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 .
Claim Status
Claims 9, 12, 29, 31, 33-47, and 49-52 are pending.
Claims 1-8, 10-11, 13-28, 30, 32, 48, and 53-54 are cancelled. Applicant restates previously cancelled claim 32 (see the previous claim version 9/29/2025). A claim canceled by amendment (deleted in its entirety) may be reinstated only by a subsequent amendment presenting the claim as a new claim with a new claim number. 37 CFR 1.121(c)(5). See MPEP § 714. Thus, claim 32 stays cancelled status.
Claim 41 is withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected species, the election having been made on 8/28/2023.
Claims 9, 12, 29, 31, 33-40, and 42-47, and 49-52 have been examined.
Priority
This application is a CON of 15/764,730 03/29/2018
15/764,730 is a 371 of PCT/US2016/054455 09/29/2016
PCT/US2016/054455 has PRO 62/235,003 09/30/2015
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/3/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Withdrawn Rejection
The rejection of claim 48 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, is withdrawn because claim 48 has been cancelled.
Maintained Claim Objections
Claim 43 is objected to because of the following informalities: A period “.” required at the end of claim 43 is missing. Appropriate correction is required.
Maintained 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.
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.
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.
1. Claims 9, 12, 29, 31, 33-35, 38-40, 42-47, and 49-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (WO 2014/144842 A2, previously cited 11/16/2023).
Claim 1 is drawn to a method of treating a metabolic disease or obesity in a subject comprising administering a therapeutic effective amount of melanocortin-4 (MC4R) agonist of a compound formula I as follows.
PNG
media_image1.png
67
345
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
185
744
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sharma et al. teach polypeptides possessing higher selectivity and potency for the melanocortin-4 receptor (MC4R)[0004-0005]. Sharma et al. teach administering to a subject an effective amount of an ionic complex comprising as the cationic polypeptide of melanocortin-4 receptor (MC4R) modulator to treat type 2 diabetes, obesity (reading on weight gain), insulin resistance (reading on insulin insensitivity), and metabolic syndrome [0004, line 6-10; 00111]. Sharma et al. teach the use of cAMP assays to determine EC-50 and selectivity ratio of different polypeptides known to one of ordinary skill in the art [00159, Table 2]. Sharma et al. teach a selected polypeptide consisting of Ac-Arg-cyclo [hCys-Gln-D-Phe-Arg-Trp-Cys ]-NH2 (SEQ ID NO: 29)[0052]. Sharma et al. teach the cyclization of peptides via Cys, hCys, or Pen side chains to form a disulfide bond [0016]. Sharma et al. suggest the amino acid next to hCys can be Asn, Gln, Ser, Thr, or other amino acids to optimized Melanocortin agonist compounds (p14, 2nd last para of A3; claims 1, 16, and 38). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
PNG
media_image5.png
84
626
media_image5.png
Greyscale
taught/suggested to substitute Cys with Pen or hCys to form a cyclic peptide (e.g., SEQ ID No: 29) via a disulfide shown as follows, further reading on the instant SEQ ID NO: 2 in claims 9, 45, 48, and 50. Sharma et al. further suggest the amino acid next to hCys can be substituted among Ala, Asn, Gln, Ser, Thr, or other amino acids (p14, 2nd last para of A3), reading on all SEQ ID Nos: 1-4 in claims 9 and 43-52..
With respect to claims 12, 29, 31, and 40, Sharma et al. teach the treated diseases comprising medical conditions accompanied by weight gain such as obesity, feeding disorders and Prader-Willi Syndrome [00109].
With respect to claims 33 and 39, Sharma et al. teach the MC4R agonist is administered sufficient to partially or totally reduce the body weight (as measured, for example, by a body mass index, BMI) [00108].
With respect to claim 34, Sharma et al. suggest the peptide is formulated in a liquid isotonic formulation or liquid reconstituted from a solid form [0086] such as a single dosage form of injectable liquid [00133], reading on a unit dosage suitable for injection.
With respect to claim 35, Sharma et al. suggest the unit dosage is more preferably from about 1 to 200 mg/day in single or 2-4 divided doses [00135].
With respect to claim 38, Sharma et al. suggest the MC4R modulator peptide can be administered daily for the entire treatment period in need up to 6 months [00131].
With respect to claim 42, Sharma et al. suggest administering the peptide variants of formula [0037] to treat obesity [00108], reading on disease of body weight, of a subject having a body mass index (BMI) of about 30 kg/m2 or higher, e.g., a BMI of 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30-37 kg/m2, or more [00112].
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention would have found it obvious to substitute alanine among amino acids comprising Asn, Gln, Ser, Thr, and other (p14, [0037] 2nd last para of A3) because Sharma et al. suggest such amino acid substitution at a particular position in a MC4R agonist peptide (e.g., SEQ ID NO: 29 and/or 31) to optimize selectivity and potency for the melanocortin-4 receptor (MC4R)[0004-0005] using cAMP assays to determine EC-50 and selectivity ratio of different polypeptides known to one of ordinary skill in the art [00159, Table 2]. The substitution would have reasonable expectation in light of Sharma’s teaching and suggestion.
Applicant’s Arguments
Sharma does not render the instant claims obvious for at least the following reasons because of the following reasons.
Of these over 85 total peptides, only 31 are heptapeptides similar to the instantly claimed peptides (i.e., only 35% of the total peptides). Further, only 2 of these 31 heptapeptides are linked through a disulfide moiety between the amino acid residues hCys and Pen as required by the instant claims (SEQ ID NOs: 22 and 31, wherein A3 is D-Ala or Ala, respectively). (Remarks, p7, 2nd last para).
The Office also does not clarify why a skilled artisan would choose to replace Ala with
the amino acids Xxx in instant claim 1, namely Asn, Gln, Ser, or Thr. A person with expertise in
biochemistry and/or peptide chemistry understands Ala has different physicochemical properties
compared with the Xxx amino acids in claim 9. For one, the side chain of Ala is a single methyl
group (-CH3), which is several atoms smaller than the side chains of the amino acids Asn, Gln, Ser or Thr as claimed (Remarks, p8, para 1).
PNG
media_image6.png
486
744
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
424
624
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The unexpected and surprising results provided in the application as filed would rebut any finding of prima facie obviousness presented by the Examiner. The strong agonist activity of the instantly claimed peptides are exemplified by the calculated EC50 values for SEQ ID NOs: 1-4 in the Table on pg. 46. As shown in Table I of the declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132, the selectivity ratio of the instant peptides of SEQ ID NOs: 1-4 demonstrated superior selectivity against at least one sub-type of MCR receptor and exemplified comparable increased selectivity to other MCRs relative to the Sharma peptide (Remarks, p8, last two para to p9, para 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons as follows.
Applicant’s argument (i) is not persuasive because (a) 35% of hexapeptide in a total of 85 peptides is a representative number and statistically significant for one of ordinary skill to consider and optimize the bioactivity of a hexapeptide according to Sharma’s teachings and suggestion to optimize the peptide design and (b) Sharma et al. explicitly teach the peptides are cyclic peptides using Cys, hCys, or Pen side chains to form a disulfide bond [0016]. Thus, substitution of amino acids among Cys, hCys, or Pen to form a disulfide bond would be obvious with expectation of success.
Applicant’s argument (ii) is not persuasive because Sharma et al. teach the amino acid next to hCys can be Asn, Gln, Ser, Thr, or other amino acids with diverse side chains to optimized Melanocortin agonist compound design (p14, 2nd last para of A3; claims 1, 16, and 38). Based on these substitutions, Sharma et al. teach a compound formula I can possess higher selectivity and potency for the MC4R and melanocortin-3 receptor/MC3R when compared to melanocortin-1 receptor/MC1R [0096]. A compound formula I, as a modulator of MC4R [0095], can be a full agonist, partial agonist, neutralist, or an inverse agonist [0097-0098]. In contrast to applicant’s argument, Sharma et al. explicitly teach to beneficially substitute Ala of position 3 with other amino acids comprising diverse side chains to optimized Melanocortin agonist compound design to generate a full agonist, partial agonist, neutralist, or an inverse agonist to treat any disorder that can be treated by activation (agonizing) or inhibition of MC4R. "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See MPEP 2123 (I).
Applicant’s argument (iii) is not persuasive because the data are insufficient to overcome the rejection of record. The rejection is based on substitution of an amino acid in SEQ ID NO 31 and SEQ ID NO: 29 [0052], but neither Table 1 nor Example of EC50 shows data comparison to SEQ ID NO: 29. Sharma et al. teach explicitly teach the peptides are cyclic peptides using Cys, hCys, or Pen side chains to form a disulfide bond [0016]. Thus, substitution of amino acids among Cys, hCys, or Pen to form a disulfide bond would be obvious with expectation of success.
2. Claims 9, 12, 29, 31, 33-40, 42-47, and 49-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. as applied to claims 9, 12, 29, 31, 33-35, 38-40, 42-47, 49-52 and further in view of Chu (MIT NEWS. https://news. mit.edu/2012/needleless-injections-0524, May 24, 2012, cited 11/3/2025).
Claim 36 is drawn to Claim 36 is drawn to the unit dosage is disposed within a delivery device.
Sharma et al. suggest the peptide is formulated in a single dosage form of injectable liquid [00133], but do not specify the use of a deliver device to deliver the liquid MC4R agonist peptide.
Chu shows a medical device to inject drugs without needles as follows (p1). Chu teaches
PNG
media_image8.png
265
382
media_image8.png
Greyscale
the injection device that delivers a tiny, high pressure jet of medicine through the skin without the use of a hypodermic needle. The device can be programmed to deliver a range of doses to various depths and beneficially reduce the potential for needle-stick injuries (p2, para 2-3), reading on a needleless hypodermic injection device in claims 36-37.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention would have found it obvious to combine Sharma’s injectable liquid MC4R agonist peptide formulation [00133] with Chu’s injection device because Chu teaches a injection device can be programmed to deliver a range of doses to various depths without the use of a hypodermic needle and beneficially reduce the potential for needle-stick injuries (p2, para 2-3). The combination would have reasonable expectation of success because both references teach injection of a drug in a liquid formulation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See response to arguments above.
Maintained Rejection
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 9, 12, 29, 31, 33-40, 42-47, and 49-52 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-7, 40, and 46-54 of copending Application No. 15/764,730 (the ‘730 application dated 5/18/2026) in view of Sharma et al. (WO 2014/144842 A2) and Chu (MIT NEWS. https://news. mit.edu/2012/ needleless-injections-0524, May 24, 2012).
PNG
media_image9.png
266
653
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 of the ‘730 application disclosed a peptide formula identical to the instant MC4R agonist peptide formula I as follows.
Claim 5-6 of the ‘730 application disclosed a unit dosage comprises between 0.1 and 100 mg of the compound, satisfying the instant claim 35.
Claim 7 of the ‘730 application disclosed the unit dosage suitable for injection, satisfying the instant claim 34.
Claims 40, 47 and 50 of the ‘730 application disclosed Xxx is Ser or Thr, satisfying the instant claim 43.
Claims 46-47 and 50 of the ‘730 application disclosed Xxx is Asn, satisfying the instant claim 44.
Claims 46 and 48 of the ‘730 application disclosed Xxx is Gln, satisfying the instant claim 45.
Claims 47 and 49 of the ‘730 application disclosed Xxx is Ser, satisfying the instant claim 46.
Claims 48 and 50 of the ‘730 application disclosed Xxx is Thr, satisfying the instant claim 47.
Claims 51-54 of the ‘730 application disclosed the instant SEQ ID Nos: 1-4, satisfying the instant claims 49-52 respectively.
Claims 1, 5-7, 40, and 46-54 of the ‘730 application does not disclosed administration of the peptide formula to treat a metabolic disease or obesity in a subject.
The relevancy of Sharma et al. in view of Chu as applied to claims 9, 12, 29, 31, 33-40, 42-47, and 49-52 described above not repeated here.
Because Sharma et al. in view of Chu teach beneficial administration the cyclic peptides taught by claims 1, 5-7, 40, and 46-54 of the ‘730 application to treat various disease, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine claims 1, 5-7, 40, and 46-54 of the ‘730 application and Sharma et al. in view of Chu to treat various diseases.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments filed 6/3/2026 do not argue ODP rejections (Remarks, p9, para 2); thus, the rejection is maintained.
Claims 9, 12, 29, 31, 33-40, 42-47, and 49-52 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,285,460 (the ‘460 patent) in view of Sharma et al. (WO 2014/144842 A2) and Chu (MIT NEWS. https://news. mit.edu/2012/ needleless-injections-0524, May 24, 2012).
Claim 1 of the ‘460 patent disclosed a melanocortin-4 receptor agonist cyclic peptide of SEQ ID NO: 1 as follows.
PNG
media_image10.png
72
566
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 of the ‘460 patent did not disclose administer a modified melanocortin-4 receptor agonist peptide as claimed to treat a disease such as obesity.
Sharma et al. show a specific Melanocortin agonist peptide SEQ ID NO: 31 [0052] homologous to the SEQ ID NO: 1 disclosed by the ‘460 patent. Sharma et al. teach the cyclization of peptides via functionally equivalent Cys, hCys, or Pen side chains to form a disulfide bond [0016]. Sharma et al. suggest the amino acid next to hCys can be Ala, Asn, Gln, Ser, Thr, or other amino acids to optimized Melanocortin agonist compounds (p14, 2nd last para of A3; claims 1, 16, and 38) via cAMP assays to determine EC-50 and selectivity ratio of different polypeptides known to one of ordinary skill in the art [00159, Table 2]. The same reasons to modify the SEQ ID NO: 1 of ‘‘460 patent as taught by Sharma et al. to produce various MC4R homolog/analog peptides for selection by cAMP assays are descried above not repeated here.
The relevancy of Sharma et al. in view of Chu as applied to claims 9, 12, 29, 31, 33-40, 42-47, and 49-52 also described above not repeated here.
Because Sharma et al. in view of Chu teach beneficial administration the cyclic peptides modified from SEQ ID NO: 1 of ‘460 patent to treat various disease, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine claim 1 of the ‘460 patent in view of Sharma et al. and Chu to treat various diseases.
Thus, claim 1 of the ‘460 patent in view of Sharma et al. and Chu. Are obvious to the instant claims 9, 12, 29, 31, 33-40, 42-47, and 49-52.
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments filed 6/3/2026 do not argue ODP rejections (Remarks, p9, para 2); thus, the rejection is maintained. Also, 12,285,460 is a US patent not copending application.
Claims 9, 12, 29, 31, 33-40, 42-47, and 49-52 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/782,986 (the ‘986 application dated 2/28/2025) in view of Sharma et al. (WO 2014/144842 A2) and Chu (MIT NEWS. https://news. mit.edu/2012/ needleless-injections-0524, May 24, 2012).
PNG
media_image11.png
82
574
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 of the ‘986 application disclosed a cyclic peptide formula I of MC4R agonist as follows:
Claim 1 of the 986 application disclosed A1 can be Arg; A2 can be hCys; A3 can be Ala, Asn, Gln, Ser, Thr; A4 can be absent; A5 can be Phe or modified Phe; A6=Arg; A7=Trp, and A8 can be Pen reading on the instant SEQ ID Nos: 1-4. Claim 1 of the 986 application further defined any amino acid residue of MC4R agonist is either L- or D- configuration.
Claim 1 of the 986 application did not disclosed administration of a cyclic peptide of formula I to treat a disease.
The relevancy of Sharma et al. in view of Chu as applied to claims 9, 12, 29, 31, 33-40, 42-47, and 49-52 described above not repeated here.
Because Sharma et al. in view of Chu teach beneficial administration the cyclic peptides taught by claim 1 of the 986 application to treat various disease, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine claim 1 of the 986 application and Sharma et al. in view of Chu to treat various diseases.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments filed 6/3/2026 do not argue ODP rejections (Remarks, p9, para 2); thus, the rejection is maintained.
Claims 9, 12, 29, 31, 33-40, 42-47, and 49-52 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/096,98163 (the ‘163 application dated 11/10/2025) in view of Sharma et al. (WO 2014/144842 A2) and Chu (MIT NEWS. https://news. mit.edu/2012/ needleless-injections-0524, May 24, 2012).
Claim 1 of the ‘163 application disclosed a cyclic peptide formula I of MC4R agonist as follows:
PNG
media_image11.png
82
574
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 of the 163 application disclosed A1 can be Arg; A2 can be hCys; A3 can be Ala, Asn, Gln, Ser, Thr; A4 can be absent; A5 can be Phe or modified Phe; A6=Arg; A7=Trp, and A8 can be Pen reading on the instant SEQ ID Nos: 1-4. Claim 1 of the 163 application further defined any amino acid residue of MC4R agonist is either L- or D- configuration.
Claim 1 of the ‘163 application did not disclosed administration of a cyclic peptide of formula I to treat a disease.
The relevancy of Sharma et al. in view of Chu as applied to claims 9, 12, 29, 31, 33-40, and 42-52 described above not repeated here.
Because Sharma et al. in view of Chu teach beneficial administration the cyclic peptides taught by claim 1 of the ‘163 application to treat various disease, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine claim 1 of the ‘163 application and Sharma et al. in view of Chu to treat various diseases.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments filed 6/3/2026 do not argue ODP rejections (Remarks, p9, para 2); thus, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIA-HAI LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1691. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM.
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, Melissa Fisher can be reached at 571-270-7430. 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.
/J.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1658
10-June-2026
/Melissa L Fisher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1658
Prosecution Insights