DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments and Amendments
2. Claims 1-13, 15-17, 19 and 20 are pending.
Claim 18 has been cancelled.
Claims 1 and 13 have been amended.
Claims 1-13 and 15-20 are examined on the merits.
3. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Withdrawn Grounds of Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The rejection of claim 13 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claim, see Listing of the Claims submitted March 26, 2026, page 4.
Maintained Grounds of Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
7. The rejection of claim(s) 1-13, 15-17, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bachman et al., WO 2017/123636 A1 (20 July 2017/ Foreign Patent Documents IDS reference submitted January 25, 2022), and further in view of Fukuzawa et al. (Scientific Reports 7.1: 1080 (1-12), published online 24 April 2017/ IDS reference submitted January 25, 2022) and Fukuzawa Supplementary Information, 12 pages (published online 24 April 2017) is maintained. Claim 18 has been cancelled.
Applicant argues “Bachman does not disclose the specific combination of intravenously (IV) administering a loading dose of 1000 mg followed by subcutaneously (SC) administering an intermediate loading dose of 340 mg and a maintenance dose of 680 mg… In addition, Bachman provides no reason to pursue an administration scheme that incorporates two different routes of administration. In sum, Bachman fails to disclose or teach a dosage regimen for Crovalimab, let alone the claimed combinative intravenous and subcutaneous administration scheme for this anti-C5 antibody.”, see Remarks submitted March 26, 2026, paragraph (para.) bridging pages 6 and 7.
Applicant later argues, secondary reference, “Fukuzawa discloses there is the "possibility of subcutaneous administration" but concludes that human clinical trials must be performed (see the last paragraph [of said reference]). Fukuzawa does not make up for the deficiencies of Bachman because Fukuzawa discloses only one IV dose, followed by a one SC dose. Fukuzawa does not teach or suggest an initial IV dose, followed by a sequential subcutaneous administration regimen, including both an SC loading dose and an SC maintenance dose.
Neither Bachman nor Fukuzawa discloses or suggests selecting an IV dose of 1500 mg and SC doses of 1020 mg and 340 mg of Crovalimab for a subject that has a body weight of equal to or greater than 100 kg.
There is nothing in Bachman that can be construed to disclose selecting subjects of 40 kg and 100 kg, and selecting them for treatment with an IV loading dose of 1000 mg of Crovalimab to the subject once, followed by subcutaneously administering at least one loading dose of 340 mg and at least one maintenance dose of 680 mg of Crovalimab. Thus, only impermissible hindsight can be used in order to even arrive at these dosages, and the combination of routes of administration.”, see pages 7 and 8.
Applicant further argues “…the general principle of “optimization” fails…”, as well as Bachmann provides no motivation to attain the claimed dosage and regimen, see full para. on page 8 and paras. 1-3 on page 9 of the Remarks. Furthermore, Applicant argues Fukuzawa teaches a flat subcutaneous maintenance approach and there is no motivation to arrive at an increased subcutaneous maintenance portion of the regimen, see page 10, 1st para. Hence, the combination of the Bachman and Fukuzawa does not make the claimed invention prima facie obvious.
Applicant further argues “only impermissible hindsight can be used in order to even arrive at these dosages”, points out documents supplied as Annexes 1-3, Example 3 within their disclosure, avers there are unexpected results and the cited prior art is not predictive of the claimed invention and there is “no reasonable expectation of success”, see para. bridging pages 7 and 8; para. bridging pages 9 and 10; and segment C. spanning pages 10 and 11 and in particular, 4th para. on page 10 to page 11.
In conclusion, Applicant argues “…documentation of an unexpected superior result overcomes any prima facie case of obviousness…” and “an unexpected superior result was achieved using the presently claimed methods”, see page 10 of the Remarks, segment C.
Applicant’s arguments, said documents, Example 6 spanning pages 37 and 38 and points of view have been carefully considered, but fails to persuade.
Bachman teaches an anti-C5 antibody can have a loading dose or induction dose within the range from 400 mg to 5400 mg and can be administered IV and SC, see entire document and in particular, page 4, lines 23-30; page 22, lines 17 and 18; and page 35, lines 10-18. And maintenance dosages are taught throughout the document and can also be delivered SC, see entire document. Both documents, Bachman and Fukuzawa reveal anti-C5 antibodies, as well as crovalimab (SKY59) are able to administered IV and SC, see both documents in their entirety.
And while Bachman notes administration of an anti-C5 antibody or antigen binding fragment without regard to a patient’s weight, that clearly reads on the flexibility in administration that can be positively leveraged for the clinician to arrive at the best dose for a particular patient with a particular disease. Having limited constraints provides the clinician, the ability and impetus to adjust as needed because “dosage regimens are adjusted to provide the optimum desired response (e.g., an effective response)”, see page 4, last full paragraph.
As Applicant has submitted, Fukuzawa discloses the anti-C5 antibody Crovalimab (SKY59) with IV administration to a monkey. However, given the success of the in vivo studies it would be reasonable to extrapolate these studies and build upon to implement human clinical trials.
Addressing Applicant’s concern regarding hindsight, “[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392,170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). M.P.E.P. 2145 (X)(A), emphasis added. “What matters is the path that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have followed, as evidenced by the pertinent prior art.” Otsuka Pharm. Co. v. Sandoz, Inc., 678 F.3d 1280, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2012); M.P.E.P. § 2142, emphasis added.”
Further, it is noted that case law has held that a designer skilled in the art is charged with knowledge of the related art; therefore, the combination of old elements, herein, would have been well within the level of ordinary skill. See In re Antle, 444 F.2d 1168,170 USPQ 285 (CCPA 1971) and In re Nalbandian, 661 F.2d 1214, 211 USPQ 782 (CCPA 1981). The combination of references would not change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, hence the teachings of the references are sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious.
“The Supreme Court has clarified that an "obvious to try" line of reasoning may properly support an obviousness rejection. In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding. However, in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" was a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 ("The same constricted analysis led the Court of Appeals to conclude, in error, that a patent claim cannot be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of elements was ‘[o]bvious to try.’ ... When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103."). Thus, after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.”, see MPEP 2144.05, II. B.
“A routine optimization analysis generally requires consideration whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to bridge any gaps in the prior art to arrive at a claimed invention. Where that gap includes a parameter not necessarily disclosed in the prior art, it is not improper to consider whether or not it would have been recognized as result-effective. If so, then the optimization of that parameter is “normally obvious.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977).”, see Pfizer, Inc. v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc., page 8 (Fed. Cir. 2024).
A reasonable expectation of success does not refer to the reasonable expectation of predictability, but rather “to the likelihood of success in combining references to meet the limitations of the claimed invention.” Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In the absence of adequate evidence of unexpectedly superior results, the specific properties achieved are merely inherent properties of the combination. The results yielded by the combination of teachings are not unexpected.
Obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR
International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Accordingly, the instant rejection is maintained for the reasons of record.
Bachman teaches anti-C5 antibody for the treatment of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) and atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS) administered intravenously, as well as subcutaneously, see page 3, lines 6-25; page 12, lines 3-5; page 35, lines 4-18. “In one embodiment, the dose of the anti-C5 antibody, or antigen binding fragment thereof, is a flat-fixed dose that is fixed irrespective of the weight of the patient. For example, the anti-C5 antibody, or antigen binding fragment thereof, may be administered at a fixed dose of 400, 600, 900, 1000, 1400, 1600, 1800, 2000, 2400, 3000, or 5400 mg, without regard to the patient’s weight.
Loading doses or induction doses range from 400 mg to 5400 mg, see pages 4-10, 14-16, 40-42; Example 3 on page 71; paragraph (para.) bridging pages 76 and 77; Example 5 on page 77; 2. Study Desing on pages 83 and 84; Table 1 on page 84; and Figures 15A and 15B. Maintenance dosages or the maintenance phase are within the range of 900 mg to 5400 mg, see page 5, lines 11-18; page 6, lines 3-23; pages 7-10, 15, 40, 41 and in particular part (b); page 11, lines 25-32; page 14, lines 21-26; page 16, lines 5-18; pages 40, 42; para. bridging pages 52 and 53; Table 7 bridging pages 55 and 56; Example 3 beginning on page 71; page 76, line 9; Example 5 on page 77; 2. Study Design and Table 1 on pages 83 and 84; and Table 14 on page 119.
Dosing times read on monthly dosing intervals, every 4 weeks, every 6 weeks, every 8 weeks, as well as every 12 weeks, see paragraph bridging pages 4 and 5; page 6, lines 3-23; page 7, lines 1-8, 19-28; page 11, lines 14-32; 3. Dose Rationale beginning on page 42; page 14, lines 18-page 15, line 7; page 42, lines 20-22; Example 3 on page 71; Example 5 on page 77; 2. Study Design on page 83; and Table 1 on page 84.
Patients were treated with a pharmacological product, eculizumab, see pages 16-18, captions for Figures 3-6, 9, 19; and page 23, II. segment. As, well as patients received a meningococcal vaccine prior to receiving the anti-C5 antibody, see page 51.
In one embodiment, the treatment maintains a serum trough concentration of the anti-C5 antibody, or antigen binding fragment thereof, of 100 ug/ml or greater during the induction and/or maintenance phase, see paragraph bridging pages 9 and 10.
Bachman does not teach the specific dosing regimen(s) recited in the claims with the required body weight and the pharmacological product, eculizumab administered prior to the intravenously administered loading dose of anti-C5 antibody.
However, Bachman teaches “dosage regimens are adjusted to provide the optimum desired response (e.g., an effective response).”, see page 4, lines 23 and 24. And additional pharmacological products may be administered prior to the anti-C5 antibody, see page 51. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success by teachings in Bachman. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to arrive at the recited dosages and administer the recited dosages set forth in claims, as well as administer eculizumab prior to the commencement of anti-C5 antibody for the purpose of achieving the desired treatment outcome. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success by teachings well known in the art, that dosages of any pharmaceutical composition must be adjusted and optimized. "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235(CCPA 1955).
Bachman does not teach additional C5-related diseases that would benefit from the taught methods of treatment and the anti-C5 antibody is crovalimab. Nor, does Bachman teach the concentration of the anti-C5 antibody within a red blood sample assayed was 100 mg/mL or more. Nor, does Bachman teach assessment of hemolytic activity in a biological sample of subject is less than 10 U/mL.
Fukuzawa teaches SKY59 also art known as crovalimab is a promising new anti-C5 agent for patients as well as other complement-mediated disorders including lupus nephritis, age-related macular degeneration (AMD), hemolysis, see page 1, abstract; paragraph bridging pages 1 and 2; and first full paragraph on page 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the references to treat other C5-related diseases and disorders with the method of Bachman, as well as substitute the C5 antibody of Bachman for crovalimab of Fukuzawa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success by teachings in the said Bachman and Fukuzawa, both teach treatments with the same method endpoint for all C5-related diseases is blockade, inhibition and/or neutralization of C5, see Bachman in its entirety; and Fukuzawa abstract on page 1, page 2, last paragraph before Results segment.
Fukuzawa teaches “total [C5] antibody concentration was measured in in vivo studies.”, see page 8, 3rd paragraph; In vivo…segments on page 9 and page 10; and Supplemental Figure 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the references to evaluate the anti-C5 concentration in a biological sample and in particular a red blood sample. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success by teachings in Fukuzawa, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art can determine the antibody concentration that establishes inhibition and/or neutralization of a component within the complement pathways, see Figure 7 on page 7 and corresponding segment, Neutralizing…segment bridging pages 6 and 7; and page 7 of the Supplementary Information. Absent evidence to the contrary the measured anti-C5 antibody concentration would be 100 ug/ml.
Fukuzawa also teaches “…measuring the plasma hemolytic activity using chicken red blood cells (cRBC)” in order to monitor complement activity, see page 5, last 6 lines. Serum hemolytic activity was also measured, see paragraph bridging pages 5 and 6. The hemolytic assay and formula to arrive at the relative rates (R) of hemolytic activity are taught on page 10, Hemolytic assay section.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the references to assay the hemolytic activity in patients before and after administration of anti-C5 antibodies in a biological sample to assay complement activity, as well as observe any differences in the complement activity between intravenous and subcutaneous administrations, see page Recycling…segment bridging pages 5 and 6. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success by teachings in Fukuzawa, wherein “…anti-C5 antibodies were tested for inhibition of complement activity in cynomolgus monkey plasma.”, see page 10, Hemolytic assay segment. Absent evidence to the contrary the measured hemolytic activity is less than 10 U/mL.
Double Patenting
8. 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.
9. The provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection over claims 1-13, 15-17, 19 and 20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17, 19 and 20 of copending Application No. 17/630,046 (filed January 25, 2022) is maintained. Claim 18 has been cancelled.
Applicant argues there are different patient populations with different doses and dosing regimens, see Remarks submitted March 26, 2026, page 11.
Applicant concludes arguments asserting “the Office relies on
In re Williams (36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (C.C.P.A.1929)) to assert that the present claims are merely a predictable change of "proportions or degree." However, this is not correct, as the claimed dosing regimen for subjects of a body weight between 40 and 100 kg does not scale proportionally from the regimen… of the '046 application. Both the initial IV loading dose (1500 mg versus 1000 mg) and the SC maintenance dose (1020 mg versus 680 mg) are different... Furthermore, the intermediate SC loading dose remains exactly 340 mg in both applications. Because the dosing ratios do not reflect a mere proportional scaling based on body weight, a POSITA cannot arrive at the presently claimed methods based on the claims of the ‘046 application...”, see pages 11, 3rd para.
Applicant’s points of view have been carefully considered, but fail to persuade.
While the instant application and copending application do differ in dosing regimen based on the weight of the subject, however these variables are not so distinct that one of ordinary skill in the art could not arrive at the claimed subject matter, wherein there is a change in form and proportions. Other than the said differences, Applicant has not pointed to any teachings in the prior art references that “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…”, see In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Moreover, the “expectation of success need only be reasonable, not absolute.” Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Hence, the instant rejection is maintained.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims read on treating a C5-related disease, wherein the method comprises the consecutive steps of:
(a) intravenously administering a loading dose of at least 1000 mg of an anti-C5 antibody to the subject once, followed by subcutaneously administering at least one loading dose of 340 mg of the anti-C5 antibody, Crovalimab to the subject, wherein the subject has a body weight between 40 kg and 100 kg; and
(b) subcutaneously administering at least one maintenance dose of at least 680 mg of the anti-C5 antibody to the subject; or
(c) wherein a subject received prior treatment with at least one pharmacological product that is eculizumab or ravulizumab useful for the treatment of the C5-related disease, wherein the intravenously administered loading dose of the anti-C5 antibody is administered to the subject after the final dose of the said pharmacological product. The time points of administration of loading doses, maintenance doses, and manner of dispensing dosages between both applications are overlapping.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to administer the therapeutic agents within the particular administration order cited within the claims with a reasonable expectation of success by teachings well known and noted herein that dosages of any pharmaceutical composition may be adjusted and optimized. And while the particular dosages of the loading dose and maintenance dose differ, they overlap and one of ordinary skill in the art has been provided the general guidance and motivation to modify the therapeutic agents in light of the same treatment protocol set forth in both sets of claims.
"[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235(CCPA 1955).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
10. 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.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to ALANA HARRIS DENT whose telephone number is (571)272-0831. The Examiner works a flexible schedule, however can normally be reached between 8AM-8PM, Monday through Friday.
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 on 571-272-0859. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
ALANA HARRIS DENT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1643
11 June 2026
/Alana Harris Dent/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1643
Prosecution Insights