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 .
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous Office Actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied, and constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/17/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1, 2, 6-8, and 13-14 are directed to an allowable product. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(B), claim 15, directed to the process of making or using an allowable product, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, is hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Because all claims previously withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142 have been rejoined, the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 5/14/2025 is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Status
Claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 1, 2, and 6 are currently amended. All other claims have been previously presented.
Priority
The instant application is the 371 national stage entry of PCT/EP2021/056996, filed 3/18/2021, which claims priority to EP20164053.9, filed 3/18/2020. The priority date of 3/18/2020 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 2 recites “The polypeptide, wherein the TRBD of the ferritin variant comprises at least an amino acid sequence selected from the group comprising…” (emphasis added). This claim is being interpreted as a peptide comprising any one of SEQ ID NO: 6, 8-17, 20-32, 35-47, and 50-62, wherein a peptide or protein encompassing or containing the entirety of any one of those SEQ ID NO’s meets the limitation of the claim. Conversely, smaller fragments encompassed by any one of those SEQ ID NO’s (i.e., dipeptides) are being interpreted as not meeting the limitations of the claim. This same interpretation is being applied to claims 3 and 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 3-5, 9-12, and 16-19 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 3 recites the polypeptide further comprising an amino acid sequence having at least 90% identity to a sequence selected from SEQ ID NO: 64-70, 78-80, and 87. SEQ ID NO: 65 has a number of X residues defined as any naturally-occurring amino acid but preferably a specific amino acid. The scope of this claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether the X residues of SEQ ID NO: 65 can be any amino acid or should be limited to the preferred amino acid. For purposes of examination, the X residues of SEQ ID NO: 665 are being interpreted as any naturally-occurring amino acid.
Additionally, regarding claim 3, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “100%”, and the claim also recites “90%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Further, by virtue of their dependency on claim 3, claims 4-5 and 16-19 are also hereby rejected for this same reasoning.
Claim 4 recites the polypeptide of claim 3, wherein one, two, three or four, preferably four, lysine residues within the TRBD are deleted or substituted with a non-basic amino acid. The scope of this claim is indefinite, as it is unclear whether there should be four deletions or substitutions or fewer than four. For purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted as 1-4 lysine residues are deleted or substituted.
Further, by virtue of their dependency on claim 3, claims 16-19 are also hereby rejected for this same reasoning.
Claim 5 recites the polypeptide according to claim 3, wherein one or more cysteine residues are deleted or substituted, preferably substituted with serine residues. The scope of this claim is indefinite, as it is unclear whether the substitutions are limited to only replacing serine residues with cysteine residues or if the serine residues can be substituted with any other amino acid. For purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted the cysteine residues are substituted with serine residues.
Claim 9 recites a complex comprising at least one polypeptide of claim 1 and/or at least one conjugate of claim 8. The instant specification states that the phrase “complex comprising polypeptide and/or at least one conjugate” refers to a complex formed by one or more polypeptides of the first, second or third aspect of the invention, by one or more conjugates of the fifth aspect of the invention, or by at least one polypeptide of the first, second, or third aspects of the invention and at least one conjugate of the fifth aspect of the invention (see Instant Pg 23, third paragraph). The scope of this claim is indefinite as it is unclear what exactly “a complex” comprises, particularly in light of the definition provided in the instant specification, which defines a complex as a complex. For purposes of examination, a complex is being interpreted as an oligomer or multimer of either polypeptides or conjugates comprising said polypeptides.
By virtue of its dependency on claim 9, claim 10 is hereby also rejected for this same reasoning.
Claim 11 recites the following limitations concerning the conjugated label and/or drug:
• “a fluorescent dye, in particular a fluorescent dye selected from the group consisting
of…” in lines 3-6;
• “a radioisotope/fluorescence emitting isotope, in particular a radioisotope/fluorescence
emitting isotope selected from the group consisting of….” in lines 7-15;
• “a detectable polypeptide, in particular an autofluorescent protein, preferably green
fluorescent protein or any structural variant thereof” in lines 16-18;
• “a contrast agent, in particular a contrast agent comprising a paramagnetic agent,
preferably selected from Gd, Edu, W, and Mn or ferrihydride” in lines 19-20; and
• “the drug is selected from the group consisting of an anticancer drug, in particular a
cytostatic drug, cytotoxic drug or prodrug thereof, an anti-arteriosclerotic drug, and an
anti-inflammatory or immunomodulatory drug” in lines 21-23 (emphasis added).
The scope of this claim is indefinite. Regarding the fluorescent dye and
radioisotope/fluorescence emitting isotope, it is unclear whether the scope encompasses any
fluorescent dye or radioisotope/fluorescence emitting isotope or is limited to members of the recited groups. Regarding the detectable polypeptide, it is unclear whether the scope
encompasses any detectable polypeptide or is limited to an autofluroescent protein or, more
specifically, is limited to a green fluorescent protein or structural variant thereof. Regarding the
contrast agent, it is unclear whether the scope encompasses any contrast agent or is limited to
a paramagnetic agent or, more specifically, one of Gd, Edu, W, Mn or ferrihydride. Finally,
regarding the drug, it is unclear whether the scope encompasses any anticancer drug or the
specific types of cancer drugs recited subsequently. For examination purposes, the claims is
being interpreted as the label can be any fluorescent dye, a radioisotope/fluorescence emitting
isotope, a detectable polypeptide, contrast agent, or anticancer drug.
Further regarding claim 11, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because
it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention (see
line 10, where “such as” is repeated twice). See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 12 recites the conjugate of claim 8 comprising a drug, wherein the drug is an
auristatin, in particular MMAE. The scope of this claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether
it encompasses any auristatin or is limited to MMAE. For examination purposes, the claims is
being interpreted as the drug is any auristatin.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 5, claim 3 recites SEQ ID NO: 78, which is further modified in claim 5 by the deletion or substitution of one or more cysteine residues. However, SEQ ID NO: 78 does not have any cysteine residues to mutate; therefore, claim 5 does not further limit claim 3 form which it depends.
Regarding claim 10, claim 9 recites a complex comprising at least one polypeptide of claim 1 and/or at least one conjugate of claim 8. Claim 10 does not further limit claim 9 because it merely recites the complex comprises at least one label and/or at least one drug, which is included in the conjugate of claim 9.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for treatment of a subset of diseases, does not reasonably provide enablement for treatment of any or all diseases, disorders, or conditions at large. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The Applicant’s attention is drawn to In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (CAFC1988) at 1404 where the court set forth eight factors to consider when assessing if a disclosure would have required undue experimentation. Citing Ex parte Forman, 230 USPQ 546 (BdApls 1986) at 547 the court recited eight factors:
(1) The nature of the invention; (2) the state of the prior art; (3) the relative skill of those in the art; (4) the predictability or unpredictability of the art; (5) the breadth of the claims; (6) the amount of direction or guidance presented; (7) the presence or absence of working examples; and (8) the quantity of experimentation necessary.
1) Nature of the invention and 5) breadth of the claims: The claim is drawn to a method
of treatment comprising administering a ferritin variant polypeptide as recited in claim 1 to a patient in need thereof; although the claim recites only treatment, the instant specification defines treatment as including all types of preventative and/or therapeutic interventions medically allowed for the purpose of cure, temporary remission, prevention, etc. for different purposes including delaying or stopping the progression of a disease, making a lesion regress or disappear, preventing onset, or inhibiting recurrence (see instant Pg 46, second paragraph). In other words, treatment is defined to include both treatment and prevention. Thus, the claim is drawn to a method of treating or preventing any disease, disorder, or condition, as no limitations regarding the disease, disorder, or condition are specified in the claim.
Thus, the claims broadly encompass the treatment or prevention of any disease or any disorder or any condition by of the ferritin variants recited in claim 1.
2) State of the prior art and 4) predictability or unpredictability of the art: The state of the art at the time of filing did not recognize that the instantly claimed ferritin variants could treat and/or prevent a wide array of disease, disorders, or conditions. For instance, while Applicants are enabled for treating a subset of cancers (see instant Pg 51, Example 7), the art does not recognize that cancer can be prevented, let alone with one of the instantly claimed polypeptides. There are several examples, discussed below, that suggest that therapeutic prevention of cancer might be possible someday but is presently not an option.
One such example is Cuzick et al. (Overview of the main outcomes in breast-cancer prevention trials. Lancet. 2003 Jan 25;361(9354):296-300.). Cuzick teaches that tamoxifen can reduce the risk of ER-positive breast cancer. However, Cuzick does not recommend tamoxifen as a preventive agent because continued research into specific subgroups of high-risk but healthy women is first needed (Pg 299, second column, first paragraph).
As another example, Schiffman et al. teach that primary prevention through vaccination against HPV might be possible in young women (The promise of global cervical-cancer prevention. N Engl J Med. 2005 Nov 17;353(20):2101-4.; Pg 2101, third column, first paragraph). However, they also teach that vaccine evaluations are ongoing (Pg 2103, third column, first paragraph). In addition, the most promising vaccines designed against HPV types 16 and 18 would only prevent 70 percent of cervical cancer cases at best (Pg 2103, second column, first paragraph). Therefore, there is still no vaccine that can definitively prevent cancer.
Other promising candidates for cancer prevention include tumor-associated antigen vaccines (Evans TR, Kaye SB. Vaccine therapy for cancer--fact or fiction? QJM. 1999 Jun;92(6):299-307.) and lunasin, a soy-derived peptide (Hernández-Ledesma B, Hsieh CC, de Lumen BO. Lunasin, a novel seed peptide for cancer prevention. Peptides. 2009 Feb;30(2):426-30.; Abstract.). However, in each of these studies, the authors indicate that additional research is required before such they can be greenlit as preventative therapeutics.
Thus, one skilled in the art would reasonably predict that the instantly claimed ferritin variants would not be able to treat and/or prevent cancer broadly.
3) The relative skill of those in the art: The relative skill of those in the art is high.
6) The amount of direction or guidance presented: At the time of filing, no direction or
guidance was presented in either the prior art or the instant specification that would enable one to administer a ferritin variant of claim 1 to treat and/or prevent any or all diseases, disorders, or conditions as claimed.
7) The presence or absence of working examples: As stated above, the instant Examples provided demonstrate in vitro treatment of cancer cell lines MDA-MB 231, Skov3, and 4T1 (breast and ovarian cancer cell lines). However, the instant specification provides no other examples wherein any of the ferritin variants of claim 1 are administered to treat and/or prevent another disease, disorder, or condition.
8) The quantity of experimentation necessary: As there are only a few working examples
in the instant specification, reasonable guidance with respect to treating or preventing a disease, disorder, or condition through administration of a ferritin variant as recited in claim 1 was limited. Consequently, one skilled in the art would be burdened with undue experimentation to determine the precise parameters and conditions necessary to effectively treat and/or prevent any disease, disorder, or condition with the aforementioned ferritin variants.
Therefore, in view of the Wands factors, Applicants fail to provide information sufficient to practice the claimed invention for the treatment and/or prevention of a disease, disorder, or condition.
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 1-6, 8-14, and 16-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,464,879 B2 (US ‘879). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims anticipate the claims of US ‘879.
The claims of US ‘879 are drawn to an isolated targeted delivery system comprising a macrophage comprising within said macrophage a complex of ferritin and an anti-cancer drug, wherein the anti-cancer drug is encapsulated within a ferritin multimer, and wherein there is no covalent or non-covalent bond between the ferritin and the anti-cancer drug.
Claims 1-6 and 8-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,485,192 B2 (US ‘192). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims anticipate the claims of US ‘192.
In Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 95 USPQ2d 1797 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the Court determined that Claims of a later patent were held invalid for obviousness-type double patenting when the earlier patent claimed a compound and disclosed its utility in specification, and later patent claimed a method of using compound for use described in specification of earlier patent. In the present case, the specification teaches that the instantly claimed ferritin variants, conjugates, complexes, compositions, and isolated targeted delivery systems thereof can be used to diagnose a tumor (Pg 4, second paragraph).
The claims of US ‘192 are drawn to a method for diagnosing a tumor, comprising (a) administering to a subject in need thereof a CD45+ leukocyte cell comprising within said cell a complex of ferritin and a radioisotope to diagnose the tumor; wherein the CD45+ leukocyte cell is a monocyte or a macrophage; wherein the radioisotope is encapsulated by multimers of the ferritin in the absence of a covalent bond; and wherein the CD45+ leukocyte cell delivers the radioisotope into tumor cells; and (b) detecting a concentration of the radioisotope in the tumor cells; wherein an increased concentration of the radioisotope in tumors cells, as compared to cells in other regions of the subject’s body, provides a diagnosis of a tumor.
Claims 1-6 and 8-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/951,987 (‘987 reference application; claim set filed 1/9/2025). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims anticipate the claims of copending Application No. ‘987.
In Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 95 USPQ2d 1797 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the Court determined that Claims of a later patent were held invalid for obviousness-type double patenting when the earlier patent claimed a compound and disclosed its utility in specification, and later patent claimed a method of using compound for use described in specification of earlier patent. In the present case, the specification teaches that the instantly claimed ferritin variants, conjugates, complexes, compositions, and isolated targeted delivery systems thereof can be used to treat or prevent tumors, inflammatory disease, or ischemic areas (Pg 4, second paragraph).
The claims of copending Application No. ‘987 are drawn to a method of treating or preventing tumors, inflammatory disease or ischemic areas comprising administration of an effective amount of an isolated targeted delivery system comprising CD45+ leukocyte cell comprising within said cell a complex of one or more iron binding proteins and an active ingredient to a patient in need thereof or comprising a macrophage comprising a complex of ferritin and auristatin.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-6 and 8-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of copending Application No. 17/931,576 (‘576 reference application; claim set filed 1/13/2026; allowed on 3/26/2026). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims anticipate the claims of copending Application No. ‘576.
The claims of copending Application No. ‘576 are drawn to an isolated delivery system comprising a CD45+ leukocyte cell comprising within said cell a complex of an iron binding protein and an active ingredient, wherein the CD45+ leukocyte cell is a monocyte or a differentiated monocyte, and wherein the iron binding protein and the active ingredient are covalently bound.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11, 16-20, and 23-26 of copending Application No. 18/551,020 (‘020 reference application; claim set filed 4/4/2024). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims anticipate the claims of copending Application No. ‘020.
The claims of copending Application No. ‘020 are drawn to a ferritin variant polypeptide wherein at least one to at least four lysine residues are deleted or substituted with a non-basic amino acid.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Sara E Konopelski Snavely whose telephone number is (571)272-1841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6pm 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, Melissa L Fisher can be reached at 571-270-7430. 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.
/SARA E KONOPELSKI SNAVELY/Examiner, Art Unit 1658
/Melissa L Fisher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1658
Prosecution Insights