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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 4, and 7-17 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/02/2026 has been entered.
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention
which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional
application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent
application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the
requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance
Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 61/238113, fails to provide adequate support or
enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first
paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Claims 1 and 17 recite “inflammatory disease in the lungs, inflammatory disease in the liver, inflammatory diseases in the gastrointestinal tract, inflammation induced anemia, inflammation induced thrombocytopenia, systemic inflammation diseases”. Dependent claim 7 recites “sepsis, covid 19, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS), systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS)”. Provisional application 62/715,875 filed on 08/08/2018 and application 17/266,717 filed on 02/08/2021 do not
disclose these limitations. However, these limitations are disclosed in the instant specification filed on 11/24/2021. Accordingly, claims are not entitled to
the benefit of the prior applications 62/715,875 and 17/266,717, and will be examined as having an effective filing date of 11/24/2021.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 17, “Kluyveromyces marxianus” should be italicized.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “wherein said acetate” in line 1. The claim is indefinite because it is not clear which acetate it is referring to. Applicant may amend the claim to recite “wherein said tryptophol acetate” in order to obviate the rejection.
In claim 4, the set of parentheses around “w/w” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations inside the set of parentheses are part of the claimed invention. Applicant may consider amending the claim to recite “are in a weight ratio ranging from 2:1 to 1:2” in order to obviate the rejection.
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, 4 and 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valera (Fermentation. 2021 Aug 21;7(3):162.) in view Jordan ("Effects of aromatic alcohols on inflammatory response in RAW 264.7 cells." Thesis, 2013, of record in Office Correspondence mailed on 10/02/2025), Fragopoulou (Journal of agricultural and food chemistry 55.1 (2007): 80-89, of record in Office Correspondence mailed on 04/11/2025), and Alblihed (Human & Experimental Toxicology 40.2 (2021): 342-354, published online on 08/25/2020).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Valera teaches a wine composition (oral composition) comprising 6787 µg/L tryptophol acetate and 4547 µg/L tyrosol acetate (Table 2) (i.e., 33.39 µM and 25.23 µM, respectively, and a ratio of tryptophol acetate to tyrosol acetate of about 1.4:1), which falls within the limitations of the instant claim of 10nM-500 µM and of ratio of 10:1-1:10 w/w ratio. Valera does not teach the composition consists of tryptophol acetate, tyrosol acetate, and at least one pharmaceutically acceptable carrier and does not teach the composition is used to treat sepsis.
However, Jordan teaches that a composition consisting of 1 mM tyrosol and fetal bovine serum (i.e., at least one pharmaceutically acceptable carrier) and a composition consisting of 1 mM tryptophol and fetal bovine serum both have an anti-inflammatory activity (Figure 3.5, page 78 para. 3.3.4). Jordan teaches tryptophol significantly inhibited production of the proinflammatory compound NO (page 121 para. 4.5) and teaches tyrosol exhibits anti-inflammatory activity by inhibiting the synthesis of interleukin (IL)-6 production and IL-1β (page 34 last para.). Jordan teaches tyrosol and tryptophol compositions inhibit PGE2 production which is of great value in the treatment of chronic inflammatory diseases such as cancer, inflammatory bowel disease (i.e., inflammatory diseases in the gastrointestinal tract) and neurological disorders (page 88 first para.). Jordan teaches tyrosol and tryptophol are consumed in fermented products (i.e., administered orally) (page 75 para. 3.1). Jordan teaches that both tyrosol and tryptophol have been shown to exhibit antioxidant activity and that consumption of antioxidants may play a beneficial role in the fight against chronic inflammatory diseases (page 3 first para., page 2 last para.). Jordan does not teach tyrosol is tyrosol acetate and tryptophol is tryptophol acetate.
However, Fragopoulou teaches tyrosol acetate and acetylated phenolic compounds are found in nature (Abstract, page 80 right column, para. 2). Fragopoulou teaches acetylated phenolics have the same or higher biological activity compared with the one of the initial phenolic compounds (Abstract, page 86 right column para. 2). Fragopoulou teaches acetyl group improves the cell permeability of phenolic compounds and provides biological activity (page 81 right column para. 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition taught by Valera by limiting the composition to tryptophol acetate, tyrosol acetate and fetal bovine serum as suggested by Jordan and to use the composition to treat chronic inflammatory diseases as suggested by Jordan and Fragopoulou. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to treat chronic inflammatory disease. Since Jordan teaches anti-inflammatory effect of tyrosol and tryptophol, and since Fragopoulou teaches the acetylated phenolic compounds have the same or higher biological activity compared with the one of the initial phenolic compounds, there is a reasonable expectation of success.
Valera, Jordan, and Fragopoulou do not teach the composition is administered to treat systemic inflammation disease.
However, Alblihed teaches hydroxytyrosol ameliorates systemic inflammatory response when administered to mice with sepsis and septic shock (Title, Abstract). Alblihed teaches orally administering 20 mg/kg of hydroxytyrosol, which is equal to 130 µM (Abstract, page 343 “protocol design”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the composition taught by Valera by administering a composition of tryptophol acetate, tyrosol acetate, and a carrier to treat systemic inflammation response, sepsis, and septic shock, as suggested by Alblihed, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to lower production of pro-inflammatory cytokines and to minimize or prevent the development of systemic inflammation response. Since Jordan teaches a desire to form an anti-inflammatory composition, and Alblihed teaches a desire to treat systemic inflammation using anti-inflammatory composition, there is a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4, Valera teaches a weight ratio of tryptophol acetate to tyrosol acetate of 1.4:1 (6787 µg/L tryptophol acetate and 4547 µg/L tyrosol acetate), which falls within the limitation of the instant claim of ratio of 2:1-1:2 w/w ratio.
Regarding claims 8-16, the claims require no further method steps than those recited in claim 1. The wherein clauses recited in claims 8-16 do not further limit the active method step already recited in claim 1 (administration of the composition). These wherein clauses are merely stating the intended results after the composition is administered. MPEP 2111.04 provides a discussion of wherein and contingent clauses in general. It states that claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggest or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed. Here, the wherein clauses do not require steps to be performed, and therefore, do not limit the method claimed. “Whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited”.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valera in view of Jordan, Fragopoulou, Alblihed, Maccaferri (Applied and environmental microbiology 78.4 (2012): 956-964, of record in Office Correspondence mailed on 04/23/2024) and Khailova (Anesthesiology 119.1 (2013): 166).
The teachings of Valera, Jordan, Fragopoulou, and Alblihed are discussed above.
Valera, Jordan, Alblihed, and Fragopoulou do not teach Kluyveromyces marxianus and at least one additional probiotic microorganism.
However, Maccaferri teaches K. marxianus provoked decreases in the levels of production of proinflammatory cytokines in PBMCs and Caco-2 cells, thus ameliorating the inflammatory response (Abstract), and teaches administering Kluyveromyces marxianus as a probiotic to decrease the concentrations of the proinflammatory cytokines IFN-γ and IL-12 and the chemokines IP-10 and IL-8 (page 962 right column last para.).
Khailova teaches that administering probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus reduces bacteremia in septic mice and attenuates the systemic inflammatory response (Abstract).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the composition taught by Valera by adding Kluyveromyces marxianus and Lactobacillus rhamnosus to the composition, as suggested by Maccaferri and Khailova. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to reduce bacteremia in septic subjects. Since Jordan, Maccaferri, and Khailova teach a desire to form an anti-inflammatory composition, there is a reasonable expectation of success. MPEP §2144.06(I) states that “[i]t is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.”
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, 4, and 7-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,478,610 in view of Jordan and Alblihed.
Regarding instant claims 1, 4, and 7-16, patent claim 1 recited a method for modulating blood coagulation in a subject in need thereof, comprising administering to said subject a therapeutically effective amount of a composition comprising a Tryptophol acetate, and a Tyrosol acetate, in a ratio ranging from 4:1 (w/w) to 1:4 (w/w). Patent claim 7 recites Tryptophol acetate, and Tyrosol acetate are present in said composition in a molar ratio) of 1:1 (w/w). Patent claims 1 and 7 do not recite do not recite a method of treating systemic inflammation disease, oral administration of the composition, or a concentration of 10 nM-500 µM.
However, Jordan teaches that a composition consisting of 1 mM tyrosol and fetal bovine serum (i.e., at least one pharmaceutically acceptable carrier) and a composition consisting of 1 mM tryptophol and fetal bovine serum have an anti-inflammatory activity (page 75 lines 13-14, Figure 3.5, page 78 para. 3.3.4). Jordan teaches tyrosol and tryptophol are consumed in fermented products (i.e., administered orally).
Alblihed teaches hydroxytyrosol ameliorates systemic inflammatory response when administered to mice with sepsis and septic shock (Title, Abstract). Alblihed teaches orally administering 20 mg/kg of hydroxytyrosol, which is equal to 130 µM (Abstract, page 343 “protocol design”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method recited in patent claims 1 and 7 by limiting the composition to tryptophol acetate, tyrosol acetate and a pharmaceutical carrier as suggested by Jordan and to administer the composition to a subject orally to treat systemic inflammation disease, as suggested by Jordan and Alblihed. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to safely administer the composition to treat systemic inflammation disease.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,478,610 in view of Jordan, Alblihed, Maccaferri, and Khailova.
Patent claims 1 and 7 do not recite Kluyveromyces marxianus and at least one probiotic microorganism.
However, Maccaferri teaches K. marxianus provoked decreases in the levels of production of proinflammatory cytokines in PBMCs and Caco-2 cells, thus ameliorating the inflammatory response (Abstract), and teaches administering Kluyveromyces marxianus as a probiotic to decrease the concentrations of the proinflammatory cytokines IFN-γ and IL-12 and the chemokines IP-10 and IL-8 (page 962 right column last para.).
Khailova teaches that administering probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus reduces bacteremia in septic mice and attenuates the systemic inflammatory response (Abstract).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method recited in patent claims 1 and 7 by adding Kluyveromyces marxianus and Lactobacillus rhamnosus to the composition, as suggested by Maccaferri and Khailova. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to reduce bacteremia in septic subjects
Claims 1, 4, and 7-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4, 9, 19, and 24 of copending Application No. 17/266717 in view of Jordan and Alblihed.
Regarding instant claims 1, 4 and 7-16, copending claim 1 recites a composition consisting essentially of synthetic tryptophol acetate, a synthetic tyrosol acetate, and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, wherein said Tryptophol acetate and said tyrosol acetate are in a ratio of 10:1 - 1:10 w/w ratio, wherein said Tryptophol acetate is present at a concentration of at least 0.1 µM within said composition and said Tyrosol acetate is present at a concentration of at least 1µM within said composition. Copending claim 2 recites wherein said Tryptophol acetate is present at a concentration of at least 1 µM within said composition. Copending claim 4 recites wherein said Tryptophol acetate and said Tyrosol acetate are in w/w ratio ranging from 2:1 (w/w) - 1:2 (w/w). Copending claim 9 recites a composition of a microorganism mixture comprising: a. K. marxianus; and b. at least one probiotic microorganism,; and c. a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier. Copending claim 19 recites a method for treating a disease selected from the group consisting of: an inflammatory disease in a subject in need thereof, the method comprising: administering to said subject a therapeutically effective amount of a pharmaceutical composition comprising any one of: at least one molecule selected from synthetic Tryptophol acetate and synthetic Tyrosol acetate, and said microorganism mixture of claim 9, and pharmaceutically acceptable carrier. Copending claim 24 recites a concentration of 0.1-500 µM.
Copending claims 1-2, 4, 9, 19 and 24 do not recite a method of treating systemic inflammation disease and oral administration.
However, Jordan teaches that a composition consisting of 1 mM tyrosol and fetal bovine serum (i.e., at least one pharmaceutically acceptable carrier) and a composition consisting of 1 mM tryptophol and fetal bovine serum have an anti-inflammatory activity (page 75 lines 13-14, Figure 3.5, page 78 para. 3.3.4). Jordan teaches tyrosol and tryptophol are consumed in fermented products (i.e., administered orally).
Alblihed teaches hydroxytyrosol ameliorates systemic inflammatory response when administered to mice with sepsis and septic shock (Title, Abstract). Alblihed teaches orally administering 20 mg/kg of hydroxytyrosol, which is equal to 130 µM (Abstract, page 343 “protocol design”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method recited in copending claims 1-2, 4, 9, 19, and 24 by limiting the composition to tryptophol acetate, tyrosol acetate and a pharmaceutical carrier as suggested by Jordan and to administer the composition to a subject orally to treat systemic inflammation disease, as suggested by Jordan and Alblihed. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to safely administer the composition to treat systemic inflammation disease.
Claims 1, 4, and 7-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8-9, 13, 17, 23 and 28 of copending Application No. 18/258560 in view of Jordan and Lu.
Regarding instant claims 1, 4 and 7-17, copending claim 1 recites a method for modulating abundance, diversity, or both, of a microbial population in a subject in need thereof, comprising administering to said subject a therapeutically effective amount of a composition comprising a Tryptophol derivative, a 4- Ethyl-Phenol derivative, or a combination thereof. Copending claim 8 recites wherein said composition comprises any one of said Tryptophol derivative and said 4-Ethyl-Phenol derivative in a concentration ranging from 1 μM to 100 μM. Copending claim 9 recites wherein said Tryptophol derivative is Tryptophol acetate, wherein said 4-Ethyl-Phenol derivative is Tyrosol acetate, or combination thereof. Copending claim 13 recites wherein said subject is afflicted with an inflammatory disease. Copending claim 17 recites a method for treating a subject in need of microbial population modulation, comprising administering a composition comprising a Tryptophol derivative, a 4-Ethyl-Phenol derivative, or a combination thereof, a microorganism mixture and an acceptable carrier. Copending 28 recites wherein said microorganism mixture is kefir (i.e., orally). Copending claims 1, 8-9, 13, 17, and 28 do not recite the composition consists of Tryptophol acetate, Tyrosol acetate and pharmaceutical carrier and do not recite a method of treating systemic inflammation disease and oral administration of the composition.
However, Jordan teaches that a composition consisting of 1 mM tyrosol and fetal bovine serum (i.e., at least one pharmaceutically acceptable carrier) and a composition consisting of 1 mM tryptophol and fetal bovine serum have an anti-inflammatory activity (page 75 lines 13-14, Figure 3.5, page 78 para. 3.3.4). Jordan teaches tyrosol and tryptophol are consumed in fermented products (i.e., administered orally).
Alblihed teaches hydroxytyrosol ameliorates systemic inflammatory response when administered to mice with sepsis and septic shock (Title, Abstract). Alblihed teaches orally administering 20 mg/kg of hydroxytyrosol, which is equal to 130 µM (Abstract, page 343 “protocol design”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method recited in copending claims 1, 8-9, 13, 17, and 28 by limiting the composition to tryptophol acetate, tyrosol acetate and a pharmaceutical carrier as suggested by Jordan and to administer the composition to a subject orally to treat systemic inflammation disease, as suggested by Jordan and Alblihed. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to safely administer the composition to treat systemic inflammation disease.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Jordan reports in vitro effects of aromatic alcohols on macrophage cell lines and does not teach systemic administration, acetate ester derivatives, or treatment of inflammatory diseases in vivo. Applicant argues Jordan teaches a much higher concentration of the aromatic alcohols than claimed. Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably expect that acetylation of aromatic alcohols would preserve or enhance anti-inflammatory activity. Applicant argues that prior art does not teach the unexpectedly low concentrations of combination of the active molecules administered, orally, for the treatment of systemic inflammation diseases. Applicant argues Fragopoulou' s aim was to examine the biological activity of resveratrol and tyrosol and their acetylated derivatives but does not teach Tryptophol acetate nor any combination with Tyrosol acetate and no specific dosages for the treatment of systemic inflammation.
Regarding the double patenting rejections, Applicant does not provide argument but offers to provide a terminal disclaimer upon indication of allowable claims.
In response to the argument, Valera teaches an oral composition comprising 6787 µg/L tryptophol acetate and 4547 µg/L tyrosol acetate (i.e., 33.39 µM and 25.23 µM, respectively), which falls within the limitation of the instant claim of 10 nM-500µM. Jordan teaches tryptophol and tyrosol have anti-inflammatory effect, and Alblihed teaches orally administering hydroxytyrosol to mice in vivo to treat sepsis and septic shock. Fragopoulou teaches tyrosol acetate had an improved effect compared to tyrosol and teaches acetylated phenolics have the same or higher biological activity compared with the one of the initial phenolic compounds (Abstract, page 86 right column para. 2). Fragopoulou teaches acetyl group improves the cell permeability of phenolic compounds and provides biological activity. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to orally administer tryptophol acetate and tyrosol acetate to treat sepsis, as suggested by the teachings of the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY A CRUM whose telephone number is (571)272-1661. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 CT with alternate Fridays off.
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, LOUISE W HUMPHREY can be reached at 571-272-5543. 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.
/MARY A CRUM/Examiner, Art Unit 1657
/THANE UNDERDAHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1699
Prosecution Insights