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 .
Response to Amendment
The present office action is in response to the Arguments/Remarks filed 12/26/2024. As directed by the amendment, claims 6, 9 and 21-24 have been cancelled, claims 1-2, 4-5, 10-11, 14, 16-20, 25, and 27 have been amended and claims 28-30 have been newly added. Thus, claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-20, and 25-30 are presenting pending in this application.
Applicant has amended claims 10, 14, 18, and 25 to address minor informalities. Therefore, the previously held claim objection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant has amended claims 1, 6, 16-17, and 18-20 and canceled claims 22-23 to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112. Therefore, the previously held claim rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see section under “Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103” in PG 7-10, filed 02/18/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive as the prior art Corr et al. does not specifically disclose the formulation has an apparent pH buffered between 2.5 and 5. Therefore, previously held claim rejections are hereby withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made as necessitated by amendment. Each dependent claim will be rejected under the new grounds of rejection asserted herein.
Applicant’s arguments, see section under “Nonstatutory Double Patenting” in PG 10-11, filed 02/18/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive as the terminal disclaimer has been filed over the co-pending US Patent Application No. 17/760354. Therefore, previously held double patenting rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 02/18/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of application 17/760354 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Objections
Claims 18-20 and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 recites, “a valve with three gaskets that are made of a polymer of EPDM” in ln 1-2 which Examiner suggest amending to read --the valve with the three gaskets that are made of the polymer of EPDM-- as it is introduced in claim 1.
Claim 19 recites, “a valve with a gasket made of cycloolefin copolymer (COC), along with two gaskets made of a polymer of EPDM” in ln 1-2 which Examiner suggest amending to read --the valve with the gasket made of cycloolefin copolymer (COC), along with the two gaskets made of the polymer of EPDM -- as it is introduced in claim 1.
Claim 20 recites, “a valve with two gaskets that are each made of chlorobutyl polymer” which Examiner suggest amending to read --the valve with the two gaskets that are each made of chlorobutyl polymer-- as it is introduced in claim 1.
Claim 27 recites, “administering a formulation having an apparent pH buffered between 2.5 and 5 that comprises comprising at least a corticosteroid, a LABA agent selected from formoterol fumarate and formoterol fumarate dihydrate, a LAMA agent, and HFA 152a propellant to a subject in need thereof using the pMDI device according to claim 26” in ln 2-5 which Examiner suggest amending to read --administering to a subject in need thereof using the pMDI device according to claim 26 the formulation-- the formulation of claim 1 already provided based on the dependency to claim 26 which depends onto the can of claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-20, and 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni et al. (WO 2021033081 A1) in view of Lewis et al. (US 20060257324 A1), Scuri et al. (US 20180028439 A1), Jacuk et al. (US 20130000636 A1), and Jinks (US 20140109900 A1).
Examiner notes that the following combination of the prior arts were applied to each valve type of claim 1:
Kulkarni et al. (WO 2021033081 A1) in view of Lewis et al. (US 20060257324 A1), and Scuri et al. (US 20180028439 A1) is applied for the valve type i of claim 1;
Kulkarni et al. (WO 2021033081 A1) in view of Lewis et al. (US 20060257324 A1), Scuri et al. (US 20180028439 A1), and Jacuk et al. (US 20130000636 A1) is applied for the valve type ii of claim 1;
Kulkarni et al. (WO 2021033081 A1) in view of Lewis et al. (US 20060257324 A1), and Jinks (US 20140109900 A1) is applied for the valve type iii of claim 1;
Regarding claim 1, Kulkarni et al. discloses, a can for use in a pMDI device (PG 5, ln 1-2, “wherein the composition is to be delivered using pressurized MDI suitable for aerosol administration”; PG 24, ln 9-15, “The composition of the present invention can be delivered using conventional metered-dose inhalers. The drug delivery device comprises a suitable aerosol canister with a metering valve”), said can containing a formulation comprising at least a corticosteroid (abstract, “ a corticosteroid selected from fluticasone, budesonide, beclomethasone”; PG 11, ln 5-30), a long acting beta-2 agonist (LABA) agent selected from formoterol fumarate and formoterol fumarate dihydrate (abstract, “ formoterol fumarate dihydrate”; PG 11, ln 5-30) , a long acting muscarinic receptor antagonist (LAMA) agent (abstract, “glycopyrronium bromide”; PG 11, ln 5-30), and HFA 152a propellant (abstract; PG 15, ln 27-30, “An HFA propellant can be selected from HFA- 134a, HFA-227a, HFA- 32, HFC-143a, HFC-134, HFC-152a and mixture thereof”), wherein said can is internally coated by a coating comprising fluorinated-ethylene- propylene polymer (FEP) (PG 24, ln 16-27, “fluorinated ethylene propylene and polyethersulphone”)
While Kulkarni et al. recognize the need to develop a stable improved aerosol composition for inhalation which is stable for at least three months (PG 4, ln 21-24), Kulkarni et al. is silent on the formulation comprising an apparent pH buffered between 2.5 and 5.
However, Lewis et al. which is analogous art to the claimed invention for the recognizing stability problems (¶0005) and improving of the stability (¶0039-0043) of the formulation consisting similar composition of Kulkarni et al., teaches an aerosol composition which consists of as active ingredient formoterol fumarate in combination with beclomethasone diproprionate in a solution of a liquefied HFA 134a propellant has an apparent pH between 3.0 and 3.5 (claim 1; ¶0045). The said formulations are contained in cans having part of all of the internal surfaces made of anodised aluminium, stainless steel or lined with an inert organic coating. Examples of preferred coatings are epoxy-phenol resins, perfluoroalkoxyalkane, perfluoroalkoxyalkylene, perfluoroalkylenes such as polytetrafluoroethylene, fluorinated-ethylene-propylene, polyether sulfone and a copolymer fluorinated-ethylene-propylene polyether sulfone. Other suitable coatings could be polyamide, polyimide, polyamideimide, polyphenylene sulfide or their combinations. The formulation is actuated by a metering valve (¶0037-0039).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to have combined the teachings of Lewis et al. with that of Kulkarni et al. to arrive at the instant invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to do so because Scuri et al. teach the similar compositions as claimed but is silent with regard to the pH of the formulation. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art wishing to follow Scuri et al.'s teachings to make and use an effective formulation for inhalation by improving stability (¶0039-0046, “HFA formulations turned out to much more stable below pH' 5.5… the apparent pH of said solution having been adjusted to between 3.0 and 5.0 by addition of small amounts of a mineral acid”; ¶0075-0077, “The apparent pH range is advantageously comprised between 2.5 and 5.0, preferably between 3.0 and 5.0… hydrochloric acid should be added to obtain an apparent pH between 3.0 and 3.5”), would be interested in finding guidance on the suitable pH range for this formulation. Lewis et al. teach the same formulation and provide that guidance one of ordinary skill in the art would be looking for.
In other words, the claims would have been obvious because the technique for improving a particular formulation was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations.
From the combined teaching of the cited references, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
While Kulkarni et al. discloses, the metering valve with a gasket made of rubber, polymer gasket, EPDM, or COC (PG 25, ln 6-13), Kulkarni et al. does not specifically discloses a valve selected from group of a valve with three gaskets that are each made of a polymer of EPDM.
However, Scuri et al. which is analogous art to the claimed invention given a similar composition of Kulkarni et al. (abstract) and the canister fitting with a metering valve (¶0055), teaches a valve with three gaskets (¶0062, “an inner- and an outer-seal around the metering chamber… and a gasket to prevent leakage of propellant through the valve”; Examiner interprets gasket(s) as to any gasket and/or valve seals in BRI as ¶0061 of the instant application. Examiner notes: one skilled in the art would readily recognize that the gasket is used as valve seal where the gasket is defined as a material such as rubber or a part used to make a joint fluid tight as defined by Merriam-Webster) comprising of EPDM (¶0063, “The gasket seal and the seals around the metering valve may comprise elastomeric material such as EPDM, chlorobutyl rubber, bromobutyl rubber, butyl rubber, or neoprene. EPDM rubbers are particularly preferred”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the can of Kulkarni et al. to include a valve with three gaskets that are each made of a polymer of EPDM as taught by Scuri et al. in order to prevent leakage of propellant through the valve (¶0063).
While modified Kulkarni et al. discloses that three gaskets comprising of EPDM (Scuri et al.: ¶0062-0063), modified Kulkarni et al. does not specifically discloses one gasket comprising COC.
However, Jacuk et al. which is analogous art to the claimed invention given that the commonly known pressurized Metered Dose Inhaler, the pharmaceutical fluid containing (¶0003,0014) and the metering valve with gaskets which are two gaskets known as "internal gaskets" and a neck gasket (¶0003) teaches one gasket comprising COC (¶0024, “at least one of the sealing elements, i.e. at least one of the neck gasket 40, the upper internal gasket 41, and the lower internal gasket 42, comprise COC elastomer”) in purpose of ease of making gasket of any shape while improving the operation of metering valve and maintaining good compatibility with active substance of the pharmaceutical type (¶0034,0036).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify one gasket of modified Kulkarni et al. to include a gasket comprising COC as taught by Jacuk et al. in purpose of ease of making gasket of any shape while improving the operation of metering valve and maintaining good compatibility with active substance of the pharmaceutical type (¶0034,0036).
While Kulkarni et al. discloses, the metering valve with a gasket made of rubber, polymer gasket, EPDM, or COC (PG 25, ln 6-13), Kulkarni et al. does not specifically discloses a valve with two gaskets that are each made of chlorobutyl polymer.
However, Jinks which is analogous art to the claimed invention for medicinal inhalation devices, metered dose valves and valve components (¶0001), teaches a metered dose valve (10, Fig 3-5) with two gaskets (an inner seal 16 and outer diaphragm seal 17, Fig 3-5; Examiner interprets gasket(s) as to any gasket and/or valve seals in BRI as ¶0061 of the instant application. Examiner notes: one skilled in the art would readily recognize that the gasket is used as valve seal where the gasket is defined as a material such as rubber or a part used to make a joint fluid tight as defined by Merriam-Webster) which are well-known valve from WO2004/022142, Bespak, Bergen Way, and Valois SAS (¶0044-0046) that are each made of chlorobutyl polymer (¶0048, “Seals are typically elastomeric… Chlorobutyl”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the valve of Kulkarni et al. with a valve with two gaskets that are each made of chlorobutyl polymer as taught by Jinks et al. for a substitution of known metered dose valves in the art without unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 2, Kulkarni et al. in view of Lewis et al., Scuri et al. Jacuk et al. and Jinks discloses the can of claim 1 as discussed above.
Kulkarni et al. further discloses, wherein said corticosteroid is selected from the group consisting of: budesonide, and fluticasone, (abstract, “ a corticosteroid selected from fluticasone, budesonide, beclomethasone”)
Regarding claim 3, Kulkarni et al. in view of Lewis et al., Scuri et al. Jacuk et al. and Jinks discloses the can of claim 2 as discussed above.
Kulkarni et al. further discloses, wherein herein said corticosteroid is beclomethasone dipropionate or budesonide (abstract).
Regarding claim 4, Kulkarni et al. in view of Lewis et al., Scuri et al. Jacuk et al. and Jinks discloses the can of claim 1 as discussed above.
Kulkarni et al. further discloses, wherein the LABA agent is selected from the group consisting of: formoterol fumarate (PG 2, ln 24-30, “Formoterol fumarate… with budesonide, mometasone furoate and glycopyrrolate respectively for the treatment of asthma and/or COPD”).
Regarding claim 5, Kulkarni et al. in view of Lewis et al., Scuri et al. Jacuk et al. and Jinks discloses the can of claim 1 as discussed above.
Kulkarni et al. further discloses, wherein said LABA agent is formoterol fumarate dihydrate (abstract).
Regarding claim 7, Kulkarni et al. in view of Lewis et al., Scuri et al. Jacuk et al. and Jinks discloses the can of claim 1 as discussed above.
Kulkarni et al. further discloses, wherein the LAMA agent is selected from the group consisting of glycopyrronium, methscopolamine, ipratropium, oxitropium, trospium, tiotropium, aclidinium and umeclidinium or pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof (abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Kulkarni et al. in view of Lewis et al., Scuri et al. Jacuk et al. and Jinks discloses the can of claim 7 as discussed above.
Kulkarni et al. further discloses, wherein said LAMA agent is glycopyrronium bromide (abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Kulkarni et al. in view of Lewis et al., Scuri et al. Jacuk et al. and Jinks discloses the can of claim 7 as discussed above.
Kulkarni et al. further discloses, wherein the coating is a fluorinated-ethylene-propylene (FEP) polymer (PG 24, ln 16-27, “fluorinated ethylene propylene and polyethersulphone”).
Regarding claim 11, Kulkarni et al. in view of Lewis et al., Scuri et al. Jacuk et al. and Jinks discloses the can of claim 1 as discussed above.
Scuri et al. further discloses, wherein the formulation further comprising one or more excipients, co-solvents, and acids (abstract, “co-solvent, optionally a stabilizer”).
Regarding claim 12, Kulkarni et al. in view of Lewis et al., Scuri et al. Jacuk et al. and Jinks discloses the can of claim 11 as discussed above.
Kulkarni et al. further discloses, wherein said co-solvent is an aliphatic alcohol having from 1 to 4 carbon atoms (PG 16, ln 4-11, “the co-solvent comprises one or more of C2- C6 aliphatic alcohols (such as, but not limited to, ethyl alcohol and isopropyl alcohol), glycerol, polyoxyethylene alcohols, polyoxyethylene fatty acid esters, hydrocarbons (such as, but not limited to, n-propane, n-butane, isobutane, n-pentane, iso-pentane, neo-pentane, and n-hexane), ethers (such as but not limited to diethyl ether) and mixture thereof. The alcoholic co-solvent in the present invention comprises one or more of C2- C6 aliphatic alcohols, glycerol, polyoxyethylene alcohols and mixture thereof, wherein co-solvent may further comprise water. Preferably, the co-solvent is anhydrous ethanol.”).
Regarding claim 13, Kulkarni et al. in view of Lewis et al., Scuri et al. Jacuk et al. and Jinks discloses the can of claim 12 as discussed above.
Kulkarni et al. further discloses, herein said aliphatic alcohol is ethanol (PG 16, ln 4-11).
Regarding claim 14, Kulkarni et al. in view of Lewis et al., Scuri et al. Jacuk et al. and Jinks discloses the can of claim 1 as discussed above.
Modified Kulkarni et al. further discloses, wherein said acid is a mineral or organic acid selected from the group consisting of: hydrochloric acid, hydrobromic acid, nitric acid, fumaric acid, phosphoric acid and citric acid, maleic acid, acetic acid, xinafoic acid, oxalic acid, lactic acid, 2-methyl propionic acid, malic acid, butanoic acid, tartaric acid, propionic acid, pentanoic acid, succinic acid, glycolic acid, hexanoic acid, malonic acid, glutaric acid, formic acid, adipic acid, ascorbic acid, benzoic acid and glucuronic acid. (Lewis et al.:¶0039-0043; ¶0075-0077, “the apparent pH range is advantageously comprised between 2.5 and 5.0, preferably between 3.0 and 5.0. Strong mineral acids such as hydrochloric, nitric, sulphuric or phosphoric are preferably used to adjust the apparent pH”).
Regarding claim 15, Kulkarni et al. in view of Lewis et al., Scuri et al. Jacuk et al. and Jinks discloses the can of claim 14 as discussed above.
Modified Kulkarni et al. further discloses, wherein said acid is hydrochloric acid (Lewis et al.:¶0039-0043; ¶0075-0077).
Regarding claim 16, Kulkarni et al. in view of Lewis et al., Scuri et al. Jacuk et al. and Jinks discloses the can of claim 1 as discussed above.
Kulkarni et al. further discloses, the formulation further comprising a low volatility component selected from the group consisting of: glycols, and propylene glycol (PG 17, ln 3-11, “A low volatility component may be selected from glycerol, glycols (eg. propylene glycol) etc. Preferably glycerol is used as low volatility component”).
Regarding claim 17, Kulkarni et al. in view of Lewis et al., Scuri et al. Jacuk et al. and Jinks discloses the can of claim 1 as discussed above.
Scuri et al. further discloses, the formulation is in the form of a solution (PG 5, ln 18-19, “…is either in suspension form or in solution form”).
Regarding claim 18, Kulkarni et al. in view of Lewis et al., Scuri et al. Jacuk et al. and Jinks discloses the can of claim 1 as discussed above.
Modified Kulkarni et al. further discloses, wherein the valve is the valve with the three gaskets that are each made of the polymer of EPDM (Scuri et al.: ¶0063-0064).
Regarding claim 19, Kulkarni et al. in view of Lewis et al., Scuri et al. Jacuk et al. and Jinks discloses the can of claim 1 as discussed above.
Modified Kulkarni et al. further discloses, wherein the valve is the valve with the gasket made of cycloolefin copolymer (COC) (Jacuk et al.: ¶0034,0036), along with the two gaskets made of the polymer of EPDM (Scuri et al.: ¶0063-0064).
Regarding claim 20, Kulkarni et al. in view of Lewis et al., Scuri et al. Jacuk et al. and Jinks discloses the can of claim 1 as discussed above.
Modified Kulkarni et al. further discloses, wherein the valve is the valve with the two gaskets that are each made of chlorobutyl polymer (Jinks: ¶0001,0044-0046,0048; Fig 3-5).
Regarding claim 25, Kulkarni et al. in view of Lewis et al., Scuri et al. Jacuk et al. and Jinks discloses the can of claim 1 as discussed above.
Modified Kulkarni et al. further discloses, the formulation further comprising the apparent pH buffered between 3 and 4.5 (Lewis et al.:¶0039-0043; ¶0075-0077).
Regarding claim 26, Kulkarni et al. discloses a pMDI device (claim 9; PG 5, ln 1-2, “wherein the composition is to be delivered using pressurized MDI suitable for aerosol administration”; PG 24, ln 9-15, “The composition of the present invention can be delivered using conventional metered-dose inhalers. The drug delivery device comprises a suitable aerosol canister with a metering valve”) comprising the can according to claim 1 (Kulkarni et al. in view of Lewis et al., Scuri et al. Jacuk et al. and Jinks in claim 1 as discussed above).
Regarding claim 27, Kulkarni et al. further discloses a method of treating asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (PG 1, ln 10- 23, “the present invention also relates to a process for preparing such composition and its use for the treatment of respiratory disorders such as asthma and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in a subject in need thereof.”) comprising administering to a subject in need thereof using the pMDI device according to claim 26 (as discussed above in claim 26 having the can of claim 1), the formulation having an apparent pH buffered between 2.5 and 5 that comprises comprising at least a corticosteroid, a LABA agent selected from formoterol fumarate and formoterol fumarate dihydrate, a LAMA agent, and HFA 152a er HFO propellant (Kulkarni et al. in view of Lewis et al., Scuri et al. Jacuk et al. and Jinks in claim 1 as discussed above)
Regarding claim 28, Kulkarni et al. in view of Lewis et al., Scuri et al. Jacuk et al. and Jinks discloses the can of claim 5 as discussed above.
While Kulkarni et al. discloses, the composition comprising a corticosteroid selected from fluticasone, budesonide, beclomethasone, and glycopyrronium bromide, formoterol fumarate dihydrate and fluticasone propionate, co-solvent, optionally a stabilizer and HFA propellant (abstract), Kulkarni et al. does not specifically discloses, wherein the corticosteroid is beclomethasone dipropionate.
However, Scuri et al. teaches, beclometasone dipropionate which are useful for the prevention or treatment of moderate/severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in combination of glycopyrronium bromide, formoterol.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify can of Kulkarni et al. to include beclometasone dipropionate for treating moderate/severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (abstract).
Regarding claim 29, Kulkarni et al. in view of Lewis et al., Scuri et al. Jacuk et al. and Jinks discloses the can of claim 5 as discussed above.
Kulkarni et al. further discloses, wherein the LAMA agent is glycopyrronium bromide (abstract).
Regarding claim 30, Kulkarni et al. in view of Lewis et al., Scuri et al. Jacuk et al. and Jinks discloses the can of claim 28 as discussed above.
Kulkarni et al. further discloses, wherein the LAMA agent is glycopyrronium bromide (abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bonelli et al. (US 20170095444 A1) is cited for A-valve by Aptar, V-valve by Vari, and B-valve by Bespak (Table 2) with at least a butyl rubber gasket (¶0029) and a formulation comprising glycopyrronium bromide, formoterol fumarate, beclomethasone dipropionate, and HFA-132a.
Applicant's 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 JAEICK JANG whose telephone number is (703)756-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
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, Kendra D Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/JOSEPH D. BOECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785