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 and
Status of the Claims
2. Applicant’s amendment and response, submitted October 1, 2025 has been reviewed by the examiner and entered of record in the file.
3. Claims 1 and 3 are amended, claims 25 and 28 are canceled, and claim 34 is newly added.
4. Claims 3, 18, 26, 27, and new claims 31-33 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
5. Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 21-24, 29, 30, and 34 are under examination with the elected species and are the subject of this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
6. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on October 10, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner, please refer to the signed copy of Applicant’s PTO-1449 forms, attached herewith.
Priority
7. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
8. The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Provisional Application No.’s 63/150,204, 63/260,322, 63/261,523, and 63/266,535, each fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application, specifically the limitation of:
“wherein: the therapeutically effective amount of about 1.0% tapinarof topical cream does not prolong the QTc interval in the subject while applying the 1.0% topical cream,” recited in claim 1.
9. Accordingly, the instant claims are entitled to benefit of priority to CIP Application No. 17/674,577, with a filing date of February 17, 2022.
10. Applicant argues that support exists for each of method steps (a)-(c) in each of the provisional applications, and that the limitation lacking support is a function of method steps (a)-(c), such that the instant claims should be accorded the effective filing date of February 17, 2021.
11. The examiner respectfully disagrees, because the limitation of “wherein: the therapeutically effective amount of about 1.0% tapinarof topical cream does not prolong the QTc interval in the subject while applying the 1.0% topical cream,” is required by claim 1 and does not have prior support in the provisional applications. As such, the full scope of claim 1 is not supported by said provisional applications.
Previous Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
12. 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.
13. Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, and 21-24 remain rejected, and claims 29 and 30 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.
14. (a) Claim 1 was previously rejected as being unclear regarding the recitation of the term “thin layer” in steps “a.” and “c.” as well as in the third to last line of the claim.
In view of Applicant’s amendment to replace each recitation of “thin layer” with “therapeutically effective amount,” this aspect of the indefiniteness rejection is overcome.
(b) Claim 1 was previously rejected regarding the recitation of “about 1.0% tapinarof topical cream composition,” which is inconsistent from the recitation in step “c.” of “…further applying a thin layer of 1.0% tapinarof topical cream composition”, and the recitations following the “wherein” clause at the end of the claim, i.e., “the 1.0% tapinarof topical cream composition” in the seventh, sixth, and fourth lines from the bottom of the claim.
In view of Applicant’s amendment to replace each recitation of “1.0% tapinarof topical cream” with “about 1.0% tapinarof topical cream,” this aspect of the indefiniteness rejection is overcome.
(c) Claim 1 was previously rejected as being unclear regarding the recitation following the “wherein” clause after step “c.,”:
“while applying the 1.0% tapinarof cream” [emphasis added] (sixth line from the bottom of the claim, and the fifth-fourth lines from the bottom of the claim) and “when applying the thin layer of 1.0% tapinarof topical cream” [emphasis added] (third line from the bottom of the claim) is confusing. It is not clear from the claim if Applicant’s recitation of “while applying” or “when applying” refers to the physical act of applying the tapinarof cream to the skin of the subject, or to the duration of time in weeks of the initial period of time or the further period of time, during which the tapinarof cream is applied daily.
In response, Applicant replaced the term “when” in the third line from the bottom of the claim with the term “while” to maintain consistency. Applicant submits that both of the recitations of “while applying” and “when applying” refer to the duration of time over which the composition is applied, however, this clarification has not been incorporated into the claim itself. It is still not clear from the claim if the recitation of “while applying” refers to the physical act of applying the tapinarof cream to the skin of the subject, or to the duration of time in weeks of the initial period of time or the further period of time, during which the tapinarof cream is applied daily.
In view of a broadest reasonable interpretation, the term “while applying” in the last seven lines of the claim is construed to mean:
“the QTc interval in the subject is not prolonged during the initial period of time in step a. above, and the further period of time in step c. above, and
the plasma concentration of tapinarof in the subject is below 50 pg/mL during the initial period of time in step a. above, and the further period of time in step c. above, and
no tachyphylaxis occurs during the initial period of time in step a. above, and the further period of time in step c. above.”
(d) Claim 1 was previously rejected as being unclear regarding the recitation in step “c.,” the duration of the “further period of time.”
In view of Applicant’s amendment to clarify the further period of time:
“a further period of time of about 8 weeks to about 16 weeks and wherein the further period of time is less than the initial period of time,”
this aspect of the indefiniteness rejection is overcome.
13. Claims 4, 7, 8, 21-24, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as being indefinite because they depend from and include all of the limitations of rejected claim 1.
Previous Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, and 21-25 were previously rejected and claim 34 is newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peppers et al., Journal of Am Acad Dermatol (published online July 3, 2018), in view of Dermavant Clinical Study Protocol, (available December 16, 2019, cited on Applicant’s IDS of January 6, 2025), and further in view of Jett et al., American Journal of Clinical Dermatology 2021 (cited on Applicant’s IDS of September 20, 2024).
15. In view of Applicant’s persuasive arguments pertaining to the 35 USC 102(b)(1)(A) exception to prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(1), regarding Jett et al., which is authored by a joint inventor and one year or less before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the Jett et al. reference is removed from the rejection. However, the previous obviousness rejection is applied in modified form, please see below.
New Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
16. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
17. Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 21-24, 29, 30 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peppers et al., Journal of Am Acad Dermatol (published online July 3, 2018), in view of Dermavant Clinical Study Protocol, (available December 16, 2019, cited on Applicant’s IDS of January 6, 2025), and further in view of Kraus and Lee, U.S. 20200147001 A1 (published May 14, 2020).
It is noted that the disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Provisional Application No.’s 63/150,204, 63/260,322, 63/261,523, and 63/266,535, each fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application, specifically the limitation of:
“wherein: the 1.0% tapinarof topical cream does not prolong the QTc interval in the subject while applying the 1.0% topical cream,” recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, the instant claims are entitled to benefit of priority to CIP Application No. 17/674,577, with a filing date of February 17, 2022.
Claim 1, as amended, is directed to a method for treating atopic dermatitis in a subject in need thereof, (more specifically, wherein the atopic dermatitis is moderate or severe atopic dermatitis (claim 4)), comprising:
a. applying a therapeutically effective amount of about 1.0% tapinarof topical cream composition to the affected areas of the subject once a day for an initial period of time of about 8 weeks to about 48 weeks, until the subject has an IGA score of 0;
b. after the initial period of time, stop treating the subject with tapinarof for a remittive period of time of about 1 to about 3 months, wherein the remittive period of time is the time wherein the subject maintains an IGA score < 2; and wherein the remittive period of time is less than the initial period of time (claim 8); and
c. after the remittive period of time, further applying the therapeutically effective amount of about 1.0% tapinarof topical cream composition to the affected areas of the subject once a day for a further period of time, until the subject has an IGA score of 0;
wherein the further period of time is about 8 weeks to about 16 weeks and wherein the further period of time is less than the initial period of time;
wherein
the therapeutically effective amount of about 1.0% tapinarof topical cream composition does not prolong the QTc interval in the subject while applying the therapeutically effective amount of about 1.0% tapinarof topical cream,
the plasma concentration of tapinarof in the subject is below 50 pg/mL while applying the therapeutically effective amount of about 1.0% tapinarof topical cream, and
no tachyphylaxis occurs while applying the about 1.0% tapinarof topical cream composition to the affected areas of the subject once a day for the initial period of time and the further period of time; and
wherein the subject's itch numeric rating scale is improved by about 1 point to about 5 points at the end of the initial period of time (claims 21 and 29), and
wherein the subject's Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score is improved by at least 50% (claim 30) or at least 75% at the end of the initial period of time (claims 23).
As thus summarized, the invention reads on claims 1, 4, 8, 21, 23, 29, and 30.
In view of a broadest reasonable interpretation, the recitation of “while applying” in the last seven lines of the claim is construed to mean:
“the QTc interval in the subject is not prolonged during the initial period of time in step a. above, and the further period of time in step c. above, and
the plasma concentration of tapinarof in the subject is below 50 pg/mL during the initial period of time in step a. above, and the further period of time in step c. above, and
no tachyphylaxis occurs during the initial period of time in step a. above, and the further period of time in step c. above.”
-3-17. Peppers et al. disclose a method of successfully treating atopic dermatitis (AD) in a patient in need thereof, comprising applying a thin layer of 1.0% tapinarof topical cream to AD lesions once daily (QD) for 12 weeks (page 91, left column, under “Study treatment”). Peppers et al. teach that the primary endpoint included an IGA score of 0 (i.e., clear), wherein treatment success was maintained for at least 4 weeks following the initial period of treatment (see abstract and page 94, left column, Figure 3). Four weeks of treatment success following initial treatment, i.e., wherein the skin remains clear and/or symptoms are greatly reduced, during a period of no treatment, meets the limitation of a remittive period of time of “about one month” required by step “b.” And, a remittive period of 4 weeks is less than the initial treatment period of 12 weeks taught by Peppers et al. (as required by claim 8).
18. Peppers et al. teach that the patients had “body surface area involvement of at least 5% to 35%” prior to treatment, which is considered moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (see abstract, under “Methods”). Peppers et al. teach that the patient's itch numeric rating scale is improved by at least 3 points at the end of the initial treatment period (see Figure 6, page 96), (as required by claims 21 and 29) and that the patient has a 75% or greater improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score (see abstract and Figure 5, page 96) (as required by claims 23 and 30).
Peppers et al. do not teach that any of the patients in the study demonstrated a diminishing response and/or acute desensitization to 1.0% topical tapinarof cream; as such, one of skill in the art would reasonably assume that tachyphylaxis did not occur.
19. Peppers et al. are silent to the step “c” of a further treatment period following the remittive period of time.
20. Yet, Peppers et al. disclose that treatment success (i.e., patients who achieved clear skin (PGA=0)) was maintained for at least 4 weeks following the initial period of treatment (see abstract and page 94, left column, Figure 3).
21. And, Dermavant teaches the administration of 1.0% topical tapinarof cream for an initial 12 week treatment period, followed by a “4-week safety follow-up period” of no treatment, to adult patients with plaque psoriasis. Dermavant teaches that following the 4-week period, “[i]f/when disease worsening occurs, as evidenced by a PGA≥2, treatment will then be re-initiated and continued until a PGA of 0 is observed,” (page 25, first three paragraphs under “Study Design”).
22. As such, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to employ the protocol taught by Dermavant and restart treatment of 1.0% tapinarof topical cream upon relapse of the patient, following a remittive period, in order to optimize the efficacy of topical tapinarof treatment in said patient. It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to start with 12 weeks of a therapeutically effective amount of about 1.0% topical tapinarof cream administration followed by at least 4 weeks of no treatment during a remittive period wherein the patient is monitored for flares, and restarting treatment in said patient for a further period of time if needed, with a reasonable expectation of success. Furthermore, the optimization of result effect parameters (e.g., dosage regimen) is obvious as being within the skill of the artisan. It has been held that it is within the skill in the art to select optimal parameters, such as dosing strategy, in a known method of treatment, in order to achieve a beneficial effect. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It is also noted that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine optimization with a reasonable expectation of success.”
23. Peppers et al. in view of Dermavant are silent to the effect of a therapeutically effective amount of about 1.0% tapinarof topical cream administration on the QTc interval in the patient.
24. Yet, Peppers et al. teach that “[a] total of 49 of 247 patients (20%) had ECG findings at any postscreening visit across all treatment groups during the study (35 of 165 [21%] of those in the groups treated with tapinarof vs 14 of 82 [17%] of those in the vehicle groups). These ECG findings were not considered significant; they appeared to be transient, resolved over time, and never led to patient discontinuation.”
25. Thus, one of skill in the art would reasonably consider that when administered once daily to a patient, the therapeutically effective amount of about 1% tapinarof topical cream does not prolong the QTc interval of said patient.
27. Peppers et al. in view of Dermavant are silent to the plasma concentration of tapinarof, i.e., “...below 50 pg/mL while applying the 1.0% tapinarof topical cream.”
28. However, Kraus teaches that when 1% tapinarof cream is applied to treat AD lesions in a subject in need thereof, once or twice daily for 12 weeks (see Study Design, paragraphs [0086]-[0088]), plasma concentration is below the limit of detection:
“In embodiments described herein, plasma concentration of tapinarof is below the limit of detection (LOD) when measured at 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 24 hours following twice daily application of the topical composition described herein. In some embodiments, the mean AUC[0-24] is about 23.4 to about 2.2 h*ng/mL. In some embodiments, the mean AUC[0-24] is about 10.5 to about 1.5 h*ng/mL.”
(paragraph [0072]), which meets the limitation of below 50 pg/mL.
29. Thus, one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would reasonably expect the plasma concentration of tapinarof in the subject to remain below 50 pg/mL during the application period of the therapeutically effective amount of about 1% tapinarof topical cream to said subject.
As such, claims 1, 4, 8, 21, 23, 29 and 30 are prima facie obvious.
Claim 7 is drawn to claim 1, and limits wherein the remittive period is about 2 months. Claim 34 is drawn to claim 1, and limits wherein the remittive period is about 2 months to about 3 months.
30. Regarding claim 7, Peppers et al. disclose that treatment success (i.e., patients who achieved clear skin (PGA=0)) was maintained for at least 4 weeks following the initial period of treatment (see abstract and page 94, left column, Figure 3). The ratio of further period of time to the initial period of time is a result-effective variable. One of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to use the starting point of a 4 week remittive period as taught by Peppers et al. to determine the optimal duration of administration period(s) of the therapeutically effective amount of about 1.0% tapinarof topical cream and rest/remittive period in order to best achieve the desired results. See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2005), "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”
As such, claim 7 is prima facie obvious.
Claim 22 is drawn to claim 1, wherein the subject's itch numeric rating scale is improved by about 4 points at the end of the initial period of time.
31. Peppers et al. teach that the patient's itch numeric rating scale is improved by at least 3 points at the end of the initial treatment period (see Figure 6, page 96). The “about 4 points” as required by claim 22 is reasonably suggested by “at least 3 points” as taught by Peppers et al. because Peppers et al.’s use of the modifier “at least” embraces any improvement in the scale greater than 3 points. Thus, in view of the teaching of Peppers et al., one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood that the administration of the therapeutically effective amount of about 1.0% tapinarof topical cream to a patient’s AD lesion(s) for 12 weeks achieves an improvement in the patient's itch numeric rating scale in any amount of 3 points or more, such as “about 4 points.” Therefore one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to administer the therapeutically effective amount of about 1.0% tapinarof topical cream to a patient’s AD lesion(s) for an initial treatment period of 12 weeks and would reasonably expect an improvement in said patient’s itch numeric rating scale of “about 4 points” as required by claim 22.
As such, claim 22 is prima facie obvious.
Claim 24 is drawn to claim 1, wherein the subject's Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score is improved by at least 90% at the end of the initial period of time.
32. Peppers et al. teach that the patient has a 75% or greater improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score (see abstract and Figure 5, page 96). The limitation of the EASI score being “improved at least 90%” as required by claim 24 is reasonably suggested by “75% or greater improvement” as taught by Peppers et al. because Peppers et al.’s use of the modifier “or greater” embraces any improvement in the EASI score greater than 75%. Thus, in view of the teaching of Peppers et al., one of skill in the art would have understood that the administration of 1.0% tapinarof topical cream to a patient’s AD lesion(s) for 12 weeks achieves an improvement in the patient's EASI score in any amount of 75% or more, such as “at least 90%.” Therefore one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to administer the therapeutically effective amount of about 1.0% tapinarof topical cream to a patient’s AD lesion(s) for an initial treatment period of 12 weeks and would reasonably expect an improvement in said patient’s itch numeric rating scale of “at least 90%” as required by claim 24.
As such, claim 24 is prima facie obvious.
Claim 25 is drawn to claim 1, wherein the subject's percent body surface area (BSA) affected is decreased.
33. Peppers et al. additionally teach that the secondary end point of the study includes:
“…mean change in percent of BSA affected (for brevity, this report focuses on treatment success in terms of IGA score, EASI75, and itch reduction),”
(page 91, right column, first paragraph). As Peppers et al. demonstrate patients’ IGA score of 0 or clear, a 75% or greater reduction in patients’ EASI, and itch reduction as determined by an improvement in the patients’ itch numeric rating scale by at least 3 points, one of skill in the art would reasonably conclude that the BSA of the patients receiving daily treatment of 1.0% tapinarof topical cream is decreased.
34. Therefore one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to administer the therapeutically effective amount of about 1.0% tapinarof topical cream to a patient’s AD lesion(s) for an initial treatment period of 12 weeks and would reasonably expect a decrease in said patient’s percent body surface area affected, as required by claim 25.
As such, claim 25 is prima facie obvious.
Response to Arguments
35. Applicant traverses the previous obviousness rejection, arguing that that they surprisingly discovered that 1% tapinarof cream formulation administered as recited steps (a)-(c) of the instant claims led to a remittive effect for a period of time about two to three months in AD patients whereas the remittive period is greater than 3 months in patients with plaque psoriasis. (Original specification, para. [0064]). Applicant contends that treatment after the remittive effect did not show a tachyphylaxis effect, which is the decrease in response to successive doses of a drug, rendering it less effective as normally expected, such that the surprising and unexpected characteristic of the claimed method allows for the continuous daily administration of the composition to the skin as well as the use in large body surface areas without concern for decreased efficacy over time and the potential increase of side effects as seen with other treatments. (Original specification, para. [0065]).
Applicant alleges that Peppers does not disclose or suggest method steps that can achieve a remittive effect after treatment in the amounts recited in the claims.
Applicant argues that Dermavant is a protocol based on a 40-week, phase 3, open-label extension study (NCT04053387) to evaluate long-term safety and continued efficacy of tapinarof cream for plaque psoriasis. (Dermavant, 1.1.2). Dermavant fails to provide a reasonable expectation of success because Dermavant is merely a study protocol with no actual results at the time of submission.
36. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. 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).
In this case, Peppers is relied upon for teaching the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) in a patient in need thereof (the same patient population as instantly claimed), wherein the administration of a therapeutically effective amount of 1.0% tapinarof topical cream (the same dose and compound as instantly claimed) to AD lesions in said patient once daily for 12 weeks resulted in patients having clear skin/ an IGA score of 0 (i.e., clear), wherein treatment success was maintained for at least 4 weeks following the initial period of treatment meeting the limitation of a remittive period of time of “about one month” required by instant step “b.”
Dermavant is relied upon for suggesting the administration of 1.0% topical tapinarof cream for an initial 12 week treatment period, followed by a “4-week safety follow-up period” of no treatment, to adult patients with plaque psoriasis, wherein following the 4-week period, “[i]f/when disease worsening occurs, as evidenced by a PGA≥2, treatment will then be re-initiated and continued until a PGA of 0 is observed,” (page 25, first three paragraphs under “Study Design”), which meets the limitation of instant step “c.” One skilled in the art would have been motivated to employ the protocol of Dermavant and restart treatment of 1.0% tapinarof topical cream upon relapse of the patient, following a remittive period, in order to optimize the treatment efficacy of topical tapinarof cream in said patient.
Further, Peppers is also aware of the diminishing response and/or acute desensitization (tachyphylaxis) side effect of tapinarof administration. And even though Dermavant is teaching the treatment of plaque psoriasis, the fact is that regardless of which skin condition is being treated with a therapeutically effective amount of 1.0% tapinarof topical cream, the side effects are expected to be the same or similar and will mainly depend on the dosage regimen. So even if Dermavant might be inconclusive regarding study results, Peppers is well aware of those side effects and proposes the same remittive period following the initial period of time, as claimed, wherein and Dermavant suggests administration for a further period of time, if needed. In view of the combined art of record, one of skill in the art would have reasonably considered modifying the dose regimen of Peppers with the protocol suggested by Dermavant in order to optimize the known method of treating AD in a patient in need thereof.
And, dose regimen optimization is clearly a result effective parameter that a person of ordinary skill in the art would routinely optimize given the guidance of the prior art.
Conclusion
37. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 18, 21-24, 26, 27 and 29-34 are pending in the application. Claims 3, 18, 26-28 and 31-33 are presently withdrawn as directed to non-elected subject matter. Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 21-25, 29, 30 and 34 are rejected. No claim is presently allowed.
38. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANET L COPPINS whose telephone number is (571)272-0680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM 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, Amy L Clark can be reached on 571-272-1310. 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.
/JANET L COPPINS/Examiner, Art Unit 1628
/JARED BARSKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1628