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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/15/2025 has been entered.
Applicants' arguments, filed 12/15/2025, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Status
Claims 23 and 26-31 are pending and under examination.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 26 be found allowable, claims 28, and 30 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Here, claims 26, 28, and 30 are identical.
Applicant is advised that should claim 27 be found allowable, claims 29 and 31 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Here, claims 27, 29, and 31 are identical.
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 23 and 26-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horn Moller et al (WO 2019038412 A1).
Horn Moller et al discloses pharmaceutical compositions comprising semaglutide comprising no more than 0.1 wt% phenol (abs), with embodiments comprising 0.5 mg/ml semaglutide, no phenol, and 6.3 mg/ml sodium chloride (example 3, table 6 comp. no. 25). The composition of the invention is in the form of a liquid pharmaceutical composition (pg. 1 ln 16-17). The compositions is for parenteral administration (pg. 4 ln 19). Isotonic agents may be included, including sodium chloride, in a concentration from 8 mg/ml to 50 mg/ml (pg. 7 embodiment 13, pg. 3 ln 26-27). The compositions are used for the method of treating diabetes or obesity (pg. 5).
Regarding claim 23, it would have been obvious to adjust the amount of sodium chloride in the embodiment recited above in amounts suitable for isotonic agents, such as adjusting the amounts up to 8 mg/ml to 50 mg/ml, as taught by Horn Moller et al, overlapping the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 26, 28, and 30, where Horn Moller et al disclose the compositions are suitable for parenteral administration, the intended use limitation of a parenteral composition is met.
Regarding claims 27, 29, and 31, it would have been obvious to administer the composition made obvious above by Horn Moller et al to a subject in need thereof for treating diabetes and obesity, as taught by Horn Moller et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicants assert that Horn Miller et al teaches away from the claimed invention and would not lead a skilled artisan to use sodium chloride as an isotonic agent. Applicants assert the compositions tested in example 3 in table 6 shows that propylene glycol was used as the isotonic agent in 22 of the 26 examples and citrate was used in two of the examples. Applicants assert two examples contained no isotonic agent. Further, Applicants assert sodium chloride was not used as an isotonic agent. Therefore, Applicants assert the skilled artisan would be motivated to use propylene glycol as an isotonic agent based on the results.
Respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. As recited above and contrary to Applicants assertion, Horn Miller et al explicitly teaches sodium chloride as an isotonic agent, and is used in the working embodiments as such. While some examples may use propylene glycol, other disclosed working embodiments comprise sodium chloride. A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP 2123(I). Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP 2123(II).
Claims 23 and 26-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reedtz-Runge et al (US 20150011462 A1).
Reedtz-Runge et al teaches compositions comprising 20-60 nmol/ml GLP-1 derivatives, 70-145 mM sodium chloride, 50 mM sodium phosphate (buffer), 0.05% Tween 80, with a pH of 7.4 (¶ 600). The GLP-1 derivatives include semaglutide (¶ 7). The following amounts were calculated from the molar concentrations above: GLP-1 derivatives from 0.082-0.245 mg/mL and sodium chloride from 4.1-8.5 mg/mL. The GLP-1 derivative may be included in a suitable concentration, such as from 0.1 mg/mL to 100 mg/mL (¶¶ 155-159). The pharmaceutical composition may comprise a preservative, selected from phenol, etc. (¶ 142). Examples of formulations include liquid formulations (¶ 138). The composition can be in the form of an injection (¶ 601), for parenteral administration (¶ 164). The composition is used for the treatment of diabetes, obesity, Alzheimer’s disease, and cardiovascular diseases, by administration to a subject in need thereof (¶ 18, claim 12).
Regarding claim 23, it would have been obvious to formulate the composition as a liquid composition, as taught by Reedtz-Runge et al, such as for purposes of formulating an injectable composition.
Regarding semaglutide of claim 23, it would have been obvious to select semaglutide as the GLP-1 derivatives, as motivated by Reedtz-Runge et al. Further, it would have been obvious to include semaglutide in amounts taught to be suitable of GLP-1 derivatives, such as 0.082-0.245 mg/mL, overlapping the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding the phenol content of claim 23, there appears to be no phenol included in the embodiment cited above, thereby meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding the sodium chloride content of claim 23, it would have been obvious to formulate the composition made obvious above with sodium chloride ranging from 4.1-8.5 mg/mL, as taught by Reedtz-Runge et al, overlapping the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 26, 28, and 30, it would have been obvious to formulate the compositions in a form suitable for parenteral administration, as taught by Reedtz-Runge et al, thereby reading on a parenteral composition.
Regarding claims 27, 29, and 31, it would have been obvious to use the composition for the method of treating diabetes, obesity, Alzheimer’s disease, and cardiovascular diseases, by administering the composition to a subject in need thereof, as taught by Reedtz-Runge et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicants assert merely piecing together a list of reagents and conditions from a body of art is not sufficient to pass for a teaching, suggestion or motivation that is required by KSR, and asserts the rejection is based on hindsight. Applicants assert the Examiner's reliance on one, single early pre-clinical formulation in Reedtz-Runge et al in no way teaches, suggests to, or motivates the skilled artisan to arrive at the invention of the instant claims: improved properties in relation to injection pain experience and improved stability. A skilled artisan looking to improve the pharmaceutical compositions for GLP-1 peptides for stability and patient comfort simply would not look to this disclosure for a teaching, suggestion, or motivation.
Respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. In response to Applicants’ argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). As recited above, Reedtz-Runge et al teach working embodiments comprising 20-60 nmol/ml GLP-1 derivatives, 70-145 mM sodium chloride, 50 mM sodium phosphate (buffer), 0.05% Tween 80, with a pH of 7.4, wherein the GLP derivatives include semaglutide. The concentration in mg/mL are calculated above and overlap the claimed ranges for the GLP-1 derivative and sodium chloride. From the working embodiment, it would have required no more than the motivation gleaned from Reedtz-Runge et al and the knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made to make the modifications discussed above. Further, Applicants assert the instant invention is formulated for stability and patient comfort, however, the motivation to modify the compositions of Reedtz-Runge et al need not be the same as Applicants’ motivation to arrive at the instant claims. The examiner also notes that improved stability and injection pain experience are not claimed limitations.
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 23 and 26-31 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/226,405 (reference application), hereinafter referred to as ‘405, in view of Reedtz-Runge et al (US 20150011462 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘405 discloses a liquid pharmaceutic composition comprising semaglutide, contains no phenol, and further comprises one or more excipients selected from a buffer or an isotonic agent. Semaglutide is 0.5-10 mg/ml of the composition. Sodium chloride is 8.25 mg/mL and 6.3 mg/mL (claims 21, 22).
‘405 does not disclose the method of treating those conditions of instant claims 27, 29, and 31.
Reedtz-Runge et al are discussed above.
It would have been obvious to use the composition made obvious above for the treatment of diabetes, obesity, Alzheimer’s disease, and/or cardiovascular diseases, as motivated by Reedtz-Runge et al, where both are drawn to liquid compositions comprising semaglutide.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The following are rejected for the same reasons for comprising a composition comprising semaglutide, in view of Reedtz-Runge et al (US 20150011462 A1):
Copending application no. 18/427,270, while disclosing a liquid pharmaceutical composition comprising semaglutide from 0.01-10.0 mg/mL and an isotonic agent, sodium chloride and its amounts are not disclosed. It would have been obvious to include sodium chloride in amounts taught by Reedtz-Runge et al, as the isotonic agent, where both are directed to liquid pharmaceutical compositions comprising semaglutide and an isotonic agent.
Copending application no. 17/799,700, while disclosing a semaglutide formulation comprising semaglutide comprising sodium chloride, the claims do not disclose the amount of semaglutide and sodium chloride instant claimed, nor the method of treating those conditions of the instant claims. It would have been obvious to include semaglutide and sodium chloride in known amounts suitable for semaglutide formulations, as taught by Reedtz-Runge et al. It would have been obvious to administer the formulations for the treatment of those conditions of the instant claims, as motivated by Reedtz-Runge et al.
Copending application no. 19/026,842 (newly published), while disclosing a medical device comprising an aqueous semaglutide formulation comprising semaglutide in a concentration of 0.1-10 mg/mL and a tonicity agent, including sodium chloride from 5.0-7.0 mg/mL, the claims do not disclose a method of treating those conditions of the instant claims. It would have been obvious to administer the semaglutide formulation of ‘842 for the method of treating of diabetes, obesity, Alzheimer’s disease, and cardiovascular diseases, by administering the composition to a subject in need thereof, as taught by Reedtz-Runge et al, where both are directed to semaglutide formulations.
Copending application no. 19/423,120, while disclosing a medical device comprising an aqueous semaglutide formulation comprising semaglutide in a concentration of 0.1-10 mg/mL and a tonicity agent, including sodium chloride at 6.4 mg/mL, the claims do not disclose the concentration of sodium chloride as instantly claimed, nor a method of treating those conditions of the instant claims. It would have been obvious to include known amounts of sodium chloride suitable for isotonic agents, such as those taught by Reedtz-Runge et al. Further, it would have been obvious to administer the semaglutide formulation of ‘842 for the method of treating of diabetes, obesity, Alzheimer’s disease, and cardiovascular diseases, by administering the composition to a subject in need thereof, as taught by Reedtz-Runge et al, where both are directed to semaglutide formulations.
Response to Arguments
Applicants maintain the same arguments for the double patenting rejections that were made in view of Reedtz-Runge et al above. Applicants request withdrawal of the rejection and allowance of the claims.
Respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. The claims stand rejected for the same reasons above and of record.
Claims 23 and 26-31 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/426,412 (reference application), hereinafter referred to as ‘412, in view of Reedtz-Runge et al (US 20150011462 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘412 discloses a method for treating Alzheimer’s disease comprising administering semaglutide to a subject in need thereof, wherein the semaglutide is administered subcutaneously.
‘412 does not disclose the inclusion of sodium chloride or its amounts nor the amount of semaglutide instantly claimed.
It would have been obvious to include known components that are taught to be suitable for liquid pharmaceutical compositions comprising semaglutide that are known to treat Alzheimer’s disease, such as sodium chloride, as taught by Reedtz-Runge et al above and for the same reasons.
It would have been obvious to adjust the amount of the components, to those taught to be suitable by Reedtz-Runge et al, where both are drawn to liquid compositions comprising semaglutide.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The following are rejected for the same reasons for comprising a composition comprising semaglutide, in view of Reedtz-Runge et al (US 20150011462 A1):
Copending Application No. 19/423,120, while disclosing a method of treating obesity or overweight in a subject comprising administering a subcutaneous injection comprising 0.05-5.0 mg semaglutide, the reference does not teach specific concentration in mg/mL semaglutide, nor the inclusion of sodium chloride. It would have been obvious to include known concentrations of semaglutide known for subcutaneous injections and further include sodium chloride in known amounts for the same reasons discussed above by Reedtz-Runge et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicants maintain the same arguments for the double patenting rejections that were made in view of Reedtz-Runge et al above. Applicants request withdrawal of the rejection and allowance of the claims.
Respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. The claims stand rejected for the same reasons above and of record.
Claims 23 and 26-31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,752,198 B2, hereinafter referred to as ‘198, in view of Reedtz-Runge et al (US 20150011462 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘198 discloses a liquid pharmaceutical composition comprising semaglutide, contains no phenol, further comprises one or more excipients selected from a buffer or an isotonic agent, and wherein the semaglutide is from 0.01-10.0 mg/ml. The composition can be used for parenteral administration. ‘198 discloses a method of treating diabetes and obesity comprising administering a therapeutically effective amount to a subject.
‘198 does not disclose sodium chloride as the isotonic agent.
It would have been obvious to include sodium chloride (isotonic agent), as taught by Reedtz-Runge et al, where both are drawn to compositions comprising semaglutide that comprise isotonic agents.
The following are rejected for the same reasons in view of Reedtz-Runge et al (US 20150011462 A1):
U.S. Patent No. 10888605 B2, while disclosing a liquid pharmaceutical composition comprising 0.5-5.0 mg/mL semaglutide, phenol at no more than 0.1 mg/mL, and sodium chloride for treating diabetes and obesity, the claims do not disclose the amount of sodium chloride. It would have been obvious to include known amounts of sodium chloride suitable for semaglutide formulations, such as those taught by Reedtz-Runge et al above.
Response to Arguments
Applicants maintain the same arguments for the double patenting rejections that were made in view of Reedtz-Runge et al above. Applicants request withdrawal of the rejection and allowance of the claims.
Respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. The claims stand rejected for the same reasons above and of record.
Claims 23 and 26-31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,318,191 B2, hereinafter referred to as ‘191.
The claims of ‘191 disclose a liquid pharmaceutical composition comprising 0.5-10 mg/mL semaglutide, 0.0-0.1 wt% phenol, and 8.2-8.9 mg/mL sodium chloride, and methods of treating diabetes, obesity, Alzheimer's disease, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and/or cardiovascular diseases. The composition is a parenteral composition. Although the claims are not identical they are not patentably distinct because the concentrations for semaglutide and sodium chloride falls within the ranges instantly claimed, with the instantly claimed range currently being broader than those of the ‘191 patent.
Claims 23 and 26-31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,029,779 B2, hereinafter referred to as ‘779, in view of Reedtz-Runge et al (US 20150011462 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘779 discloses a method for reducing the body weight of a subject comprising administering semaglutide subcutaneously, wherein the subject suffers from obesity, diabetes, etc.
‘779 does not disclose the inclusion of sodium chloride or its amounts, nor the amount of semaglutide instantly claimed.
It would have been obvious to include known components that are taught to be suitable for pharmaceutical compositions comprising semaglutide that are known to treat subjects who suffer from obesity and diabetes, such as sodium chloride, as taught by Reedtz-Runge et al above and for the same reasons.
It would have been obvious to adjust the amount of the components, to those taught to be suitable by Reedtz-Runge et al, where both are drawn to compositions comprising semaglutide.
The following are rejected for the same reasons in view of Reedtz-Runge et al (US 20150011462 A1) as applied to each claim limitation:
U.S. Patent No. 9764003 B2, while disclosing a method for reducing body weight comprising administering a semaglutide formulation, the claims do not disclose the inclusion of sodium chloride or its amounts, nor the amount of semaglutide instantly claimed. It would have been obvious to include sodium chloride for the same reasons discussed above by Reedtz-Runge et al. It would have been obvious to adjust the amount of components, to those taught to be suitable by Reedtz-Runge et al, for the same reasons discussed above.
U.S. Patent No. 11478533 B2, while disclosing a method of treating NASH comprising administering about 1.0 mg/mL semaglutide subcutaneously, the claims do not disclose the inclusion of sodium chloride or its amounts, nor the amount of semaglutide instantly claimed. It would have been obvious to include sodium chloride for the same reasons discussed above by Reedtz-Runge et al. It would have been obvious to adjust the amount of components, to those taught to be suitable by Reedtz-Runge et al, for the same reasons discussed above.
U.S. Patent No. 10335462 B2, while disclosing a method for treating type 2 diabetes comprising administering semaglutide by subcutaneous injection, the claims do not disclose the inclusion of sodium chloride or its amounts, nor the amount of semaglutide instantly claimed. It would have been obvious to include sodium chloride for the same reasons discussed above by Reedtz-Runge et al. It would have been obvious to adjust the amount of components, to those taught to be suitable by Reedtz-Runge et al, for the same reasons discussed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicants maintain the same arguments for the double patenting rejections that were made in view of Reedtz-Runge et al above. Applicants request withdrawal of the rejection and allowance of the claims.
Respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. The claims stand rejected for the same reasons above and of record.
Claims 23 and 26-31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,633,459 B2, hereinafter referred to as ‘459, in view of Reedtz-Runge et al (US 20150011462 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘459 disclose a pharmaceutical composition comprising semaglutide (claims 3-16), as well as a method of treating type II diabetes by administering an effective amount of the pharmaceutical composition to a subject in need thereof (claims 17-18).
The claims of ‘459 do not disclose a liquid composition comprising the concentration of semaglutide as instantly claimed, wherein the composition is a parenteral composition, nor the inclusion of sodium chloride.
Regarding the liquid composition, it would have been obvious to modify the claims of ‘459 by formulating the pharmaceutical compositions as a liquid pharmaceutical composition, where liquid pharmaceutical compositions of semaglutide were known from Reedtz-Runge et al.
Regarding the concentration of semaglutide, it would have been obvious to use known amounts of semaglutide suitable for liquid formulation of semaglutide, such as those of Reedtz-Runge et al above.
Regarding the parenteral composition, where the compositions of ‘459 are suitable for administration to a subject in need thereof, it would have been obvious to formulate the compositions for parenteral administration, which were known to be suitable for semaglutide compositions, as taught by Reedtz-Runge et al for the same reasons discussed above.
Regarding the inclusion of sodium chloride, it would have been obvious to further include known ingredients suitable for semaglutide compositions, such as the isotonic agent sodium chloride, as taught by Reedtz-Runge et al above.
The following are rejected for the same reasons in view of Reedtz-Runge et al (US 20150011462 A1) as applied to each claim limitation:
U.S. Patent No. 10,604,555 B2, while disclosing pharmaceutical compositions comprising semaglutide and methods of treating type II diabetes comprising administering the composition to a subject in need thereof, the claim of ‘555 do not disclose a liquid composition comprising the concentration of semaglutide as instantly claimed, wherein the composition is a parenteral composition, nor the inclusion of sodium chloride. It would have been obvious to modify the claims of ’555 for the same reasons discussed above by Reedtz-Runge et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA A ATKINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0877. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM + Flex.
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, Sahana Kaup can be reached at 571-272-6897. 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.
/JOSHUA A ATKINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/SAHANA S KAUP/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612