DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission, filed on 6 February 2026, has been entered.
Response to Amendments
Status of Claims
The amendment, filed on 6 February 2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 14, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 8 and 20 have been cancelled.
Claims 12-15 were previously withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a nonelected invention in the Office Action mailed on 12 June 2025
Claims are 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 16-19, and 21-24 are pending and under consideration in the instant Office Action, to the extent of the previously elected species poly(maleic acid-alt-1-octadecane) (PMHC18) as the amphiphilic polymer.
Objections Withdrawn
Objections to Drawings
Applicant’s amendment to pg. 39 of the specification, submitted on 6 February 2026, has overcome the objection to the drawings set forth in the non-final Office Action mailed on 12 June 2025, and maintained in the final Office Action mailed on 7 November 2025. Accordingly, the relevant objection is withdrawn.
Objections to Claims
Applicant’s amendments to claims 5-6, submitted on 6 February 2026, have overcome the objections to the claims set forth in the final Office Action mailed on 7 November 2025. Accordingly, the relevant objections are withdrawn.
Rejections Withdrawn
Rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112
The rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 has been rendered moot in view of Applicant’s cancellation of the claim.
Rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103
The rejections of claims 8 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been rendered moot in view of Applicant’s cancellation of the claims. The rejections of 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 16-19, and 21-24 are withdrawn/made anew below.
Nonstatutory double patenting rejections
The nonstatutory double patenting rejections of claims 8 and 20 have been rendered moot in view of Applicant’s cancellation of the claims.
Rejection Made Anew
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 16-19, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herkel et al. (European Patent Application Publication No. EP 2591801 A1, published on 15 May 2013, provided by Applicant in IDS filed on 22 February 2023, hereafter referred to as Herkel) and Wooster et al. (WIPO International Publication No. WO 2017/136652 A1, published on 10 August 2017, provided by Applicant in IDS filed on 22 February 2023, hereafter referred to as Wooster).
Herkel teaches pharmaceutical compositions comprising micellar nanoparticles made of amphiphilic polymers which have “a peptide comprising at least one T cell epitope associated with the outside of the micelle” and methods of generating regulatory T cells, preventing diseases and conditions, and treating diseases and conditions consisting of administering said compositions (Abstract). The micelle comprising amphiphilic polymers may have a solid hydrophobic core, preferably an inorganic core, which comprises iron oxide, CdSe, silver, or gold (para. [0012]).
Herkel teaches that the diameter of the nanoparticles is 1-999 nm or preferably “about 5 to about 500 nm (para. [0018]). In a preferred embodiment, the amphiphilic polymer forming the micelle is poly(maleic anhydride-alt-1-octadecene) (PMCH18) (para. [0010]). In another preferred embodiment, a nanoparticle comprising an iron oxide core coated with PMCH18 is taught to have a diameter of 9-12 nm (para. [0015]). As a “virtue of the polymer forming the micelle, [the nanoparticle] may be negative charged or uncharged, preferably, it is negatively charged” (para. [0016]).
The peptide is taught to preferably covalently linked to the outside of the micelles, but may also be non-covalently associated (para. [0017]). Herkel further teaches that the peptide comprising a T cell epitope is “preferably covalently linked to the micelles, e.g., by carbodiimide or succinimide coupling” (para. [0017]). The peptide is taught to be 8-1,000 amino acids, preferably 9-60 amino acids or 10-20 amino acids, and to comprise “at least one T cell epitope” (para. [0018]). Finally, the nanoparticles are taught to be contained within a pharmaceutical composition that can be administered to a subject to generate regulatory T cells (claims 1 and 15).
Herkel does not teach the Mn of PMCH18 to be 1,000-6,000 g/mol nor the pH of their invention. These deficiencies are offset by the teachings of Wooster.
Wooster teaches particles comprising conjugates of an active agent designed to deliver said active agent, methods of making the conjugates and particles, and methods of administering formulations containing the particles and conjugates to treat or prevent cancer or diseases (Abstract). The particles of Wooster’s invention may be polymeric nanoparticles, micelles of polymers and conjugates, or composition nanoparticles and the aforementioned conjugates may be encapsulated into the particles, embedded in the particle/medium interface, or “deposited on the surface of the particles” (para. [0007]). In an embodiment wherein the particles are polymeric, the polymers are taught to be hydrophobic, hydrophilic, or amphiphilic (para. [00149]). In the case that the polymers are amphiphilic, Wooster teaches that they may be copolymers of a hydrophobic polymer block and a hydrophilic polymer block, with one example of a hydrophobic polymer being poly(maleic acid) (para. [00168] and [00172]). In polymeric micellar nanoparticles made of amphiphilic polymers, the hydrophilic block is taught to comprise 40-70% w/w of the diblock copolymer and have a Mn of 500-20,000 daltons, while the hydrophobic block may be 30-60% w/w and have a Mn of 500-10,000 daltons, resulting in a total Mn range of 1,000-17,000 daltons (para. [00185]). This range of Mn is taught to be necessary because “[w]ithin this range, the micelle of the amphiphilic deblock copolymer can be maintained stably” (para. [00185]). The conjugates are taught in certain embodiments to be targeting ligands, such as peptides, examples of which include a “bispecific T-cell engager” (para. [0071]), regulatory T cell molecules (para. [00126]), or other peptides which bind to a “cell-surface receptor” (para. [0071]).
Wooster further teaches that their particles may comprise a solid, hydrophobic, inorganic core such as superparamagnetic nanoparticles of iron oxide, which are known as SPION (para. [00223]). The SPION cores are taught to be coated with inorganic materials such as silica or gold, with organic materials such as phospholipids or peptides, or with drugs, proteins, or plasmids (para. [00223]). In one embodiment, SPION cores are taught to be surrounded by oleic acid-poloxamer copolymers and the conjugate is linked to the exterior of the nanoparticle (para. [00224-00225]). The linker is taught to be cleavable or not-cleavable (claims 17-18) and attached to the particle covalently or non-covalently (para. [00147]). In one embodiment, a polymeric micelle that delivers an active agent is taught to have a pH value of 3.0-7.0 (para. [00174]). Finally, Wooster teaches that the diameter of the whole nanoparticle should be 10 nm – 10,000 nm, or “about 25 nm to about 250 nm” (para. [00150]).
Guidelines on the obviousness of similar and overlapping ranges, amounts, and proportions are provided in MPEP § 2144.05. With respect to claimed ranges which “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the above decisions, “the prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of ‘about 1-5%’ while the claim was limited to ‘more than 5%.’ The court held that ‘about 1-5%’ allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.” With respect to ranges or amounts that do not overlap but are merely close, courts held that a prima facie case of obviousness also exists. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). These guidelines apply to the number average molecular weights, pH values, and nanoparticle diameters of the teachings of Herkel and Wooster. In each case, the ranges taught by Herkel and Wooster either encompass or significantly overlap with the ranges recited in the instant claims, resulting in a prima facie case of obviousness.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing of the instant application, to modify the invention of Herkel with the teachings of Wooster to arrive at the invention of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 16-19, and 21-24 because combining prior art elements according to known methods yields predictable results. Herkel teaches a micellar nanoparticle made of PMCH18 with a solid hydrophobic core, which may comprise iron oxide, CdSe, silver, or gold, and a peptide comprising at least one T cell epitope either covalently linked to the exterior via carbodiimide or succinimide coupling or non-covalently associated with the exterior. Herkel further teaches that size of the peptide may be 8-2000 amino acids, preferably 10-20 amino acids, and that the outer diameter of the nanoparticle is preferably 5-500 nm. An ordinary skilled artisan would be motivated to use the teachings of Wooster to measure the pH of the invention of Herkel and adjust to be in the range of 3.0-7.0 because Herkel does not mention appropriate pH values and Wooster teaches the above range to be appropriate for nanoparticles that are intended to deliver active pharmaceutical agents, which is the application of the nanoparticles taught by Herkel. A person of ordinary skill in the art would further be motivated to try using lower average molecular weight polymers in view of the teachings of Wooster because Herkel only teaches the range 30,000-50,000 g/mol (Herkel, para. [0010]) and Wooster teaches that the Mn range of 1,000-17,000 daltons is necessary to maintain a stable micelle made from amphiphilic copolymers. It would be obvious to an artisan to try the lower range of molecular weight polymers, particularly in view of the teachings of Wooster, to produce a stable micelle and choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success leads to predictable results. As a result, there is a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the invention of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 16-19, and 21-24 in view of the teachings of Herkel and Wooster.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, filed on 6 February 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument from para. 2 of pg. 9 to the para. 2 of pg. 11 that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, the Herkel reference is directed to “nanoparticles for the targeted delivery of antigen to liver cells” (Herkel, Abstract) and the Wooster reference is directed to conjugate molecules comprising targeting moieties and active agents, which may be encapsulated within particles (Wooster, para. [0006]). These references are related because both teach methods of targeted treatment and are therefore considered analogous art. See MPEP § 2141.01(a). The combination of the references would be motivated because, as described above and repeated here in brief, Wooster provides information missing from the teachings of Herkel regarding suitable pH ranges for nanoparticles that deliver active pharmaceutical agents and Wooster teaches that lower Mn ranges can produce stable micelles made from amphiphilic copolymers, which would be obvious to an ordinary artisan to try. “An ‘obvious to try’ rationale may support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious where one skilled in the art is choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.” See MPEP § 2145.X.B. " [A] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).
In footnote 1 on pg. 10, Applicant argues that the T-cell engager taught by the Wooster reference is not equivalent to the T cell epitope recited in instant claim 1. The Examiner thanks the Applicant for this distinction and the rejection above has been updated accordingly.
In footnote 2 on pg. 10, Applicant expands on the argument regarding the combination of the Herkel and Wooster reference and argues that it “appears that the focus of Wooster” is on improving delivery of specific moieties to targeted areas rather than immune tolerization. As stated above, the two references are considered analogous art and the teachings of the references are proper to use in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 even if they address different problems than the instant invention. See MPEP § 2141.01(a). “A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Note that ‘same field of endeavor’ and ‘reasonably pertinent’ are two separate tests for establishing analogous art; it is not necessary for a reference to fulfill both tests in order to qualify as analogous art.” (bold added for emphasis). See also Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
From the penultimate para. of pg. 11 to para. 3 of pg. 12, Applicant argues that the combination of the teachings of the Wooster reference with the Herkel reference would change the principle of operation of the latter reference. In particular, Applicant states that because the Herkel reference teaches that in some embodiments additional targeting moieties are not required (final para. of pg. 11) and “[n]o where does Wooster teach or suggest a particle comprising an active agent in the absence of a targeting moiety” (para. 2, pg. 12) that the combination of Herkel and Wooster would change the principle of operation of Herkel. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and contends that Applicant is relying upon an embodiment that does not contain targeting moieties while disregarding embodiments that contain targeting moieties. The Herkel reference does teach the inclusion of targeting moieties in some embodiments, which the rejection referenced (vide supra), and the argument is therefore found unpersuasive.
In para. 5 of pg. 12, Applicant contends that the Herkel reference “does not teach a nanoparticle comprising an amphiphilic polymer having an Mn of 1,000-6,000 g/mol”. This point was acknowledged in the rejections presented in the Office Actions mailed on 12 June 2025, and 7 November 2025, and the limitation was rejected as being obvious in view of the combination of teachings from the Herkel and Wooster references – not in view of the teachings of the Herkel reference alone. As a result, Applicant’s argument is not found to be persuasive.
Finally, in the antepenultimate para. of pg. 12, Applicant has “incorporated herein by reference” their argument in the remarks filed on 11 September 2025, in response to the non-final Office Action mailed on 12 June 2025, regarding the surprising finding that their nanoparticles are easier to produce. Applicant has not provided an argument against the Office arguments in the final Office Action, mailed on 7 November 2025, regarding the failure to demonstrate unexpected results in accordance with MPEP § 716.02, and the argument is therefore found unpersuasive.
Maintained Rejections
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 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 16-19, and 21-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 5-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,016,931 B2 in view of Herkel (European Patent Application Publication No. EP 2591801 A1, published on 15 May 2013, provided by Applicant in IDS filed on 22 February 2023) and Wooster (WIPO International Publication No. WO 2017/136652 A1, published on 10 August 2017, provided by Applicant in IDS filed on 22 February 2023).
Claims 1-3 and 5-9 of patent ‘931 recite a pharmaceutical composition comprising three peptides covalently linked to the exterior of nanoparticles, said nanoparticles comprising “an amphiphilic polymer with a number average molecular weight (Mn) of 20,000 g/mol or less”. Claim 5 further limits the Mn of the amphiphilic polymer to be 1,000-6,000 g/mol. Claims 6-7 recite the amphiphilic polymer structure and one preferred polymer to be PMCH18. Claims 8-9 further recite the nanoparticles of their invention to have a solid iron oxide core and for the nanoparticle to have a diameter of “between 20 and 50 nm”.
The only differences between claims 1-3 and 5-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,016,931 B2 and instant claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 16-19, and 21-24 are that the claims of patent ‘931 do not recite the peptides to comprise at least one T cell epitope, the charge of the nanoparticles, nor the pH of the nanoparticles. These deficiencies are offset by the teachings of Herkel and Wooster.
Herkel and Wooster have been described above.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant application to measure the pH and charge of the nanoparticles of patent ‘931 in view of the teachings of Herkel and Wooster because the former teaches the charge to be “a virtue of the polymer forming the micelle”, which is the same polymer (PMCH18) as recited in patent ‘931, and the latter teaches the pH range of 3.0-7.0 to be suitable for nanoparticles that are in pharmaceutical compositions to treat patients. Further, an artisan would be motivated to either confirm the peptides recited by patent ‘931 comprise T cell epitopes or to substitute the peptides for ones that comprise at least one T cell epitope in view of the teachings of Herkel because the reference teaches that autoimmune diseases may result from insufficient control of autoreactive lymphocytes (Herkel, para. [0002]). An artisan would reasonably expect that using peptides containing T cell epitopes linked to the exterior of the nanoparticles recited by patent ‘931 would have utility in treating autoimmune diseases, as taught by Herkel (Herkel, para. [0003-0004]). As a result, there is a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the invention of instant claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 16-19, and 21-24 in view of claims 1-3 and 5-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,016,931 B2 and the teachings of Herkel and Wooster.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 16-19, and 21-24 are directed to an invention not patentably distinct from claims 1-3 and 5-9 of commonly assigned U.S. Patent No. 12,016,931 B2 in view of Herkel and Wooster. Specifically, see above.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may not institute a derivation proceeding in the absence of a timely filed petition. The USPTO normally will not institute a derivation proceeding between applications or a patent and an application having common ownership (see 37 CFR 42.411). Commonly assigned U.S. Patent No. 12,016,931 B2, discussed above, may form the basis for a rejection of the noted claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 if the commonly assigned case qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and the patentably indistinct inventions were not commonly owned or deemed to be commonly owned not later than the effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 100(I) of the claimed invention.
In order for the examiner to resolve this issue the applicant or patent owner can provide a statement under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and 37 CFR 1.104(c)(4)(i) to the effect that the subject matter and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person. Alternatively, the applicant or patent owner can provide a statement under 35 U.S.C. 102(c) and 37 CFR 1.104(c)(4)(ii) to the effect that the subject matter was developed and the claimed invention was made by or on behalf of one or more parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; the application must also be amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement.
A showing that the inventions were commonly owned or deemed to be commonly owned not later than the effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 100(i) of the claimed invention will preclude a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 based upon the commonly assigned case. Alternatively, applicant may take action to amend or cancel claims such that the applications, or the patent and the application, no longer contain claims directed to patentably indistinct inventions.
Response to Arguments
In para. 1 of pg. 13 of the remarks filed on 6 February 2026, Applicant “requests that the instant [nonstatutory double patenting] rejections be held in abeyance”. A complete response to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection is either a reply by the Applicant showing that the claims subject to the restriction are patentably distinct from the reference claims, or the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321 in the pending application(s) with a reply to the Office action (see MPEP § 1490 for a discussion of terminal disclaimers). Such a response is required even when the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is provisional.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean J. Steinke, Ph.D., whose telephone number is (571) 272-3396. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri., 09:00 - 17:00 ET.
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, David Blanchard, can be reached at (571) 272-0827. 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.
/S.J.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/DAVID J BLANCHARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1619