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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09 June 2026 has been entered.
DETAILED OFFICE ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the papers filed on 09 June 2026.
CLAIMS UNDER EXAMINATION
Claims 1-14, 17-20 and 21-22 have been examined on their merits.
PRIORITY
The Applicant claims priority to EP19219342.3, filed on 23 December 2019.
REJECTIONS
New grounds of rejection have been necessitated by claim amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 10: The claim recites the composition is administered “before …the onset of allergic reactions and/or exposure to at least one allergen”. Because the claim does not recite “the allergic reaction” and “the at least one allergen”, it is unclear if the claim is referring to the IgE-mediated allergic reaction and the at least one allergen recited in claim 1. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
Regarding claim 10: The claim recites the composition is administered “before …the onset of allergic reactions…” (plural allergic reactions). The claim is not further limiting because the base claim recites “an IgE-mediated allergic reaction” (singular).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, 8-9, 11, 13 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Simader et al. (previously cited; Safety and tolerability of topically administered autologous, apoptotic PBMC secretome (APOSEC) in dermal wounds: a randomized Phase 1 trial (MARSYAS I). Sci Rep 7, 6216 (2017) as evidenced by Pritchard et al. (The evolution of IgE-mediated type I hypersensitivity and its immunological value. Allergy.2021;76:1024–1040).
Simader et al. evaluate the safety of two different doses of topically administered autologous APOSEC, the secretome of apoptotic peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs), in healthy male volunteers (hence, humans) with artificial dermal wounds (Abstract). Simader induces apoptosis of PBMCs from whole blood via ionizing irradiation (see text of Figure 2). The art teaches ionizing radiation increases the secretory output of PBMCs (last sentence of first paragraph on page 2). The art teaches irradiation with 60 Gy following collection of blood cells, before culture in CellGro medium (see page 4, “Production of APOSEC and placebo). Therefore the art is interpreted to teach irradiation before cultivation.
The specification does no explicitly define an “IgE-mediated allergy” or an “IgE-mediated allergic reaction ([0023])”. As evidenced by the Declaration filed on 28 November 2025, an “allergy” is an inappropriate immune response to otherwise harmless antigens (see page 5, section 20). As evidenced by Pritchard et al., the IgE response is evolutionarily preserved in mammals (see text of Figure 2).
Claim 1 is directed to “a human…in need thereof”. Claim 1 encompasses all allergic reactions mediated by IgE. All humans have an IgE response. Any human would be in need of preventing an inappropriate IgE-mediated allergy from occurring. Claim 1 reads on any allergen present in the air or which can be consumed. All humans eat and inhale. All humans would be in need of preventing an inappropriate immune response from an allergen present in the air or food.
.
The specification defines preventing or prevention as preventing the risk to develop an allergy. Because the art anticipates the claimed method step, it would inherently prevent an IgE-mediated allergy or an IgE-mediated allergic reaction as recited in claim 1.
Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art method, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art method. When the prior art method is the same as a method described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the method will inherently perform the claimed process. See In re Best, 562 F. 2d, 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and Ex parte Novitski, 26 USPQ 2d 1389 (Bd. Pat. App. & inter. 1993). There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of the invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. See Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc, 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67, USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also Toro Co. v. Deere & Co. 355 F.3d 1313, 1320, 69 USPQ2d 1584, 1590 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Therefore claim 1 is anticipated.
Because the method is anticipated, it would prevent a reaction caused by the allergens recited in claims 2-3.
Simader obtains PBMCs from blood. As evidenced by the specification ([0031] of PGPub), monocytes, T cells, B cells and NK cells are present in peripheral blood. Therefore claim 4 is included in this rejection.
Simader teaches Cellgro medium (supra). Therefore claim 5 is rejected.
Simader teaches 60 Gy ionizing radiation (supra). Therefore claim 8 and 17 are rejected.
The art teaches culture in CellGro medium for 24 hours (see page 4, “Production of APOSEC and placebo). Therefore claims 9 and 18 are rejected.
A sample was drawn for complete blood count to adjust white blood cells to a concentration of 25×106 cells/ ml, irradiated and cultured (see page 4, “Production of APOSEC and placebo).Therefore claims 11 and 19 are included in this rejection.
Simader teaches topical administration (see last paragraph of page 3). Therefore claim 13 is rejected.
Therefore Applicant’s Invention is anticipated as claimed.
APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
The arguments made in the response filed on 09 June 2026.
Argument 1: The Applicant argues Simader is directed to wound healing. The Applicant alleges Simader uses a composition similar to the claimed composition for a completely different treatment.
Response 1: Simader uses a composition which anticipates, and is the same as, the composition recited in claim 1. Claim 1 encompasses preventing any IgE-mediated allergy or allergic caused by eating or inhaling an allergen. The specification defines preventing as “preventing the risk to develop an allergy”.
As evidenced by the Declaration filed on 28 November 2025, an “allergy” is an inappropriate immune response to otherwise harmless antigens (see page 5, section 20). Claim 1 is directed to “a human…in need thereof”. Any human would be in need of preventing an inappropriate immune response from occurring.
Argument 2: The Applicant argues the claims are for treating a different population that Simader. The Applicant argues there is no teaching or suggestion in Simader that a human or mammal with a dermal wound is in need of being treated therapeutically or prophylactically for an IgE-mediated allergy or an IgE-mediated allergic reaction caused by food or systemic administration of a drug.
Response: As evidenced by the Applicant’s Declaration, an IgE-mediated reaction is an inappropriate immune response. Any human would be in need of preventing an inappropriate immune reaction. All humans ingest food (oral administration) and inhale air. Any human would be in need of preventing and adverse reaction caused by allergens in the feed the eat or air they breathe.
Claims 1-5, 8-9, 11, 13, 17-19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lichtenauer et al. (Secretome of apoptotic peripheral blood cells (APOSEC) confers cytoprotection to cardiomyocytes and inhibits tissue remodelling after acute myocardial infarction: a preclinical study. Basic Res Cardiol (2011) 106:1283–1297) as evidenced by Pritchard et al.
Lichtenauer teaches “cell culture supernatants derived from irradiated apoptotic peripheral blood mononuclear cells (APOSEC) were collected and injected as a single dose intravenously after myocardial infarction in an experimental AMI rat model and in a porcine closed chest reperfused AMI model” (mammals; see Abstract). Intravenous administration is interpreted to be systemic. The art teaches apoptosis of cells is induced by Caesium-137 irradiation with 45 Gray (Gy) prior to culturing (page 1284, right column, last paragraph of Methods section). As evidenced by Radiation Effect Research Foundation, the gray (symbol: Gy) is the unit of ionizing radiation (first paragraph).
The specification does no explicitly define an “IgE-mediated allergy” or an “IgE-mediated allergic reaction ([0023])”. As evidenced by the Declaration filed on 28 November 2025, an “allergy” is an inappropriate immune response to otherwise harmless antigens (see page 5, section 20). As evidenced by the Declaration, IgE mediates Type I hypersensitivity, including anaphylaxis (same section).
Claim 1 is directed to “a mammal…in need thereof”. As evidenced by Pritchard et al, the IgE response is evolutionarily preserved in mammals (see text of Figure 2). Any mammal would be in need of preventing an inappropriate immune response from occurring. Claim 1 reads on any allergen present in the air or which can be consumed. All mammals eat and inhale. All mammals would be in need of preventing an overreaction from an allergen present in the air or food.
Lichtenauer teaches administration of a composition comprising a supernatant obtained by culturing PBMCs which have been subjected to ionizing radiation before cultivation. The art treats a mammal. Because the art anticipates the claimed method, it would prevent an IgE-mediated allergy or an IgE-mediated allergic reaction in a mammal as claimed. Because the art anticipates the claimed method, it would prevent an IgE-mediated allergy or an IgE-mediated allergic reaction in a mammal as claimed.
Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art method, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art method. When the prior art method is the same as a method described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the method will inherently perform the claimed process. See In re Best, 562 F. 2d, 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and Ex parte Novitski, 26 USPQ 2d 1389 (Bd. Pat. App. & inter. 1993). There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of the invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. See Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc, 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67, USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also Toro Co. v. Deere & Co. 355 F.3d 1313, 1320, 69 USPQ2d 1584, 1590 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Claim 1 is rejected. Because the method is anticipated, it would prevent a reaction caused by the allergens recited in claims 2-3.
Lichtenauer obtains PBMCs from a mammal (page 1284, right column, last paragraph). Therefore the culture must contain one or more of the cells recited in claim 4. Claim 4 is rejected. Cells are cultured in Ultraculture medium (page 1285, left column, first paragraph). Therefore claim 5 is included in this rejection. The art teaches a dose of 45 Gy (supra). Therefore claim 8 is rejected. Cells are cultured for 24 hours before collecting the supernatant (page 1284, right column, last paragraph). Claim 9 is included in this rejection. The art cultures 25x106 cells/ml (page 1285, left column, first paragraph). Claim 11 is included in this rejection. The composition is administered intravenously (supra). Claim 13 is included in this rejection. The art teaches a dose of 45 Gy (supra). Therefore claim 17 is rejected. Cells are cultured for 24 hours before collecting the supernatant (page 1284, right column, last paragraph). Claim 18 is rejected. The art cultures 25x106 cells/ml (page 1285, left column, first paragraph). Claim 19 is included in this rejection.
Regarding independent claim 21: The teachings of the prior art and evidentiary reference are reiterated. Lichtenauer teaches intravenous administration of a composition comprising a supernatant obtained by culturing PBMCs which have been subjected to ionizing radiation before cultivation.
Claim 1 is directed to “a mammal…in need thereof”. As evidenced by Pritchard et al, the IgE response is evolutionarily preserved in mammals (see text of Figure 2). Any mammal would be in need of preventing an inappropriate immune response from occurring. Claim 1 reads on any allergen present in the air or which can be consumed. All mammals eat and inhale. All mammals would be in need of preventing an overreaction from an allergen present in the air or food.
Because the art anticipates the claimed method, it would prevent an IgE-mediated allergy or an IgE-mediated allergic reaction in a mammal as claimed. Claim 21 is rejected. Intravenous injection reads on claim 22.
Therefore Applicant’s Invention is anticipated as claimed.
Claims 1-5, 8-9, 11, 13 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ankersmit et al. (previously cited Pharmaceutical preparation comprising supernatant of blood mononuclear cell culture. US2012/0045418 2012) as evidenced by Radiation Effect Research Foundation and Pritchard.
Ankersmit et al. administer irradiated culture supernatants of PBMCs to a mouse (a mammal) ([0075]). PBMCs were irradiated with 60 Gy ([0079]). As evidenced by Radiation Effect Research Foundation, the gray (symbol: Gy) is the unit of ionizing radiation (first paragraph).
The specification does no explicitly define an “IgE-mediated allergy” or an “IgE-mediated allergic reaction ([0023])”. As evidenced by the Declaration filed on 28 November 2025, an “allergy” is an inappropriate immune response to otherwise harmless antigens (see page 5, section 20).
Claim 1 is directed to “a mammal…in need thereof”. Claim 1 encompasses all allergic reactions mediated by IgE. As evidenced by Pritchard, the IgE response is evolutionarily preserved in mammals. Any mammal would be in need of preventing an inappropriate immune response. Claim 1 reads on any allergen present in the air or which can be consumed. All mammals eat and inhale. All mammals would be in need of preventing an inappropriate immune response to an allergen present in the air or food.
Because the art anticipates the claimed method step, it would inherently prevent an allergy or allergic reaction as recited in claim 1.
Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art method, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art method. When the prior art method is the same as a method described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the method will inherently perform the claimed process. See In re Best, 562 F. 2d, 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and Ex parte Novitski, 26 USPQ 2d 1389 (Bd. Pat. App. & inter. 1993). There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of the invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. See Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc, 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67, USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also Toro Co. v. Deere & Co. 355 F.3d 1313, 1320, 69 USPQ2d 1584, 1590 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Therefore claim 1 is anticipated.
Because the method is anticipated, it would prevent a reaction caused by the allergens recited in claims 2-3.
Ankersmit teaches the PBMCs are the subset of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) is preferably T cells, B cells or NK cells. Of course it is also possible to use combinations of these cells: T cells and B cells; T cells and NK cells; B cells and NK cells; T cells, B cells and NK cells. Methods for providing and isolating said cells are known ([0028]). Therefore claim 4 is included in this rejection. Ultra Culture Medium ([0030]) reads on claim 5. Irradiation with 60 Gy (supra) reads on claims 8 and 17.
Ankersmit teaches the PBMCs or a subset thereof are cultivated in a medium for at least 4 h, preferably for at least 6 h, more preferably for at least 12 h ([0036]). Therefore claims 9 and 18 are included in this rejection.
Supernatant is prepared from cells cultured at a density of 2.5×106 cells/ml ([0079]).
The disclosed amount of cells reads on claims 11 and 19.
The pharmaceutical preparation according to the present invention is topically administered ([0037]). Therefore claim 13 is rejected.
Therefore Applicant’s invention is anticipated as claimed.
37 CFR 1.132 Declaration
The examiner acknowledges receipt of the Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 by Henrik Jan Ankersmit filed on 28 November 2025.
The Declaration states the Ankersmit reference is directed to a different disease. The Declaration clarifies the differences between ischemic inflammation, allergic inflammation and wound healing. The Declaration states the contact dermatitis taught by Ankersmit is not an allergy. The Declarant concludes that it is his opinion the instant claims are non-obvious over the Ankersmit prior art.
The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed is insufficient to overcome the rejections based on anticipation by Ankersmit as set forth in the last Office action because:
The Declarant states it is his opinion as an expert that the instant claims are patentably distinct from Ankersmit. The Declaration does not provide evidence demonstrating the composition taught by Ankersmit does not prevent an IgE-mediated allergy or an IgE-mediated allergic response when administered as recited in claim 1.
Affidavits or declarations are provided as evidence and must set forth facts, not merely conclusions. In re Pike and Morris, 84 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1949).
Upon consideration of the facts taught by the prior art and the information submitted by the Affiant, the balance of evidence indicates that the prior art teaches the instantly claimed inventions.
APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
The arguments made in the response filed on 09 June 2026.
Argument 1: The Applicant argues Ankersmit treats contact dermatitis, which is mechanistically different than the conditions now claimed.
Response 1: Ankersmit administers a composition which anticipates the supernatant recited in claim 1. Claim 1 encompasses preventing any IgE-mediated allergy or IgE-mediated allergic caused by eating or inhaling an allergen. The specification defines preventing as “preventing the risk to develop an allergy” (supra). As evidenced by the Declaration filed on 28 November 2025, an “allergy” is an inappropriate immune response to otherwise harmless antigens (see page 5, section 20). Any mammal
is in need of preventing an inappropriate immune response. All mammals eat food and inhale air. Any mammal would be in need of preventing an IgE-mediated allergy (an inappropriate immune response) caused by an allergen present in the food they eat or the air they breathe. Because the prior art 1) anticipates the claimed composition and 2) anticipates the claimed method step, it would inherently prevent an IgE-mediated allergy or allergic reaction as claimed. The argument is not persuasive.
Argument 2: The Applicant argues the claims are for treating a different population that Ankersmit. The Applicant argues there is no teaching or suggestion in Ankersmit that a human or mammal with contact dermatitis is in need of being treated therapeutically or prophylactically for an IgE-mediated allergy or an IgE-mediated allergic reaction caused by food or systemic administration of a drug.
Response: As evidenced by the Declaration filed on 28 November 2025, an “allergy” is an inappropriate immune response to otherwise harmless antigens (see page 5, section 20). Any mammal would be in need of preventing an adverse immune reaction from occurring. All mammals ingest food (oral administration) and inhale air. Any mammal would be in need of preventing and adverse reaction caused by allergens in the feed the eat or air they breathe. The argument is not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lichtenauer et al.
Claim 1 is anticipated by Lichtenauer et al. on the grounds set forth above. The teachings of the reference are reiterated. The art teaches administering a low or high dose to mammals weighing 31.86±9.1 and 39.43±0.5 kg (Table 2). The art teaches intravenous administration. The art teaches short and long-term MRI results evidenced that one high-dose APOSEC infusion led to a highly significant improvement of cardiac function and attenuation of myocardial infarction, indicating a dose-dependent effect (page 1295, left column, first paragraph).
Lichtenauer does not explicitly teach the dose as claimed.
It would have been obvious to optimize the dose of supernatant administered. One would have been motivated to do so since the art teaches the therapy has a dose dependent effect. The skilled artisan would optimize the dose based on the weight of the mammal and desired effect. MPEP 2144.05 teaches differences will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. Therefore claims 12 and 20 rendered obvious.
Therefore Applicant’s Invention is rendered obvious as claimed.
Claims 6-7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ankersmit et al.
Claim 1 is rejected on the grounds set forth above. The teachings of Ankersmit are reiterated. Ankersmit teaches the composition can be used subjected to a combination of stress inducing conditions (see [0048]). The art teaches additional stress to the disclosed cells leads to a further increase of the expression and secretion of substances beneficial for treating inflammatory skin conditions, in particular skin conditions associated with ischemia (see [0033]).
While the art teaches further stress inducing conditions.The art does not do so with sufficient specificity to anticipate the claims.
It would have been obvious to subject the PBMCs to a further stress inducing condition before or during cultivation. One would do so since Ankersmit teaches applying additional stress to the cells leads to a further increase of the expression and secretion of therapeutic substances. The skilled artisan would apply stress in addition to irradiation to increase the amount of therapeutic substances in the supernatant. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success since Ankersmit teaches PBMCs can be subjected to a combination of stress inducing conditions. Therefore claim 6 is rendered obvious. Ankersmit teaches include hypoxia, ozone, heat, radiation, chemicals, osmotic pressure and pH shift ([0048]). Therefore claim 7 is included in this rejection.
Ankersmit teaches the disclosed condition includes any condition, disease or disorder in which regions of the human or animal body are deprived of adequate oxygen supply resultant damage or dysfunction of tissue ([0021]). It would have been obvious to treat any of the animals recited in claim 14 which are exposed to the conditions taught by Ankersmit. Claim 14 is rendered obvious.
Therefore Applicant’s Invention is rendered obvious as claimed.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ankersmit et al. in view of Usatine et al. (previously cited; Diagnosis and Management of Contact Dermatitis. Am Fam Physician. 2010 Aug 1;82(3):249-55).
Claim 1 is rejected on the grounds set forth above. The teachings of Ankersmit are reiterated. Ankersmit teaches the composition can be used to treat contact dermatitis ([0026]). Claim 10 encompasses any allergic reaction, and is not limited to an IgE-mediated allergy or allergic reaction.
The art does not explicitly teach applying the composition after exposure to an allergen.
Usatine teaches contact dermatitis can be caused by an allergic reaction to a foreign substance contacting the skin (Abstract; first paragraph). Common substances that cause contact dermatitis include poison ivy, nickel and fragrances (page 2, left column, second paragraph).
It would have been obvious to administer the supernatant taught by Ankersmit following exposure to an allergen. Ankersmit teaches the composition can be used to treat contact dermatitis and Usatine teaches contact dermatitis is caused by exposure to an allergen. The skilled artisan would administer the supernatant following onset of the reaction. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success since Ankersmit teaches the composition can be used to treat a condition caused by an allergic reaction. Therefore claim 10 is rejected.
Therefore Applicant’s Invention is rendered obvious as claimed.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATALIE MOSS whose telephone number is (571) 270-7439. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sharmila Landau can be reached on (571) 272-0614. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 270-8439.
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.
/NATALIE M MOSS/ Examiner, Art Unit 1653
Prosecution Insights