DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 17, 19, 20, 24, 27-29, 31, 34, 36, 38, 48, and 51-54 are currently pending in the instant application. Claims 7, 48, and 51-54 are withdrawn from consideration as being for non-elected subject matter. Claims 1, 5, 9, 17, 19, 20, 24, 27-29, 31, 34, 36, and 38 are rejected.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I and the species of formula 2001:
PNG
media_image1.png
118
280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in the reply filed on 12 February 2026 is acknowledged.
According to MPEP 803.02, the examiner has determined whether the elected species is allowable. Applicants’ elected species appears allowable. Therefore, the search and examination has been extended to the compounds:
PNG
media_image2.png
180
264
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image3.png
146
266
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image4.png
132
382
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image5.png
160
348
media_image5.png
Greyscale
which are not allowable.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 17, 19, 20, 24, 27-29, 31, 34, 36, and 38 have been examined to the extent that they are readable on the elected embodiment, the elected species and the above mentioned compounds.
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, 5, 9, 17, 19, 20, 24, 27-29, 31, 34, 36, and 38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, and 7-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,078,171. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the conflicting claims are drawn to products and methods of use of the formula I:
PNG
media_image6.png
130
220
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(conflicting claim 1), such as the formula (1087):
PNG
media_image7.png
148
396
media_image7.png
Greyscale
, conflicting claim 5, which either anticipates or renders obvious the instantly claimed invention as the difference, if any is one of being a positional isomer, compare instant claim 38, compound 2002:
PNG
media_image8.png
184
262
media_image8.png
Greyscale
which is a positional isomer of the conflicting compound 1087. However, nothing unobvious is seen in substituting the known claimed isomer for the structurally similar isomer, as taught by the reference patent, since such structurally related compounds suggest one another and would be expected to share common properties absent a showing of unexpected results. In re Norris, 84 USPQ 458 (1950). Additionally, please see MPEP 2144.09, Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978). The conflicting compound (1087) anticipates applicant’s instant claim 1, formula B:
PNG
media_image9.png
102
178
media_image9.png
Greyscale
, for example, wherein R1 and R2 are joined to form a heterocycle; L1 is CRa2 wherein Ra is hydrogen; Ar is a monocyclic aryl; L2 is -NRaS(O)t- wherein Ra is hydrogen and t is 2; Ar1 is polycyclic substituted aryl which is substituted with N(Ra)2 wherein Ra is alkyl. The compound corresponds to instant claim 5 wherein Ar1 is a disubstituted naphthalene. The compound corresponds to instant claim 9 wherein Ar is 1,4 disubstituted benzene. The compound corresponds to instant claim 17 wherein L1 is a linker -CH2-. The compound corresponds to instant claim 19, for example, wherein L2 is a linker -NHSO2-. The compound corresponds to instant claim 20 wherein NR1R2 is:
PNG
media_image10.png
76
74
media_image10.png
Greyscale
. The compound corresponds to instant claim 24 wherein Ar1 is substituted by -NR8R9 wherein R8 and R0 are each alkyl. The compound corresponds to a positional isomer of the formula III-a:
PNG
media_image11.png
176
178
media_image11.png
Greyscale
of instant claims 27-29, 31, 34, 36 wherein R3-R6 are each hydrogen; R1 and R2 together form
PNG
media_image12.png
72
82
media_image12.png
Greyscale
; L1 is -CH2-, L2 is -NHSO2-; and Ar1 is
PNG
media_image13.png
126
94
media_image13.png
Greyscale
.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 8-21 of U.S. Patent No.11,357,781. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the conflicting claims are drawn to methods of use of the formula of, for example,
PNG
media_image14.png
148
356
media_image14.png
Greyscale
(conflicting claim 21) which anticipates the instant product claims and corresponds to the instant claims formula B of instant claim 1:
PNG
media_image9.png
102
178
media_image9.png
Greyscale
, for example, wherein R1 and R2 are joined to form a heterocycle; L1 is CRa2 wherein Ra is hydrogen; Ar is a monocyclic aryl; L2 is -NRaC(O)- wherein Ra is hydrogen; Ar1 is monocyclic substituted aryl which is substituted with halo. The compound corresponds to instant claim 5 wherein Ar1 is a disubstituted benzene. The compound corresponds to instant claim 9 wherein Ar is 1,4 disubstituted benzene. The compound corresponds to instant claim 17 wherein L1 is a linker -CH2-. The compound corresponds to instant claim 19, for example, wherein L2 is a linker -NHCO-. The compound corresponds to instant claim 20 wherein NR1R2 is:
PNG
media_image10.png
76
74
media_image10.png
Greyscale
.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 8-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,911,392. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the conflicting claims are drawn to methods of use of the formula:
PNG
media_image15.png
144
364
media_image15.png
Greyscale
, such as the compound,
PNG
media_image14.png
148
356
media_image14.png
Greyscale
(conflicting claim 15) which anticipates the instant product claims and corresponds to the instant claims formula B of instant claim 1:
PNG
media_image9.png
102
178
media_image9.png
Greyscale
, for example, wherein R1 and R2 are joined to form a heterocycle; L1 is CRa2 wherein Ra is hydrogen; Ar is a monocyclic aryl; L2 is -NRaC(O)- wherein Ra is hydrogen; Ar1 is monocyclic substituted aryl which is substituted with halo. The compound corresponds to instant claim 5 wherein Ar1 is a disubstituted benzene. The compound corresponds to instant claim 9 wherein Ar is 1,4 disubstituted benzene. The compound corresponds to instant claim 17 wherein L1 is a linker -CH2-. The compound corresponds to instant claim 19, for example, wherein L2 is a linker -NHCO-. The compound corresponds to instant claim 20 wherein NR1R2 is:
PNG
media_image10.png
76
74
media_image10.png
Greyscale
.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 17, 19, 20, 24, 27-29, 31, 34, 36, and 38 arerejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 9-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,202,810. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the conflicting claims are drawn to products and methods of use of the formula:
PNG
media_image16.png
178
342
media_image16.png
Greyscale
such as the formula (1087):
PNG
media_image7.png
148
396
media_image7.png
Greyscale
conflicting specification column 10, which either anticipates or renders obvious the instantly claimed invention as the difference, if any, is one of being a positional isomer, compare instant claim 38, compound 2002:
PNG
media_image8.png
184
262
media_image8.png
Greyscale
which is a positional isomer of the conflicting compound 1087. However, nothing unobvious is seen in substituting the known claimed isomer for the structurally similar isomer, as taught by the reference patent, since such structurally related compounds suggest one another and would be expected to share common properties absent a showing of unexpected results. In re Norris, 84 USPQ 458 (1950). Additionally, please see MPEP 2144.09, Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978). The conflicting claims compounds of formula
PNG
media_image16.png
178
342
media_image16.png
Greyscale
anticipates applicant’s instant claim 1, formula B:
PNG
media_image9.png
102
178
media_image9.png
Greyscale
, for example, wherein R1 and R2 are joined to form a heterocycle; L1 is CRa2 wherein Ra is hydrogen, such as -CH2- (conflicting claim 2); Ar is a monocyclic aryl; L2 is -NRaS(O)t- wherein Ra is hydrogen and t is 2, such as NHSO2 (conflicting claim 3); Ar1 is polycyclic substituted aryl which is substituted with N(Ra)2 wherein Ra is alkyl, such as N(CH3)2 (conflicting claim 10). The compound corresponds to instant claim 5 wherein Ar1 is a disubstituted naphthalene. The compound corresponds to instant claim 9 wherein Ar is 1,4 disubstituted benzene. The compound corresponds to instant claim 17 wherein L1 is a linker -CH2-. The compound corresponds to instant claim 19, for example, wherein L2 is a linker -NHSO2-. The compound corresponds to instant claim 20 wherein NR1R2 is:
PNG
media_image10.png
76
74
media_image10.png
Greyscale
. The compound corresponds to instant claim 24 wherein Ar1 is substituted by -NR8R9 wherein R8 and R0 are each alkyl. The compound corresponds to a positional isomer of the formula III-a:
PNG
media_image11.png
176
178
media_image11.png
Greyscale
of instant claims 27-29, 31, 34, 36 wherein R3-R6 are each hydrogen; R1 and R2 together form
PNG
media_image12.png
72
82
media_image12.png
Greyscale
; L1 is -CH2-, L2 is -NHSO2-; and Ar1 is
PNG
media_image13.png
126
94
media_image13.png
Greyscale
.
Claim 1, 5, 9, 17, 19, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 41-43, 45-49, 52-54 and 56-58 of copending Application No. 18/416,532 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the conflicting claims are drawn to methods of use of the formula:
PNG
media_image17.png
128
474
media_image17.png
Greyscale
wherein L1 and L4 are defined as:
PNG
media_image18.png
62
614
media_image18.png
Greyscale
which anticipates the instantly claimed product claims of formula B:
PNG
media_image19.png
106
194
media_image19.png
Greyscale
as the conflicting methods utilize a compound which corresponds to example, wherein R1 and R2 are joined to form a heterocycle; L1 is, for example, CRa2 wherein Ra is hydrogen; Ar is a monocyclic aryl; L2 is, for example, -NRaC(O)- wherein Ra is hydrogen; Ar1 is monocyclic substituted aryl which is substituted with halo. The compound corresponds to instant claim 5 wherein Ar1 is a disubstituted benzene. The compound corresponds to instant claim 9 wherein Ar is 1,4 disubstituted benzene. The compound corresponds to instant claim 17 wherein L1 is a linker -CH2-. The compound corresponds to instant claim 19, for example, wherein L2 is a linker -NHCO-. The compound corresponds to instant claim 20 wherein NR1R2 is:
PNG
media_image10.png
76
74
media_image10.png
Greyscale
.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim 1 and its dependent claims 5, 7, 9, 17, 19, 20, and 24 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. Specifically, claim 1 defines L1 and L2:
PNG
media_image20.png
216
742
media_image20.png
Greyscale
. The use of the term “comprising” renders claim 1 and its dependent claims 5, 7, 9, 17, 19, 20 and 24 indefinite. In the abovementioned phrase, the term, “comprising”, is open-ended and thus, does not exclude additional, unrecited elements, according to MPEP 2111.03(I). Subsequently, it is unclear to the Examiner whether the abovementioned linker can have other than the abovementioned recited definitions or if a larger number of definitions can be present. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of this claim is unclear, which rendered this claim indefinite.
The term “comprising” or forms of the term are considered open-ended language and therefore include additional subject matter that is not described in the instant specification and is not particularly pointed out or distinctly claimed. The identity of the additional linkers or parts of linkers is unknown and how to determine the identity of the additional linkers or parts of linkers is not pointed out or distinctly claimed.
The term “compound” contradicts the open language "comprising." A "compound" is defined as a substance whose molecules consist of unlike elements and whose constituents cannot be separated by physical means. Grant & Hackh's Chemical Dictionary (5th Ed. 1987) at page 148. By contrast, a composition is defined as elements or compounds forming a material or produced from it by analysis. Id. In other words, a compound is a molecule with more than one element, and a composition is a mixture of two or more compounds or molecules.
The transitional term "comprising" is synonymous with "including", "containing", and "characterized by". "Comprising" is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Comprising” is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.); Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 229 USPQ 805 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686, 210 USPQ 795, 803 (CCPA 1981); Ex parte Davis, 80 USPQ 448, 450 (Bd. App. 1948) (“comprising” leaves “the claim open for the inclusion of unspecified ingredients even in major amounts”).
Thus, a contradiction arises within the definition of instant discussed variables in claims 1 and its dependent claims 5, 7, 9, 17, 19, 20 and 24 because a "compound" requires a definite chemical formula, and the open-ended term "comprising" does not exclude unrecited elements. Furthermore, "comprising", used in conjunction with "compound" fails to articulate exactly what subject matter is excluded from the claimed scope of compounds, thereby rendering the scope of claims 1 and 5, 7, 9, 17, 19, 20 and 24 indefinite
Regarding claims 5, 7, 9, 17, 19, 20 and 24 these claims are dependent on claim 1, and they fail to correct the indefiniteness issue of claim 1, which rendered these claims indefinite.
It is suggested that L1 and L2 be defined as “linkers independently selected from the group consisting of a bond, -NRa-……and disubstituted heteroarylalkyl.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 9, 17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2017/223284.
WO 2017/223284 discloses the compound 1033 on page 153 in claim 4:
PNG
media_image21.png
184
614
media_image21.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image22.png
28
534
media_image22.png
Greyscale
which is the compound:
PNG
media_image5.png
160
348
media_image5.png
Greyscale
. The compound 1033 corresponds to formula B of instant claim 1:
PNG
media_image9.png
102
178
media_image9.png
Greyscale
, for example, wherein R1 and R2 are joined to form a heterocycle; L1 is CRa2 wherein Ra is hydrogen; Ar is a monocyclic aryl; L2 is -NRaC(O)- wherein Ra is hydrogen; Ar1 is monocyclic substituted aryl which is substituted with halo. The compound 1033 corresponds to instant claim 5 wherein Ar1 is a disubstituted benzene. The compound 1033 corresponds to instant claim 9 wherein Ar is 1,4 disubstituted benzene. The compound 1033 corresponds to instant claim 17 wherein L1 is a linker -CH2-. The compound 1033 corresponds to instant claim 19, for example, wherein L2 is a linker -NHCO-. The compound 1033 corresponds to instant claim 20 wherein NR1R2 is:
PNG
media_image10.png
76
74
media_image10.png
Greyscale
.
Claim(s) 1 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ando et al. (Ando et al., Journal of Polymer Science, Part A: Polymer Chemistry (1992), 30(11), 2285-93).
Ando et al. provides the compound
PNG
media_image23.png
68
154
media_image23.png
Greyscale
in Figure 7, page 2290. The compound
PNG
media_image23.png
68
154
media_image23.png
Greyscale
corresponds to formula B of claim 1:
PNG
media_image9.png
102
178
media_image9.png
Greyscale
, for example, wherein R1 and R2 are each hydrogen; L1 is a bond; Ar is a monocyclic substituted aryl; L2 is a bond; and Ar1 is a monocyclic substituted aryl. Ar is substituted with alkyl and Ar1 is substituted with alkyl and N(Ra)2 wherein Ra is hydrogen. The compound
PNG
media_image23.png
68
154
media_image23.png
Greyscale
corresponds to instant claim 24 wherein Ar1 is substituted by a -NR8R9 group wherein R8 and R9 are each hydrogen.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 9, 19, 20, 27-29, 31, 34, and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Registry Number 250714-52-4.
Registry No. 250714-52-4 is
PNG
media_image4.png
132
382
media_image4.png
Greyscale
. This compound corresponds to formula B of instant claim 1:
PNG
media_image9.png
102
178
media_image9.png
Greyscale
, for example, wherein R1 and R2 are joined to form a heterocycle; L1 is a bond; Ar is a monocyclic aryl; L2 is -NRaC(O)- wherein Ra is hydrogen; Ar1 is monocyclic substituted aryl which is substituted with halo. The compound corresponds to instant claim 5 wherein Ar1 is a disubstituted benzene. The compound corresponds to instant claim 9 wherein Ar is 1,4 disubstituted benzene. The compound corresponds to instant claim 19, for example, wherein L2 is a linker -NHCO-. The compound corresponds to instant claim 20 wherein NR1R2 is:
PNG
media_image10.png
76
74
media_image10.png
Greyscale
. The compound corresponds to instant claim 27, for example, formula II-a:
PNG
media_image24.png
160
206
media_image24.png
Greyscale
wherein R3-R6 are each hydrogen; R1 and R2 form a heterocycle; L1 is not present and can therefore be any of the options; L2 is -NHCO-, Ar1 a substituted aryl ring. The compound corresponds to claims 28 and 29 wherein the -NR1R2 group is
PNG
media_image10.png
76
74
media_image10.png
Greyscale
. The compound corresponds to claim 31 wherein L1 is -CH2- as L1 can be any variable definition as it is not present on Formula II-a and claim 31 does not require a specific formula that contains L1. The compound corresponds to claim 34 wherein L2 is -NHCO-. The compound corresponds to claim 36 wherein Ar1 is
PNG
media_image25.png
84
104
media_image25.png
Greyscale
.
Registry number 250714-52-4is available as prior art as of 14 December 1999, the date it was indexed into the CAplus database.
See MPEP 2128: ELECTRONIC PUBLICATIONS AS PRIOR ART Status as a "Printed Publication" An electronic publication, including an on-line database or Internet publication, is considered to be a “printed publication” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and (b) provided the publication was accessible to persons concerned with the art to which the document relates. See In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 227, 210 USPQ 790, 795 (CCPA 1981) Since this date represents the date that each compound entered the CAPlus database on STN, this represents the date that each compound was made accessible to the public.
The aforementioned compound anticipates the instantly claimed compounds: It is further noted that for the purposes of determining if a reference is a “printed publication” for the purposes of 102(b), MPEP 2128 states the following:
PNG
media_image26.png
99
480
media_image26.png
Greyscale
where “prior art disclosures…on an on-line database are considered to be publicly available as of the date the item was publicly posted.” Since each of the database entries above lists the date that each compound was entered into the on-line database, the compounds were made publicly available as of that date in each citation, and the claims are anticipated.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA L ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-0696. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 6am-2pm.
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, Andrew Kosar can be reached at 571-272-0913. 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.
/REBECCA L ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1626 ____________________ 15 April 2026
Rebecca Anderson
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1626, Group 1620
Technology Center 1600