Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11 Feb 2026 and 5 Jan 2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
The amended claim set filed 5 Jan 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 9, 16-19, and 23-28 are currently pending. Of those, claims 9, 16-18, and 23 are currently amended, and claims 24-28 are new. Claims 1-8 and 10-15 are cancelled. Claims 9, 16-19, and 23-28 will be examined on the merits herein.
Response to Arguments
The Applicants’ arguments filed 5 Jan 2026 are acknowledged. For clarity, in this action, said arguments will be referred to as “Remarks” and the Final Office Action mailed 3 Nov 2026 will be referred to as “FOA.”
Objection(s) and Rejection(s) Withdrawn
The claim interpretation relating to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (FOA par. 6-8) is moot in view of the claim amendment.
The rejections of claims 9 and 16-23 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (FOA par. 38-40) are withdrawn in view of the claim amendments and arguments.
Rejection(s) Maintained
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Applicant’s arguments are addressed following the updated rejection.
MPEP § 2163 states:
Possession may be shown in a variety of ways including description of an actual reduction to practice, or by showing that the invention was "ready for patenting" such as by describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the applicant was in possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 68, 119 S.Ct. 304, 312, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (1998); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406; Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement." Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
An original claim may lack written description support when a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en bane). The written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, reduction to drawings, or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406.
To satisfy the written description requirement the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail, such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The specification did not provide sufficient detail (as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art) to demonstrate possession of the full scope of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 9 and its dependent claim 16 are drawn to methods of administering a “vaccine” to a pig to induce an immune response to at least one of Haemophilus parasuis serotypes 4 or 5; the vaccine administered comprises a H. parasuis serine protease comprising an amino acid sequence having at least 69% sequence identity with the amino acid residues 1 to 520 of SEQ ID NO: 1 and also comprises an amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 2 (in claim 9). Therefore, the breadth of the claims include sequences that can vary at 161 amino acids relative to SEQ ID NO: 1 (out of 520 total, at least 69% identity), as long as the sequence comprises SEQ ID NO: 2.
The claims and specification use the term “vaccine” but this term is not defined in the specification. In A Dictionary of Biology, Martin and Hine (2008; PTO-892) define the term “vaccine” as “A liquid preparation of treated disease-producing microorganisms or their products used to stimulate an immune response in the body and so confer resistance to the disease” (pg. 1, emphasis added). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would recognize that the use of the term “vaccine” in the claims requires the induced immune response have the functional effect of “confer[ing] resistance to the disease” to at least some extent. Dependent claim 16 further requires that the vaccine induce neutralizing antibodies. However, these functional limitations are not described by the specification for the genus of vaccine composition administrations that are claimed.
The specification states that SEQ ID NO: 1 is a fragment of “the putative extracellular serine protease of Haemophilus parasuis serotype 5, strain SH0165 (GenBank No ACL32961.1), having a length of 780 amino acids” and comprises a Mac-1 domain, which is disclosed as SEQ ID NO: 2 [0030-0031]. The specification states that “It appears that the level of identity [for the serine protease protein] is at least 69% among various strains of common serotypes” [0030 and Table 1] and that “the Mac-1 domain is present with 100% identity in various H. parasuis serotypes (as indicated here above; notwithstanding that in other strains or serotypes the level of identity is lower)” [0032]. However, the strains in Table 1, except for D74, cannot be identified in the art at the time of filing. Neither the specification nor the art provides sequences for any of the strains’ serine proteases, so one of ordinary skill in the art can’t determine that the applicant has demonstrated possession of any specific sequences that comprise SEQ ID NO: 2 and have at least 69% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1, other than SEQ ID NO: 1 itself.
The specification reduces to practice an experiment to test the efficacy of a subunit vaccine compared to a conventional bacterin vaccine against H. parasuis in a serotype 5 challenge model [Example 2] and a serotype 4 challenge model [Example 3]. In both experiments, the subunit vaccine comprised the polypeptide according to SEQ ID NO: 1, wherein the corresponding DNA was cloned from H. parasuis serotype 5, strain SH0165 (GenBank no. ACL32961.1; authored by Yue et al.; PTO-892), expressed in an E. coli expression vector system (pET22b, with pelB signal sequence and a HIS tag). The bacterin vaccine contained inactivated cells of Haemophilus parasuis bacteria of serotype 5 [0034]. The serotype 5 strain used was strain SH0165 [0034] (the strain protected against has 100% identity with SEQ ID NO: 1), and the serotype 4 strain was not disclosed and is only described as “a virulent culture of H. parasuis serotype 4” [0046] (one cannot determine how similar the strain’s serine protease is compared to SEQ ID NO: 1). In both experiments, the SEQ ID NO: 1 vaccine protects against H. parasuis challenge, and protects against mortality and clinical signs due to the infection [0042, Table 2, 0051, Table 3]. However, SEQ ID NO: 1 is merely one species of the broadly claimed genus of amino acid compositions.
The specification does not determine any sub-parts of SEQ ID NO: 1 that may be responsible for the protective effect. For example, the specification does not reduce to practice any experiments using smaller fragments of SEQ ID NO: 1, modified versions of SEQ ID NO: 1, or serine protease proteins from other H. parasuis strains. For example, the specification does not perform any computational analysis to identify immunogenic regions of the protein, and does not create or consult protein structures to determine what parts of the protein are surface-exposed and capable of being bound by an antigen. The sort of experimentation common in the field at the time of filing is demonstrated in You et al. (2015; PTO-892 mailed 7 July 2025), which performs bioinformatic analysis on the H. parasuis serine protease (referred to as espP) to predict linear B cell epitopes and a 3D structure (Abstract). You et al. found that predicted antigenic epitopes are distributed at positions 70-80, 118-134, 140-148, 193-202, 211-220, 253-270, 310-318, 328-341, 347-356, 397-405, 530-541, and 626-632 of the amino acid sequence (section 2.4 pg. 2633, Figure 5). Therefore, the art shows that much of the protein is potentially antigenic, not only the SEQ ID NO: 1 (amino acids 1-520) or SEQ ID NO: 2 (amino acids 130-221) regions (see Alignment 3 made of record in FOA pg. 25 for the correspondence between SEQ ID NOs: 1-2 and espP). However, neither the art nor the specification shows what potentially antigenic region(s) are capable of generating protective antibodies that protect against infection, or raise neutralizing antibodies, as required by the claims.
Other art in the field of vaccines shows that vaccine efficacy decreases with increasing amino acid dissimilarity but that small modifications can largely be tolerated by an antigen. Juraska et al. (2018; PTO-892) studied dengue virus vaccines and shows that vaccine efficacy decreases with degree of amino acid dissimilarity between the vaccine insert and disease-causing DENVs, but that a few mismatched residues do not have a large effect on efficacy (Figure 1). Also, Nordstrom et al. (2017; PTO-892) studied vaccine engineering using the M protein of S. pyogenes and produced 86 peptide variants where one amino acid is altered and that were designed to not impair immunogenicity by altering the α-helical structure (Abstract); although very few mutants had improved efficacy, the mutants largely were still bound by the antibody (Figure 1A). Although small mutations are likely to be tolerated, large mutations such as sequences having as little as 69% identity (up to 161 mutations) are likely to impair efficacy based on the data from the dengue vaccine and based on the likelihood that eventually subsequent mutations will include a harmful mutation by chance.
The specification states that the vaccine “is able to induce antibodies that neutralise the naturally occurring serine protease” [0012]; however, no experiments demonstrate the vaccine raises antibodies with this function. The art recognizes that neutralizing antibodies are not necessarily produced by a vaccine, even one that is protective. Abreu-Mota et al. (2018; PTO-892 mailed 24 Mar 2025) teaches that in response to another vaccine, subjects produce non-neutralizing antibodies that are nevertheless “critical for protection” against disease (Title). Abreu-Mota also discloses examples of experiments needed to determine whether a vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies (pg. 6 col. 1 “LASSARAB does not induce neutralizing antibodies” section, Figure 5 and legend). Xue et al. (2015; PTO-892 mailed 24 Mar 2025) discloses a H. parasuis vaccine and also recognizes that experimentation is necessary to conclude that serum contains neutralizing antibodies (pg. 155 col. 1 par. 1, Figure 1).
MPEP 2163 states: “… for inventions in emerging and unpredictable technologies, or for inventions characterized by factors not reasonably predictable which are known to one of ordinary skill in the art, more evidence is required to show possession. … In such instances the alleged conception fails not merely because the field is unpredictable or because of the general uncertainty surrounding experimental sciences, but because the conception is incomplete due to factual uncertainty that undermines the specificity of the inventor’s idea of the invention. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs. Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1229, 32 USPQ2d 1915, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Reduction to practice in effect provides the only evidence to corroborate conception (and therefore possession) of the invention. Id.”
In this case, the art shows that this invention is in an unpredictable technology of immunogenic polypeptides and vaccine development. With the exception of SEQ ID NO:1, the skilled artisan cannot envision the detailed structure of the encompassed immunogenic polypeptides and variants, and therefore conception is not achieved until reduction to practice has occurred, regardless of the complexity or simplicity of the method of isolation. Adequate written description requires more than a mere statement that it is part of the invention and a reference to a potential method of isolating it. The amino acid sequence itself is required for either a representative number of species within the genus or for a structure correlated with the claimed function. See Fiers v. Revel, 25 USPQ 2d 1601 at 1606 (CAFC 1993) and Amgen Inc. V. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Lts., 18 USPQ2d 1016. Although these court findings are drawn to DNA art, the findings are applicable to the claimed proteins.
Furthermore, although drawn to the DNA art, the findings of The Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly (43 USPQ2d 1398-1412) are applicable to the instant rejection. The court held that a generic statement which defines a genus of nucleic acids by only their functional activity does not provide an adequate written description of the genus. The court indicated that while Applicants are not required to disclose every species encompassed by a genus, the description of a genus is achieved by the recitation of a representative number of DNA molecules, usually defined by a nucleotide sequence, falling within the scope of the claimed genus. At section B(1), the court states that “An adequate written description of a DNA...’ requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties’, not a mere wish or plan for obtaining the claimed chemical invention”. Satisfactory disclosure of a "representative number" depends on whether one of skill in the art would recognize that the inventor was in possession of the necessary common attributes or features possessed by the members of the genus in view of the species disclosed. For inventions in an unpredictable art, adequate written description of a genus which embraces widely variant species cannot be achieved by disclosing only one species within the genus. See, e.g., Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. Instead, the disclosure must adequately reflect the structural diversity of the claimed genus, either through the disclosure of sufficient species that are "representative of the full variety or scope of the genus," or by the establishment of "a reasonable structure-function correlation."
In the instant case, applicants have only established that the subunit vaccine comprising SEQ ID NO:1 meets the written description for a vaccine having the function of being capable of protecting a pig against an infection with H. parasuis serotypes 4 and 5, protecting the pig against an increased risk of mortality, protecting the pig against one or more clinical signs due to the infection.
Therefore, when viewing the specification in view of the art at the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have concluded that the one vaccine that has been demonstrated to have the claimed effect is a representative number of species of the narrower genus of highly similar serine proteases with 90% identity or more to SEQ ID NO: 1, but is not a representative number of species for the more dissimilar genus of 69% identity or more. Therefore, claims 9 and 16 are rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Also, when viewing the specification in view of the art, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would not have concluded that the specification demonstrates possession of a vaccine that is able to induce neutralizing antibodies because the specification does not provide the sort of evidence required to demonstrate this function. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected as lacking written description.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues (Remarks pg. 6) that the specification demonstrates possession of the claimed invention by Examples 2 and 3 demonstrating that SEQ ID NO: 1 induces immune responses to serotypes 4 and 5.
The examiner agrees; claims 19 and 26, which are limited to administering a vaccine comprising SEQ ID NO: 1 are not rejected here.
Applicant argues (Remarks pg. 6) that written Description does not require actual reduction to practice, rather, it requires a skilled artisan to "visualize or recognize" the described subject matter.
The examiner does not dispute the guidelines cited. It is noted that par. 8 cited sections of the MPEP pointing out that reduction to practice is not required for all inventions. However, the MPEP also was cited in par. 17 and additional case law was cited in par. 18-19 to point out that more evidence may be required to show possession in unpredictable arts due to the factual uncertainty of the inventor’s idea. Applicant’s argument does not address the unpredictability of the field at the time of filing or the extent to which one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would recognize the specification’s disclosure of a vaccine comprising SEQ ID NO: 1 to be applicable more broadly via a structure-function correlation. Therefore, it is not persuasive to overcome the rejection laid out above.
Applicant argues (Remarks pg. 6-7) that the specification identifies the genus of proteins.
PNG
media_image1.png
198
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The argument has been carefully considered but is not found persuasive. It is noted that the first and fourth “structural” feature pointed out in the arguments are actually functions the protein accomplishes. The first functional feature, being a serine protease, is not included in the rejection because the structural properties required of a serine protease active site are well characterized in the art at the time of filing (i.e. this functional limitation is supported by “disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., … by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, …, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus”, quote from MPEP 2163 and also cited in par. 8 above). However, the rejection above argues that the specification and art do not point out a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure for the function of inducing an immune response to serotype 4 and/or 5. Applicant’s argument does not point out what part(s) of the protein are correlated with the function of inducing an immune response to serotype 4 and/or 5.
Additionally, applicant’s argument that the genus of proteins is clearly defined is not relevant because the rejection of record is not a indefiniteness rejection. The argument that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing can “visualize or recognize” the genus of proteins included in the claim is insufficient to demonstrate possession because the claims aren’t drawn to a protein; they are drawn to a method of using the protein to achieve a claimed result.
Applicant argues (Remarks pg. 7) that “the specification explicitly teaches that the Mac-1 domain is 100% conserved among multiple serotypes and that variants with >70% identity are expected to induce effective antibodies. This establishes a clear structure-function relationship. Furthermore, page 8 provides criteria enabling identification of immunogenic proteins and confirming that a person of ordinary skilled artisan could readily understand the boundaries of the genus.”
The argument has been carefully considered but is not found persuasive. The examiner agrees that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing could understand the boundaries of the genus the specification alleges to be useful to induce effective antibodies. However, the specification is interpreted in view of the art at the time of filing, and the art at the time of filing indicates that similar statements are typically supported by evidence because there is unpredictability in whether the proteins actually are immunogenic and able to protect against infection and disease. As cited above, You et al. performed analysis to predict immunogenicity and found that out of the Mac-1 domain (SEQ ID NO: 2, amino acids 130-221 of the full protein), only amino acids 130-134 are potentially immunogenic (see par. 14).
Therefore, applicant’s argument that the specification’s statement establishes a structure-function relationship is not persuasive because there is no evidence that the asserted structure is actually correlated with the claimed function. See MPEP 2163: “In contrast, without such a correlation, the capability to recognize or understand the structure from the mere recitation of function and minimal structure is highly unlikely. In this latter case, disclosure of function alone is little more than a wish for possession; it does not satisfy the written description requirement. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406 (written description requirement not satisfied by merely providing "a result that one might achieve if one made that invention"); In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516, 1521, 222 USPQ 369, 372-73 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (affirming a rejection for lack of written description because the specification does "little more than outline goals appellants hope the claimed invention achieves and the problems the invention will hopefully ameliorate").”
Applicant argues (Remarks pg. 7) that Table 1 disclose 10 representative serine proteases from seven serotypes of H. parasuis, and that the examiner acknowledged that the possession of the proteins is not in dispute.
This argument has been carefully considered but is not found persuasive. Applicant is not claiming a protein invention. Applicant is claiming a method of using the proteins to achieve a claimed result. The proteins of Table 1 were not used in a method as claimed in the examples. The specification does not provide any evidence to support that the unknown protein sequences of the proteins from Table 1 would have the same immunogenic property as SEQ ID NO: 1. So, disclosure of unknown protein sequences in Table 1 does not constitute a representative set of species because it is not a species of the claimed method.
Applicant argues (Remarks pg. 8) that the enablement and “make and use” requirements are satisfied because the specification teaches how to administer the proteins to pigs and assess the induction of an immune response, so the full scope can be made and used without undue experimentation.
This argument has been carefully considered but is not found persuasive. See MPEP 2163: the written description requirement is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1340, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1114 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920-23, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1890-93 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing the history and purpose of the written description requirement); In re Curtis, 354 F.3d 1347, 1357, 69 USPQ2d 1274, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("conclusive evidence of a claim’s enablement is not equally conclusive of that claim’s satisfactory written description"). An argument that one could assess the induction of an immune response to determine whether the method worked when using that protein is not persuasive because the specification is required to describe the claimed invention; it is not the job of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to correct the specification’s deficiencies by determining what scope of the invention can be used.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9, 16-19, and 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (2012; hereafter Zhang; PTO-892) as evidenced by Yue et al. (2014; hereafter GenBank No. ACL32961; PTO-892).
Zhang teaches an extracellular serine protease-like (ESP-like) protein espP2 (Title) cloned from a serotype 5 strain of H. parasuis (Abstract), that has 100% identity with the espP2 gene sequence of H. parasuis SH0165 (GenBank No. ACL32961) (par. bridging pg. 984-985). This GenBank No. is the same as the one disclosed in the instant specification [0031], and the full sequence disclosed has 66.7% identity with SEQ ID NO: 1 due to the presence of a C-terminal region that was truncated to form SEQ ID NO: 1 (see alignment below). However, the full serine protease sequence comprises an amino acid sequence (specifically, residues 1-520) having 100% sequence identity (i.e. at least 69%, 90%, 95%, and 98% identity) with SEQ ID NO: 1 (see alignment below). Also, the sequence disclosed in Zhang comprises SEQ ID NO: 2 (highlighted in alignment below). Zhang teaches that the recombinant protein can be formulated into a vaccine with ISA206 emulsion adjuvant and the protein concentration of 100 ng/ml requires the presence of some pharmaceutically acceptable carrier; one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the carrier as being saline to match the negative control (pg. 984 col. 2 par. 2-3). Zhang teaches that this vaccine can be given to guinea pigs, which are an art-recognized animal model for Glasser’s disease, with the result that the espP2 protein induces an antibody response and prevents H. parasuis serotype 5 (HPS0819) infection and death (i.e. a clinical sign) (pg. 986 par. bridging cols., pg. 984 col. 2 par. 2).
Also, with regard to the intended uses, and particularly preventing serotype 4 infection, Zhang teaches the use of a protein comprising SEQ ID NO: 1 (see alignment below). The instant specification teaches that the SEQ ID NO: 1 structure is capable of protecting against both serotypes [Tables 2-3]. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. By teaching the same structure (SEQ ID NO: 1) administered as a vaccine to the same population (use to prevent Glasser’s disease), the Zhang vaccine must inherently teach the intended use of preventing infection by both serotypes. "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also MPEP 2112.01.
Alignment 3: Instant SEQ ID NO: 1 and the Zhang/GenBank No. ACL32961 sequence. The full sequence has 66.7% identity, and residues 1-520 of the sequence have 100% identity of residues 1-520 of SEQ ID NO: 1. The residues that make up SEQ ID NO: 2 are highlighted.
PNG
media_image2.png
1786
690
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMELIA N DICKENS whose telephone number is (571)272-0381. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 (EDT/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, Samira Jean-Louis can be reached at (571) 270-3503. 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.
/AMELIA NICOLE DICKENS/Examiner, Art Unit 1645
/SAMIRA J JEAN-LOUIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1642
Prosecution Insights