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 .
Applicants’ response on 09/01/2026 has been received and entered.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-14 are pending, all of which have been considered on the merits.
Claim Interpretation
At the time of examination, the term ‘histological type’ refers to a cancer classification based on the type of tissue in which the cancer originates (See NCI Cancer Classification page). From a histological standpoint there are six major categories of cancer: carcinoma (epithelial origin), sarcoma (connective tissue origin), myeloma (plasma cell origin), leukemia (bone marrow origin), lymphoma (lymphatic origin).
Status of Prior Rejections/Response to Arguments
RE: Interpretation of the term ‘histological type’
Applicants argue cancer classification is based on the organ or the primary site then further classified according to histological type (See pg. 10 of Remarks). Therefore, a tissue that is of similar or same histological type is derived from the same organ as the cancer (e.g. breast tissue for treating breast cancer; See pg. 9 of Remarks). Additionally, applicants argue that histological type must be determined by microscopy (See pg. 10 of Remarks). Applicants have included Appendices 1-5 as evidence in support of their interpretation of the term ‘histological type’.
Appendix 2 teaches examples of histology typing by the international histological classification of tumours (IHCT) including squamous cell carcinoma, small cell carcinoma, and adenocarcinoma (See Table. 1). However, the claims are interpreted under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) (See MPEP 2111). NCI teaches the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, Third Edition (IDC-O-3) classifies histological type based on the type of tissue in which the cancer originates resulting in six major categories (i.e. histological types) including Carcinoma, Sarcoma, Myeloma, Leukemia, Lymphoma, and Mixed Types (See NCI, Cancer Classification). NCI further teaches adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma are subtypes of carcinomas (See NCI, Cancer Classification, Carcinoma). Given that the claims do not require the IHCT definition of ‘histological type’ and the specification does not provide a definition of ‘histological type’, the BRI of a ‘histological type’ is the IDC-O-3 definition which includes six categories.
Additionally, while the references in the appendices teach histological type is determined/confirmed by histological analysis, a histological type is an inherent feature of a tumor which is not affected by whether an analysis to identify the histological type is performed. Furthermore, the claims do not require an active step of performing a histological analysis.
RE: Interpretation of the cells required by the xenogeneic tissue cell composition of claim 1.
Claim 1 has been amended to specify the xenogeneic tissue composition requires any one or a combination of two or more of the recited types of xenogeneic tissue cell rather than requiring the composition to comprise all four simultaneously. Applicants discuss the changes to the requirements for the composition of claim 1 on pg. 15 of the remarks.
RE: Objection to claim 1
Claim 1 has been amended to remove the list of cancers. Amendments to the claims overcome the objection.
The objection is withdrawn.
RE: Rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Claim 1 has been amended to remove the list of cancers. Claims 2 and 4-12 depend from claim 1. Amendments to the claims overcome the rejection of record.
The rejection over claims 1, 2, and 4-12 is withdrawn.
RE: Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Harmon et al.
Applicants amended claim 1 to recite the limitation “similar or same histological type as a histologically evaluated tumor tissue obtained from a tumor site of the cancer”. The limitation “histologically evaluated tumor tissue” is not an active step in the claimed method. Additionally, histological type is an inherent trait of a cancer and is not affected by whether or not a tumor tissue from the cancer is evaluated histologically.
Additionally, applicants traverse the rejection of record on the grounds that the postpartum-derived cells (PPDCs) in Harmon et al belong to non-tissue matching cells.
In response, the argument has been fully considered but is not convincing. Harmon discloses the PPDCs can be differentiated into stem cells, epithelial cells, bone marrow cells, adipocytes, keratinocytes, melanocytes, dermal fibroblasts, vascular endothelial cells, coronary artery endothelial cells, pulmonary artery endothelial cells, iliac artery endothelial cells, microvascular endothelial cells, endothelial progenitors, and other soft tissue cells progenitors. The differentiated cells produced by Harmon et al are differentiated into soft tissue cells and are thus the same histological type as sarcomas.
Applicants further traverse the rejection of record on the grounds that Harmon et al does not teach histological evaluation of the cancer to clarify the histological type.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain steps of the invention, it is noted that the steps upon which applicant relies (i.e., histological evaluation) are not recited as an active step in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicants point to Fig. 3A to show xenogeneic mammary cell composition isolated from porcine mammary glands tissue inhibit tumor growth in a 4T1 breast tumor mouse model. Applicants further provide supplementary experimental data on pg. 14 of the remarks, showing a tumor specific immune response against 4T1 cells in mice treated with xenogeneic mammary glandular cells. Additionally, no significant response to treatment with the xenogeneic mammary glandular cells was observed in mice with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
In response, the supplemental data has been considered, but given the BRI of ‘histological type’, 4T1 tumors and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma both have a histological type of carcinoma. A carcinoma is a cancer of epithelial origin. The xenogeneic mammary glandular cells, which are epithelial cells, would therefore have the same histological type as both 4T1 tumors and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
The rejection over claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 9-11 is maintained.
RE: Rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Harmon et al in view of Bicknell and Lee.
Applicants argue Harmon et al does not disclose the method for treating cancer in a subject of amended claim 1.
In response, the argument has been considered but is not persuasive. See response to arguments pertaining to the 102 rejection over Harmon et al above.
Applicants further argue Bicknell and Lee only discloses an antibody which can be used in conjugation with a therapeutic anti-cancer agent to treat disease like cancer but does not disclose a xenogeneic composition comprising any of the cell types required by claim 1.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The rejection over claims 1, 2, and 4-11 is maintained.
RE: Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Harmon et al in view of Huang et al.
Applicants argue Harmon et al does not disclose the method for treating cancer in a subject of amended claim 1.
In response, the argument has been considered but is not persuasive. See response to arguments pertaining to the 102 rejection over Harmon et al above.
Additionally, applicants argue Huang only teaches that the xenogeneic cell therapy uses the cell to treat cancers by restoring tissue function, repairing cancer wound and reviving anti-tumor immune responses.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The rejection over claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 9-12 is maintained.
New/Maintained Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 13 and 14 are unclear because they describe product-by-process limitations regarding how the histologically evaluated tumor tissue is obtained. However, the method of claim 1 does not require an active step of obtaining a histologically evaluated tumor tissue. Thus, it is unclear what the claims require.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 13 and 14 describe product-by-process limitations regarding how the histologically evaluated tumor tissue is obtained. However, the method of claim 1 do not require an active step of obtaining a histologically evaluated tumor tissue. Thus, claims 13 and 14 do not further limit any of the active steps required by the method of claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 9-11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harmon et al. (WO2005001079A2).
Harmon et al. teaches using cultured cells derived from human postpartum tissue in cell-based therapies for conditions of the soft tissue and xenogeneic cells may be tolerated in some instances (See pg. 1 Field of the invention and pg. 36, Last paragraph). The post-partum derived cells (PPDCs) can comprise differentiated or undifferentiated cells or a combination thereof, extracellular matrix, cell lysates, conditioned media, or a composition thereof and may be used in the treatment of soft tissue diseases including cancer (See pg. 7 first paragraph). The PPDCs may comprise heterogeneous cell populations comprising undifferentiated or differentiation induced PPDCs, stem cells, epithelial cells, bone marrow cells, adipocytes, keratinocytes, melanocytes, dermal fibroblasts, vascular endothelial cells, coronary artery endothelial cells, pulmonary artery endothelial cells, iliac artery endothelial cells, microvascular endothelial cells, endothelial progenitors, and other soft tissue cells progenitors (See pg. 27 third paragraph). Harmon et al. defines a progenitor cell as a cell that has the capacity to create progeny that are more differentiated than itself and yet retains the capacity to replenish the pool of progenitors and by that definition stem cells themselves are also progenitor cells as are the more immediate precursors to terminally differentiated cells (See pg. 9 second paragraph).
The cells of the invention may be surgically implanted or injected directly to the site in need of repair (See pg. 35, third paragraph). Additionally, the PPDCs may be administered with other beneficial drugs including anti-inflammatory agents such as p38 MAPK inhibitors, immunomodulatory agents, and antibodies (See pg. 34 last paragraph – pg. 35 first paragraph). Harmon et al. further teaches the PPDCs can be suspended in a hydrogel solution for injections, and the hydrogel can include polysaccharides (See pg. 41 first paragraph).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 13, and 14: Harmon et al. teaches a human PPDC (reads on isolated from a tissue of a mammal) composition which can be xenogeneic, and is used to treat soft tissue disorders including cancer which reads on using a xenogeneic tissue cell composition to treat a soft tissue sarcoma. The cells of the invention may be surgically implanted or injected directly to the site in need of repair which reads on administered by an intralesional, intratumoral, and peritumoral route. The PPDCs are a heterogeneous mixture of endothelial and soft tissue stem cells, progenitors, and mature cells such as vascular endothelial cells, coronary artery endothelial cells, and pulmonary artery endothelial cells thus using the cells reads on treating a soft tissue cancer of same or similar histological type as a tumor tissue obtained from a tumor site of the cancer (e.g. treating a soft tissue sarcoma with endothelial cells). Harmon et al. defines progenitor cell populations as including stem cells and precursors, therefore the PPDC composition of Harmon et al. comprises endothelial and soft tissue stem cells, progenitors, precursors, and mature cells. Additionally, Harmon et al. does not disclose a composition comprising tumor cells and thus, the PPDC composition of Harmon et al. does not comprise tumor cells.
Regarding claim 4: Harmon et al. teaches a composition comprising PPDCs, ECM, cell lysates or a combination thereof which can be embedded in a hydrogel solution for injection. The hydrogel can comprise polysaccharides.
Regarding claims 9-11: Harmon et al. teaches the PPDC composition may be administered with other beneficial drugs including anti-inflammatory agents such as p38 MAPK inhibitors (reads on a targeted therapy drug and a mitogen-activated protein kinase inhibitor), immunomodulatory agents, and antibodies.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (Cancer Cell International, 2018).
Huang et al. teaches transplantation of xenogeneic cells into organs of the same origin (ex. porcine hepatocytes into livers of hepatocellular carcinoma patients) which are inflicted by cancers may restore the impaired function of organs, repair the wound , reduce inflammation and revive the anti-tumor immunity to achieve beneficial outcome of patients (See Section: Presentation of the hypothesis).
Additionally, Huang et al. teaches the use of xenogeneic cells may improve the therapeutic outcome of cancer patients in combination with anticancer drugs to increase life quality and extend the survival of patients with malignant diseases (See Section: Presentation of the hypothesis). Huang teaches immune-checkpoint blockade, monoclonal antibody therapy, or adoptive cellular therapy have made big breakthroughs on cancer treatment with unprecedented responses for advanced stage cancer patients who fail conventional chemotherapy and targeted therapy (See section: Background). Recent immune checkpoint inhibitors (anti-CTLA4 and anti-PD/PD-L1 antibodies) make a significant breakthrough in treating recurrent or metastatic cancers (See section test of hypothesis). Immune checkpoint inhibitors including anti-CTLA4 and anti-PD/PD-L1 antibodies read on cancer drugs.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 13-14: Huang et al. teaches xenogeneic cell therapy provides a novel potential therapeutic option for cancers by restoring tissue function, repairing cancer wound and reviving antitumor immune response (reads on a method of treating cancer). Transplantation of xenogeneic cells (reads on xenogeneic tissue cell composition) into organs (reads on intralesional, intratumor, and peritumoral) of the same origin (reads on same histological type) which are inflicted by cancers (reads on subject in need for treatment) may restore impaired function of organs. Huang teaches transplanting porcine hepatocytes into livers of hepatocellular carcinoma patients is an example of said method. Hepatocytes are an epithelial cells and hepatocellular carcinoma is a cancer of epithelial origin. Thus, read on xenogeneic tissue mature cells of the same histological type as a histologically evaluated tumor tissue obtained from a tumor site of cancer. Huang does not teach the presence of tumor cells in the transplanted xenogeneic cells and thus, the xenogeneic cells do not comprise tumor cells.
Regarding claims 5-6: Huang et al. teaches transplanting porcine hepatocytes (reads on cells isolated from a mammal and a pig) into livers of hepatocellular carcinoma patients.
Regarding claims 9, 11, 12: Huang teaches use of xenogeneic cells may improve the therapeutic outcome of cancer patients in combination with anticancer drugs. Huang also teaches immune checkpoint inhibitors (reads on immunomodulator) such as anti-CTLA4 and anti PD/PD-L1 antibodies (read on antibody drugs) can be used to treat recurrent or metastatic cancers which reads on antibody drugs. Therefore, the immune checkpoint inhibitors which include antibodies can be used in combination with the xenogeneic cells.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harmon et al. (WO2005001079A2) in view of Bicknell and Lee (WO2017158339).
The teachings of Harmon et al are set forth above.
Harmon et al anticipates claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-11, and 13-14.
Regarding claims 7 and 8: Following the discussion of claim 1 above, Harmon et al. teaches a method of treating a soft tissue cancer comprising administration of xenogeneic PPDCs. Additionally, the PPDCs can be administered with other beneficial drugs.
Harmon does not disclose the method further comprising administering at least one chemotherapeutic drug to the subject.
Bicknell and Lee teach an antibody which can be used in conjunction with a therapeutic anti-cancer agent which can be used to treat diseases such as cancer. The therapeutic anti-cancer agent can be an immunomodulator such as an immune checkpoint inhibitor, a targeted therapy drug such as a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, or chemotherapeutic drugs such as alkylating agents, topoisomerase I inhibitor, topoisomerase II inhibitor, antimetabolites, antibiotics, platinum coordination complexes.
Given that both Harmon et al. and Bicknell and Lee disclose treatments for cancer, and the method of Harmon et al can further comprise other beneficial drugs, it would have been obvious to combine the antibody and therapeutic agent composition (reads on anti-cancer drug composition) of Bicknell and Lee with the PPDC composition of Harmon et al. to make a more robust cancer treatment. Combining equivalents known for the same purpose in order to form a new composition to be used for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (See MPEP2144.06(I) and in re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 274, 126 USPQ 186 (CCPA 1960)).
Claims 1, 2, 4-6 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harmon et al. (WO2005001079A2) in view of Huang et al (Cancer Cell International, 2018).
The teachings of Harmon et al and Huang et al are set forth above.
Harmon et al anticipates claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9-11, and 13-14.
Regarding claim 12: Following the discussion of claims 1 and 9 above, Harmon et al. teaches a method of treating a soft tissue cancer comprising administration of xenogeneic PPDCs. Additionally, the PPDCs can be administered with other beneficial drugs.
Harmon et al does not teach administering the PPDC compositions with a cytokine or an immune checkpoint inhibitor.
Huang et al teaches use of xenogeneic cells may improve the therapeutic outcome of cancer patients in combination with anticancer drugs. Huang also teaches immune checkpoint inhibitors (reads on immunomodulator) such as anti-CTLA4 and anti PD/PD-L1 antibodies (read on antibody drugs) can be used to treat recurrent or metastatic cancers (See sections Presentation of the hypothesis and Test of hypothesis).
Given that both Harmon et al teaches a method of treating cancer comprising a xenogeneic cell composition which can further comprise other beneficial drugs and Huang et al teaches immune checkpoint inhibitors such as anti-CTLA4 and PD/PD-L1 antibodies can be used to treat recurrent or metastatic cancers, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the treatment method of Harmon et al to further include an immune checkpoint inhibitor drug/antibody. One would have been motivated to include an immune checkpoint inhibitor in the treatment method of Harmon et al to treat recurrent or metastatic cancers. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Harmon teaches the PPDCs can be administered with other beneficial drugs and immune checkpoint inhibitors are beneficial drugs.
Claims 1-2, and 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. and further in view of Bicknell and Lee (WO2017158339).
The teachings of Huang, et al (Cancer Cell International, 2018) and Bicknell and Lee (WO2017158339) are set forth above. Huang et al. anticipates claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, and 11-14.
Regarding claims 7, 8, and 10: Huang et al teaches transplanting xenogeneic hepatocytes as a treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma.
Huang et al does not teach further administering a chemotherapy drug or a targeted therapy drug.
Bicknell and Lee teach an antibody which can be used in conjunction with a therapeutic anti-cancer agent which can be used to treat diseases such as cancer. The therapeutic anti-cancer agent can be an immunomodulator such as an immune checkpoint inhibitor, a targeted therapy drug such as a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, or chemotherapeutic drugs such as alkylating agents, topoisomerase I inhibitor, topoisomerase II inhibitor, antimetabolites, antibiotics, platinum coordination complexes.
Given that both Huang et al. and Bicknell and Lee disclose treatments for cancer and Huang et al. further discloses combining xenogeneic cell compositions can be combined with anti-cancer drugs to extend the survival of patients with malignant diseases, it would have been obvious to combine the antibody and therapeutic agent composition (reads on anti-cancer drug composition) of Bicknell and Lee with the xenogeneic cell composition of Huang et al. to improve the cancer treatment leading to extended survival of patients. Combining equivalents known for the same purpose in order to form a new composition to be used for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (See MPEP2144.06(I) and in re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 274, 126 USPQ 186 (CCPA 1960)).
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARISOL A O'NEILL whose telephone number is (571)272-2490. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 5:00 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, Christopher Babic can be reached at (571) 272-8507. 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.
/MARISOL ANN O'NEILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1633
/ALLISON M FOX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1633
Prosecution Insights