (see Remarks pg. 9, 2nd para). Therefore, for the reasons set forth above the non-statutory double patenting rejection is hereby maintained. Claims 144 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, and 9 of U.S. Patent 12,115,219 B2 (previously referred to as copending Application No. 16/982682, referred to herein as ‘219 patent), Wu, and Zhao. Applicant's arguments filed 27 April 2026 (referred to herein as Remarks) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Wu does not teach or suggest the claimed structure (see Remarks pg. 9, 5th para). Therefore, for the reasons set forth above the non-statutory double patenting rejection is hereby maintained. Claims 127, 128, 137, 142, 143, 145-148, 151, and 153 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 29, 35, and 37 of copending Application No. 18/884822 (referred to herein as ‘822 application) in view of Wu. Applicant's arguments filed 27 April 2026 (referred to herein as Remarks) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues pursuant to MPEP 804(I)(B)(1)(b)(i) the provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection should be withdrawn if it is the only pending rejection (see Remarks pg. 10, 1st full para). However, this provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection is not the only pending rejection. Therefore, for the reasons set forth above the provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection is hereby maintained. Claims 144 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 29, 35, and 37 of copending Application No. 18/884,822 (referred to herein as ‘822 application) in view of Wu, and Zhao. Applicant's arguments filed 27 April 2026 (referred to herein as Remarks) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues pursuant to MPEP 804(I)(B)(1)(b)(i) the provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection should be withdrawn if it is the only pending rejection (see Remarks pg. 10, 5th para). However, this provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection is not the only pending rejection. Therefore, for the reasons set forth above the provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection is hereby maintained. Claims 127, 128, 137, 142, 144-148, 151, and 152 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 35, 58, 65, and 66 of copending Application No. 18/869,268 (referred to herein as ‘268 application). Applicant's arguments filed 27 April 2026 (referred to herein as Remarks) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the cited passage refers generally to “drug agents trapped within mucus” and identifies related applications (see Remarks pg. 11, 1st full para). However, The ‘267 application states, “Any appropriate drug agent may be used, including but not limited to drug agents that are mucosal trapping drug agents and/or immunotherapeutics. In general these drug agents may be drug agents for treating a respiratory disorder/disease, including disorders/diseases that are transmitted by respiration. In particular, the drug agents described herein may include drug agents that are trapped within mucus, as described, e.g., in each of US 10,829,543, US 10,100,102, US 10,793,623, U.S. patent application no 16/982,682 (titled "COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR INHIBITING PATHOGEN INFECTION" and filed 3/20/2019), U.S. patent application no. 35 17/063,122 (titled "OPTIMIZED CROSSLINKERS FOR TRAPPING A TARGET ON A SUBSTRATE" and filed 10/5/2020), and U.S. patent application no. 17/278,217 (titled “SYNTHETIC BINDING AGENTS FOR LIMITING PERMEATION THROUGH MUCUS" and filed Sep 23, 2019), each of which is herein incorporated by reference in its entirety.” (see specification pgs. 23-24 para [0083-0084]). The ‘267 application generically describes the drug agents in paragraph 0083 then follows with a description of more specific structures (i.e., particular species) from patents and application in para 0084. Thus, the ‘267 application is intended to administer the drug agents trapped within mucus as described in the referenced patents and applications. The instantly claimed product and a method of treating a subject necessarily anticipates the product to be administered. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection is hereby maintained. Claims 127, 128, 137, 142, 144-148, 151, and 152 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, and 9 of copending Application No. 17/889,141 (referred to herein as ‘141 application). Applicant's arguments filed 27 April 2026 (referred to herein as Remarks) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the cited passage refers generally to “drug agents trapped within mucus” and identifies related applications (see Remarks para spanning pgs. 11-12). The ‘141 application states, “Any appropriate drug agent may be used, including but not limited to drug agents that are mucosal trapping drug agents and/or immunotherapeutics. In general these drug agents may be drug agents for treating a respiratory disorder/disease, including disorders/diseases that are transmitted by respiration. In particular, the drug agents described herein may include drug agents that are trapped within mucus, as described, e.g., in each of US 10,829,543, US 10,100,102, US 10,793,623, U.S. patent application no 16/982,682 (titled "COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR INHIBITING PATHOGEN INFECTION" and filed 3/20/2019), U.S. patent application no. 35 17/063,122 (titled "OPTIMIZED CROSSLINKERS FOR TRAPPING A TARGET ON A SUBSTRATE" and filed 10/5/2020), and U.S. patent application no. 17/278,217 (titled “SYNTHETIC BINDING AGENTS FOR LIMITING PERMEATION THROUGH MUCUS" and filed Sep 23, 2019), each of which is herein incorporated by reference in its entirety.” (see specification pg. 17 para [0062-0063]). The ‘141 application generically describes the drug agents in paragraph 0062 then follows with a description of more specific structures (i.e., particular species) from patents and application in paragraph 0063. Thus, the ‘141 application is intended to administer the drug agents trapped within mucus as described in the referenced patents and applications. The instantly claimed product and a method of treating a subject necessarily anticipates the product to be administered. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 128 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In so far as claim 127 is intended to require each Fab domain of the pair of Fab domains be linked to an additional Fab domain wherein a first Fab of the pair of Fab domains is linked to a first additional Fab domain and wherein a second Fab of the pair of Fab domains is linked to a second additional Fab domain for a minimum of four Fab domains and in so far as “the additional Fab domains” is intended to refer to “an additional immunoglobulin Fab domains” in lines 4-5 of claim 127 then claim 128 does not further limit claim 127. Claim 128 id drawn to wherein the additional Fab domains comprises 2 which is a total of 4 already required by claim 127. Applicant's arguments filed 27 April 2026 (referred to herein as Remarks) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues claim 128 has been amended to remove the recitation of “2” from the claim; however, this amendment was not made. Therefore, the 35 USC 112(d) rejection is hereby maintained. The following rejections are necessitated by amendment. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 127, 128, 137, 142, 144-148, and 153 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 127 recites the limitation "the human or humanized IgG (IgG Fab)" in line 6 (claim 127). The scope of this structure is unclear. Claim 127 recites both “human or humanized IgG (IgG)” (lines 2-3) and “a pair of fragment antigen binding (IgG Fab) domains” (lines 3-4). It is unclear if “the human or humanized IgG (IgG Fab) recited in line 6 refers to the human or humanized IgG recited in lines 2-3 as the text suggests or alternatively to the pair of fragment antigen binding domains as the “(IgG Fab)” abbreviation suggests. In addition, it is unclear if the human or humanized IgG recited in lines 2-3 encompasses the pair of Fab domains, Fc region, the flexible amino acid linker, and the additional Fab domains or alternatively if the human or humanized IgG is limited to a pair of Fab domains and Fc region. For example is the claim drawn to antibody comprising a pair of Fab domains, Fc region, flexible linkers, and one or more additional Fab domains (singular structure), or alternatively, an antibody comprising 1. a pair of Fab domains and Fc region and 2. One or more additional Fab domains wherein 1 and 2 are linked via flexible linkers. To put another way, what is the minimum structure of the “human or humanized immunoglobulin G (IgG) recited in lines 2-3). In addition, the claim establishes “IgG Fab” as the abbreviation for the pair of Fab domains however uses the same abbreviation to refer to the human or humanized Immunoglobulin G. However, the claim establishes “IgG” as the abbreviation for this structure. In addition, the claim amendment “wherein each Fab domain of the IgG fab and additional Fab domains comprises a heavy chain consisting of a variable heavy (VH) domain and a constant heavy 1 (CH1) domain” in lines 8-9 is unclear. A heavy chain necessarily comprises a CH2 and CH3 domain. Therefore, it is unclear how the heavy chain can consist of a structure that does not include these domains. Claim 153 is drawn to “a second Fab domain of the human or humanized IgG Fab is linked to a second additional immunoglobulin by a flexible linker” in lines 6-7. It is unclear if the claimed structure (see bold text) is an entire antibody or a second additional Fab. For the purposes of prior art searching claim 153 is understood as being drawn to Fab structures. Conclusion No claim allowed. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY ANN PETRASH whose telephone number is (703)756-4630. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-4:30 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, Misook Yu can be reached on (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 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. /H.A.P./Examiner, Art Unit 1644 /AMY E JUEDES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1644