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 .
Acknowledgments and Claim Status
The Examiner acknowledges receipt of the amendment filed 6/9/2023 wherein claims 7, 13, 15, 18, 22-25, 27-29, 32, 33, 35-38, and 41 were canceled and claims 19, 30, and 31 were amended. In addition, the Examiner acknowledges the amendment filed 7/26/2022 wherein the specification and abstraction were amended. Receipt of a substitute specification filed 6/9/2023 is also acknowledged.
Note(s): Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14, 16, 17, 19-21, 26, 30, 31, 34, 39, and 40 are pending.
Priority
This application is a CON of 15/753,269 filed 5/15/2018 (now abandoned).
Note(s): The earliest effective filing date is 5/15/2018 as the pending invention is fully disclosed in the parent application.
Claim Interpretation
Independent claim 1 is directed to a scaffold complex comprising a polymeric fiber having a mean diameter of from about 100 nm (0.1 micrometers) to about 8000 nm (0.8 micrometers) operably linked to a hydrogel-binding moiety wherein the hydrogel-binding moiety is disposed on the polymeric fiber.
Claim 26 is directed to an implantable biomaterial comprising the scaffold complex of claim 1.
Claim 30 is directed to a kit comprising the implantable material of claim 26.
Claim 31 is directed to a medical device for retaining tissue shape in a subject undergoing a surgical procedure, comprising the scaffold complex of claim 1 in an amount effective to provide for the retention of a tissue shape when administered to the subject.
Claim 34 is directed to a method for preparing an implant for tissue repair, the method comprising the steps of: providing an acellular, three-dimensional scaffold comprising polymeric fibers oriented to produce a plurality of pores; disposing a composition comprising a hydrogel- binding moiety on the polymeric fibers to form a complex; and reacting or stabilizing the complex to form a stabilized implant wherein at least a portion of the polymeric fibers are cross-linked to the hydrogel-binding moiety.
Claim 39 is directed to a method for resolving a tissue defect resulting from a trauma or surgical intervention, comprising distending the tissue including the tissue, wherein distending the tissue comprises implanting an effective amount of the scaffold complex of claim 1 into the tissue to thereby distend it.
Claim 40 is directed to a method for reducing or reversing a tissue defect resulting from an aging- associated disease, disorder or condition, comprising distending the tissue including the tissue, wherein distending the tissue comprises implanting an effective amount of the scaffold complex of claim 1 into the tissue to thereby distend it.
Applicant’s Election
Applicant’s election of Group I (pending claims 1-6, 8-12, 14, 16, 17, 19-21, and 26) in the reply filed on 2/24/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Thus, the restriction is still deemed proper and made FINAL.
Note(s): It is duly noted that Applicant elected the following species in the election field 2/24/2026; polymeric fiber (polycaprolactone, a type of polyester); hydrogel binding moiety (GAHWQFNALTVR (SEQ ID NO: 1); biocompatible and biodegradable polyester (polyester copolymer); crosslinking moiety (1-ethyl-3(-3-dimethylaminopropyl)carbodiimide (EDC)); device of interest (gel); and disease/disorder/condition of order (soft tissue loss). Claims 1-6, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, 20, and 26 read on the elected species. Applicant’s elected species was searched. Since prior art was found which could be used to reject the claims, the search was not extended beyond the elected species.
Withdrawn Claims
Claims 8-10, 16, 21, 30, 31, 34, 39, and 40 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention/species.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 6/9/2023 (three IDSs were filed) were considered.
Double Patenting Rejections
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 1-6, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, 20, and 26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,135,240. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to compositions comprising a polymeric fiber operably linked to a hydrogel binding moiety. Specifically, the patented invention comprises a biomaterial having at least one polymer with one or more hyaluronic acid binding peptides bound thereto. The possible peptide-polymer combination include Applicant elected species, peptide comprising GAHQQFNALTVR (SEQ ID NO: 1) and polycaprolactone, (see patented claims 1 and 6). Thus, the skilled artisan would recognize that both inventions disclose overlapping subject matter as according to MPEP 2112.01, products (compositions) of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Thus, both Applicant’s biomaterial and that of the patented invention have inseparable properties. As a result, both compositions form scaffold complexes that operably bind in the same way, have overlapping pore characteristics, and both are implantable biomaterials.
Claims 1-6, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, 20, and 26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 14, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,795,686. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to compositions comprising a polymeric fiber operably linked to a hydrogel binding moiety. Specifically, the patented invention comprises a biomaterial having at least one polymer with one or more hyaluronic acid binding peptides bound thereto. The possible peptide-polymer combination include Applicant elected species, peptide comprising GAHQQFNALTVR (SEQ ID NO: 1) and polycaprolactone, (see patented claim 1). Thus, the skilled artisan would recognize that both inventions disclose overlapping subject matter as according to MPEP 2112.01, products (compositions) of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Thus, both Applicant’s biomaterial and that of the patented invention have inseparable properties. As a result, both compositions form scaffold complexes that operably bind in the same way, have overlapping pore characteristics, and both are implantable biomaterials.
Claims 1-6, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, 20, and 26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,944,637. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to compositions comprising a polymeric fiber operably linked to a hydrogel binding moiety. Specifically, the patented invention comprises a biomaterial having at least one polymer with one or more hyaluronic acid binding peptides bound thereto. The possible peptide-polymer combination include Applicant elected species, peptide comprising GAHQQFNALTVR (SEQ ID NO: 1) and polycaprolactone, (see patented claims 1 and 5). Thus, the skilled artisan would recognize that both inventions disclose overlapping subject matter as according to MPEP 2112.01, products (compositions) of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Thus, both Applicant’s biomaterial and that of the patented invention have inseparable properties. As a result, both compositions form scaffold complexes that operably bind in the same way, have overlapping pore characteristics, and both are implantable biomaterials.
Claims 1-6, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, 20, and 26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,231,991. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to compositions comprising a polymeric fiber operably linked to a hydrogel binding moiety. Specifically, the patented invention comprises a biomaterial having at least one polymer with one or more hyaluronic acid binding peptides bound thereto. The possible peptide-polymer combination include Applicant elected species, peptide comprising GAHQQFNALTVR (SEQ ID NO: 1) and polycaprolactone, (see patented claims 1 and 5). Thus, the skilled artisan would recognize that both inventions disclose overlapping subject matter as according to MPEP 2112.01, products (compositions) of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Thus, both Applicant’s biomaterial and that of the patented invention have inseparable properties. As a result, both compositions form scaffold complexes that operably bind in the same way, have overlapping pore characteristics, and both are implantable biomaterials.
Written Description Rejection
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, 20, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant is reminded that an inventor is entitled to a patent to protect his work only if he/she produces or has possession of something truly new and novel. The invention being claimed must be sufficiently concrete so that it can be described for the world to appreciate the specific nature of the work that sets it apart from what was before. The inventor must be able to describe the item to be patented with such clarity that the reader is assured that the inventor actually has possession and knowledge of the unique composition that makes it worthy of patent protection. (1) The pending application does not sufficiently describe the invention as it relates to hydrogel binding moieties other than those of SEQ ID Nos: 1-6. (2) In addition, the application does not sufficiently describe the invention as it relates to variants and fragments of SEQ ID Nos: 1-6. (3) Still, the pending application does not sufficiently describe the invention as it relates to polymeric fibers such as polycaprolactone, polylactic-co-glycolic acid, polylactic acid, , silk, collagen, chitosan, and combinations thereof. Thus, what the reader gathers from the instant application is a desire/plan/first step for obtaining a desired result. While the reader can certainly appreciate the desire for achieving a certain end result, establishing goals does not necessarily mean that an invention has been adequately described.
While compliance with the written description requirements must be determined on a case-by-case basis, the real issue here is simply whether an adequate description is necessary to practice an invention described only in terms of its function and/or based on a disclosure wherein a description of the components necessary in order for the invention to function are lacking. In order to satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must describe every element of the claimed invention in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the inventor possessed the claimed invention at the time of filing. In other words, the specification should describe an invention and does so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor created what is the claimed. Thus, the written description requirement is lacking in the instant invention since the various terms as set forth above are not described in a manner to clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that Applicant invented what is being claimed.
112 Second Paragraph Rejections
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4: The claim is ambiguous because it is unclear what portion of the parent structure remains in the variants and fragments of the hydrogel binding peptides. In other words, it is unclear what variants and fragments Applicant is claiming that are compatible with the pending invention.
Claim 4: The claim is confusing because of the ‘optionally...thereof’ phrase appearing in lines 5-10. Specifically, if a hydrogel binding moiety is required, then it is not optional. Did Applicant intend to write the claim as follows for clarity of the claimed invention, “The scaffold complex of claim 1 wherein the hydrogel binding moiety is selected from the group consisting of” and list all of the peptides? Also, the peptide LKQKIKHVVKLKVVVKLRSQLVKRKQN is listed in line 3 and 8. The peptide GLRSKSKKFRRPDIQYPDATDEDITSHM is listed in lines 5 and 10.
Claim 11: The claim recites the limitation "the hydrogel" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11: The claim is ambiguous because it is unclear what portion of the parent structure remains in the derivatives of the hydrogel binding moieties of claim 11. In other words, it is unclear what derivatives Applicant is claiming that are compatible with the pending invention.
Claims 11 and 14: Applicant is respectfully reminded that proper Markush terminology requires closed language. The used of the term ‘comprising’ allows for unnamed polymeric material to be present in the listing. In addition, the used of ‘and/or’ in a Markush claim is not proper. Applicant’s attention is directed to MPEP 803.02 which discusses proper Markush terminology.
103 Rejection
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19-21, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (WO 2013/110056).
Independent claim 1 is directed to a scaffold complex comprising a polymeric fiber having a mean diameter of from about 100 nm (0.1 micrometers) to about 8000 nm (0.8 micrometers) operably linked to a hydrogel-binding moiety wherein the hydrogel-binding moiety is disposed on the polymeric fiber.
Claim 2 is directed to the scaffold complex of claim 1, wherein the hydrogel-binding moiety comprises a polypeptide less than about 110 amino acids in length.
Claim 3 is directed to the scaffold complex of claim 1, wherein the hydrogel-binding moiety comprises a plurality of polypeptide sequences, wherein at least about 50% of the polypeptide sequences are less than about 50 amino acids in length.
Claim 4 is directed to the scaffold complex of claim 1, wherein the hydrogel-binding moiety comprises a sequence selected from the group consisting of hyaluronic acid binding peptides selected from GAHWQFNALTVR, LKQKIKHVVKLKVVVKLRSQLVKRKQN, and STMMSRSHKTRSHH and collagen binding peptide GLRSKSKKFRRPDIQYPDATDEDITSHM, or variants or fragments thereof, optionally the hydrogel-binding moiety comprises a sequence selected from the group consisting of hyaluronic acid binding peptides selected from CRRDDGAHWQFNALTVR, LKQKIKHVVKLKVVVKLRSQLVKRKQN, and STMMSRSHKTRSHHV and collagen binding peptide GLRSKSKKFRRPDIQYPDATDEDITSHM, or variants or fragments thereof.
Claim 5 is directed to the scaffold complex of claim 1, wherein the polymeric fiber comprises a biocompatible and biodegradable polyester.
Claim 6 is directed to the scaffold complex of claim 1, wherein the polymeric fiber comprises polycaprolactone.
Claim 11 is directed to the scaffold complex of claim 1, wherein the hydrogel material comprises a hydrogel-binding moiety comprises a poly(ethylene glycol), a collagen, a dextran, an elastin, an alginate, a fibrin, a alginate, a hyaluronic acid, a poly(vinyl alcohol), a derivative thereof, or a combination thereof.
Claim 12 is directed to the scaffold complex of claim 1, wherein the polymeric fiber comprises a non-woven polymeric fiber.
Claim 14 is directed to the scaffold complex of claim 1, wherein the polymeric fiber comprises a synthetic polymeric material comprising a poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid), a poly(lactic acid), and/or a polycaprolactone, or a combination thereof.
Claim 17 is directed to the scaffold complex of claim 1, comprising a non-woven polycaprolactone fiber.
Claim 19 is directed to the scaffold complex of claim 1, wherein the hydrogel-binding moiety is covalently bonded to the outer surface of the polymer fiber, optionally through non-covalent bonds.
Claim 26 is directed to an implantable biomaterial comprising the scaffold complex of claim 1.
Lee et al is directed to biomaterial comprising hyaluronic acid (HA) binding peptides and bifunctional biopolymer molecules that aid in hyaluronic acid retention and tissue engineering applications. In particular, the biomaterial composition utilize a small HA binding peptide that is tethered to synthetic biocompatible polymers. When tethered to the polymer, the peptide region allows the polymers to bind to HA. The biocompatible polymers are modified to contain a crosslinking group so that the HA is incorporated into a scaffold and retained in place. The compositions are made into hydrogel compositions and used in a variety of tissue applications. The biomaterial comprising at least one polymer and one or mor HA binding peptides covalently linked to the polymer. In addition, the biomaterial compositions may be encapsulated (see entire document, especially, abstract; page 3, paragraph [0010]; pages 3-4, paragraph [0011]; page 4, paragraph [0013]; pages 54-57, claims 1-7, 15-17, 25, and 28-30).
Lee et al disclose that biomaterial such as hydrogels may be utilized for tissue engineering applications (page 9, paragraph [0036] and [0037]). The hydrogel composition comprises one or more polymers having one or more HA binding peptides (HABPep) covalently linked to the first biocompatible polymers as well as additional polymers (page 10, paragraph [0041]). Possible polymers that may be used include polyethylene glycol, polypropylene glycol, poly methyl vinyl ether, olioethylene, polyisobutylene, polytetrahydrofuran, polyoxytrimethylene, polydimethylsiloxane, polydimethylysilane, Nylon 6, Nylon 11, polyacrylonitrile, squalane, poly1,3,dioxolane, polyiminooligomethylene, polylysine, polyethyleneimine, polylysine, polylactic acid, polyadipate, alginate, dextran, collagen, and polycaprolactone (page 10, paragraph [0046]; page 15, paragraph [0069]). Possible polymers include homopolymers, block copolymers, heteropolymers, random copolymers, and graft copolymers (page 12, paragraph [0053]).
The polymeric composition may be incorporated, encapsulated, and entrapped in the polymer. For example, the biomaterial may be encapsulated in a microsphere and then combined with the polymer ins such a way that at least a portion of the microsphere is maintained. Alternatively, the biomaterial may be sufficiently immiscible in the polymer and dispersed as small droplets. Lee et al contemplated any form of encapsulation or incorporation of its biomaterial composition (pages 17-18, paragraph [0079]; page 18, paragraph [0080]).
Lee et al disclose the HA binding peptide GAHWQFNALTVR (Applicant’s elected species) on page 6, paragraph [0023] (see also, page 11, paragraph [0049]). In Example 1 (page 45), Lee et al disclose HA encapsulated polyethylene oxide diacrylate (PEODA) hydrogels. In Example 2 (page 45), Lee et al disclose a crosslinked HA peptide composition. In Example 7 (page 48), Lee et al disclose implanted scaffolds comprising the biomaterial compositions.
For the reasons set forth supra, the limitation of claims 1-6, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, and 20 are met.
Claim 20 is directed to the scaffold complex of claim 1, comprising a plurality of pores present on or within a surface of the scaffold complex, wherein the pores are present at a concentration of at least about 50 pores per cm2 of the surface, and wherein at least 80% of the pores have an average pore diameter on the surface is at least about 5 microns.
Lee et al disclose that at least biologically compatible polymer having one or more HA binding peptides covalently linked to the polymer is their invention (see entire document, especially, abstract; page 3, paragraph [0010]. Thus, the skilled artisan would recognize that one may have a plurality of particles (microspheres) present on the surface or within the scaffold complex. Furthermore, according to MPEP 2112.01, products (compositions) of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Thus, both Applicant’s biomaterial and that of the patented invention have inseparable properties. As a result, both compositions form scaffold complexes that operably bind in the same way and have overlapping pore characteristics. Hence, the limitations of claim 20 are rendered obvious.
For the reasons set forth herein, claims 1-6, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, 20, and 26 are rendered obvious by the cited prior art.
Comments/Notes
It should be noted that the full scope of Group was not searched as detailed supra.
Conclusion
Claims 1-6, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, 20, and 26 are rejected. Claims 8-10, 16, 21, 30, 31, 34, 39, and 40 are withdrawn.
Future Correspondences
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to D L Jones whose telephone number is (571)272-0617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Michael G. Hartley can be reached at (571)272-0616. 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.
/D. L. Jones/ 4/29/2026
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1618
Prosecution Insights