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 .
DETAILED ACTION
RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Status of Application/Amendments/claims
2. Applicant’s amendment filed January 29, 2026 is acknowledged. Claim 3 is amended. Claims 1-15 are pending in this application. Claims 7-15 are withdrawn without traverse (filed 07/18/2025) from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 18, 2025.
3. Claims 1-6 are under examination with respect to structure F13 in this office action.
4. Applicant’s arguments filed on January 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections/Objections Withdrawn
5. The objection to claim 3 is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendment to the claim.
Claim Rejections/Objections Maintained
In view of the amendment filed on January 29, 2026, the following rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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 stand 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 a fentanyl hapten-carrier conjugate F1-CRM2, F6-CRM2 or F12-CRM2 in reducing serum/brain fentanyl or vaccine formulations: F1-CRM1/CRM2/Alum, F2-sKLH/Alum, F2-CRM1/Alum, F3-sKLH/Alum, F4-sKLH/Alum, F5-sKLH/Alum and F6-CRM2/Alum, and wherein the fentanyl hapten carrier conjugate F1-CRM1/CRM2, F2-sKLH, F2-CRM1, F3-sKLH, F4-sKLH, F5-sKLH or F6-CRM2 has a specific haptenization ratio between F1-F6 hapten and sKLH/CRM1/CRM2 as shown Table 2 and Tables 11-12 or, does not reasonably provide enablement for a fentanyl hapten comprising the structure of F13 (elected), F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9a, F9b, F10, F11, or F12 recited in claim 1; or a fentanyl hapten-carrier conjugate comprising the claimed structure of F13 (elected), F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9a, F9b, F10, F11, or F12 conjugated to all immunogenic carriers as broadly claimed. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. The rejection is maintained for the reasons of record and the reasons set forth below.
Claims 1 and 5 as amended are drawn to a fentanyl hapten comprising the structure of F13 (elected), F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9a, F9b, F10, F11, or F12 and a composition comprising the claimed fentanyl hapten.
Claims 2-4 and 6 as amended are drawn to a fentanyl hapten-carrier conjugate comprising the claimed fentanyl hapten and a genus of immunogenic carrier including CRM, wherein the fentanyl hapten is conjugated to the immunogenic carrier, and a composition comprising the claimed fentanyl hapten-carrier conjugate. Claim 4 is directed to a fentanyl hapten-carrier conjugate wherein the number of fentanyl hapten molecules per immunogenic carrier is at least 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 40 or 50.
Response to Arguments
On p. 14 of the response, Applicant argues that i) the office action acknowledges that the specification describes synthesis of the compositions recited in claims 1-2; ii) neither claim 1 nor claim 2 recites a particular use of the compositions; iii) Applicant’s specification enables a skilled artisan to use the fentanyl-hapten carrier conjugates in an ELISA assay (see p. 56, lines 26-29; p.60, lines 20-23; p.63, table 2, p.88, lines 2-7; p.91, lines 13-16; p.92, table 11; iv) the unpredictability of in vivo efficacy of fentanyl-hapten-carrier conjugate is irrelevant. Applicant further cites MPEP2164.01(c) in support of the arguments.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive. Contrary to Applicant's arguments, the examiner asserts that based on MPEP §2164, MPEP §§2164.01-2164.06(b) & 2164.08, the specification provides insufficient guidance to enable a skilled artisan to practice the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation because of the following:
i. There is no structural and functional relationship or correlation between the claimed fentanyl haptens only comprising the structures recited in claims 1 and 5, and the fentanyl hapten-carrier conjugate: F1-CRM, F6-CRM2 or F12-CRM in reducing serum/brain fentanyl shown in Fig 20C-D.
Claims 1 and 5 are directed to fentanyl haptens only comprising the structures recited in claims 1 and 5, not the fentanyl hapten-carrier conjugate as argued in the response.
Even if Applicant can synthesize the claimed fentanyl haptens, the specification does not provide sufficient guidance to demonstrate that the claimed fentanyl haptens comprising the structures recited in claim 1 without any carrier or conjugate have any activity or have the activity to induce an antibody against fentanyl, sufentanil, alfentanil, remifentanil or off-target opioids including Buprenorphine, Naloxone, Naltrexone and Methadone as F1-CRM1/CRM2/Alum, F2-sKLH/Alum, F2-CRM1/Alum, F3-sKLH/Alum, F4-sKLH/Alum, F5-sKLH/Alum and F6-CRM2/Alum shown in Table 2 or 11-12(see p. 63, Table 2; p. 92-99, Table 11-12).
Thus, it is unpredictable whether the claimed fentanyl haptens comprising the recited structures has any activity or utility as a vaccine or in producing an antibody against fentanyl, sufentanil, alfentanil, remifentanil or off-target opioids including Buprenorphine, Naloxone, Naltrexone and Methadon as F1-CRM1/CRM2/Alum, F2-sKLH/Alum, F2-CRM1/Alum, F3-sKLH/Alum, F4-sKLH/Alum, F5-sKLH/Alum and F6-CRM2/Alum. Thus, a skilled artisan cannot contemplate how to use the claimed fentanyl haptens comprising the structures recited in claim 1.
ii. There is no structural and functional relationship or correlation between a fentanyl hapten comprising the structure of F13 or a fentanyl hapten-carrier conjugate comprising the claimed fentanyl hapten having the structure of F13 and the fentanyl hapten-carrier conjugate: F1-CRM, F6-CRM or F12-CRM in reducing serum/brain fentanyl shown in Fig 20C-D
The specification does not disclose what the activity of a fentanyl hapten comprising the structure of F13 recited in claim 1 is or what the activity of a fentanyl hapten-carrier conjugate comprising the claimed fentanyl hapten comprising the structure of F13 recited in claim 2 is.
For the elected species: the structure of F13, based on Applicant’s own admission on p. 28 of the instant specification (or paragraph [0135] of the published specification), Fentanyl hapten-carrier conjugates including the F1, F11, or F13 haptens conjugated to CRM were not effective in reducing effects of carfentanil-, fentanyl-, or carfentanil and fentanyl-induced antinociception in the hot plate test, respiratory depression indicated by oxygen saturation % and measured by oximetry, and bradycardia indicated by heart rate and measured by oximetry (see figures 16-19, p.97-99, tables 8A-C~11A-C).
PNG
media_image1.png
436
756
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
420
772
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
434
774
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
332
618
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The specification does not disclose that a fentanyl hapten comprising the structure of F13 recited in claim 1 or a fentanyl hapten-carrier conjugate comprising the claimed fentanyl hapten comprising the structure of F13 recited in claim 2 has any activity. It is unpredictable what the activity of the claimed fentanyl hapten comprising the structure of F13 recited in claim 1 or the claimed fentanyl hapten-carrier conjugate comprising the claimed fentanyl hapten having the structure of F13 conjugated to an immunogenic carrier recited in claim 2 is. It is also unpredictable whether the fentanyl hapten with the structure of F13 or the fentanyl hapten-carrier conjugate comprising the claimed fentanyl hapten with the structure of F13 have any activity as vaccine formulations: F1-CRM1/CRM2/Alum, F2-sKLH/Alum, F2-CRM1/Alum, F3-sKLH/Alum, F4-sKLH/Alum, F5-sKLH/Alum and F6-CRM2/Alum for their in vivo efficacy as shown in Table 2 and Tables 11-12. Thus, a skilled artisan cannot contemplate how to use the claimed invention.
iii. For Fentanyl-induced antinociception, based on Applicant’s own admission, F4-sKLH has no significant effect (Fig 2A), F7-sKLH has no effect (Fig 2B); ii) F1-sKLH, F4-sKLH, F5-sKLH, F6-CRM2 has no significant effect on Brain fentanyl (Fig 12C); iii) F1-CRM2, F8-CRM2, F9a-CRM1, F9b-CRM1 and F10-CRM1 has no effect on post challenge (Fig 13). Thus, a skilled artisan cannot contemplate how to use the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
The scope of the claims must bear a reasonable correlation with the scope of enablement (In re Fisher, 166 USPQ 19 24 (CCPA 1970)). Without such guidance, it is unpredictable whether the claimed fentanyl hapten comprising the structure of F13 recited in claim 1 or the claimed fentanyl hapten-carrier conjugate comprising the claimed fentanyl hapten having the structure of F13 conjugated to an immunogenic carrier recited in claim 2 has any activity; and thus the experimentation left to those skilled in the art is extensive and undue. See Ex parte Forman, 230 USPQ 546 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1986). Thus, the skilled artisan cannot readily make and use the claimed invention as currently claimed without further undue experimentation. Note that
“The ‘predictability or lack thereof’ in the art refers to the ability of one skilled in the art to extrapolate the disclosed or known results to the claimed invention. If one skilled in the art can readily anticipate the effect of a change within the subject matter to which the claimed invention pertains, then there is predictability in the art. On the other hand, if one skilled in the art cannot readily anticipate the effect of a change within the subject matter to which that claimed invention pertains, then there is lack of predictability in the art. Accordingly, what is known in the art provides evidence as to the question of predictability. In particular, the court in In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 223-24, 169 USPQ 367, 369-70 (CCPA 1971)” See MPEP § 2164.03
The instant specification is not enabling because one cannot follow the guidance presented therein and practice the claimed method without first making a substantial inventive contribution.
Therefore, in view of the breadth of the claims, the lack of guidance in the specification, the unpredictability of inventions, and the current status of the art, undue experimentation would be required by one of skill in the art to perform in order to practice the claimed invention as it pertains to a fentanyl hapten comprising the structure of F13 recited in claim 1 or a fentanyl hapten-carrier conjugate comprising the claimed fentanyl hapten comprising the structure of F13 conjugated to an immunogenic carrier recited in claim 2.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. Claims 1-6 stand 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The rejection is maintained for the reasons of record and the reasons set forth below.
Claims 1 and 5 as amended encompasses a genus of fentanyl hapten comprising the structure of F13 (elected), F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9a, F9b, F10, F11, or F12 and a composition comprising the claimed fentanyl hapten.
Claims 2-4 and 6 as amended encompass a genus of fentanyl hapten-carrier conjugate comprising the claimed fentanyl hapten and a genus of immunogenic carrier including CRM, wherein the fentanyl hapten is conjugated to the immunogenic carrier. Claim 4 encompasses a genus of fentanyl hapten-carrier conjugate wherein the number of fentanyl hapten molecules per immunogenic carrier is at least 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 40 or 50.
Response to Arguments
On p. 15 of the response, Applicant argues that the specification discloses a structural chemical formula of F13 that is sufficiently detailed to show Applicant was in possession of the claimed hapten F13 and the claimed invention. Applicant further cites Figure 10 and p. 41 of the specification and MPEP2163.02 in support of the arguments.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive. Contrary to Applicant's arguments, the examiner asserts that based on MPEP §2163, MPEP §§2163.01-2163.03, the specification fails to provide sufficient description or information or evidence to demonstrate that Applicant is in possession of the claimed genus of fentanyl hapten comprising the structure of F13 (elected), F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9a, F9b, F10, F11, or F12 and the claimed genus of fentanyl hapten-carrier conjugate thereof because:
i. There is no well-established structural and functional relationship or correlation between the claimed fentanyl haptens only comprising the structures recited in claims 1 and 5, and the fentanyl hapten-carrier conjugate: F1-CRM, F6-CRM2 or F12-CRM in reducing serum/brain fentanyl shown in Fig 20C-D.
Even if Applicant can synthesize the claimed fentanyl haptens, the specification does not provide sufficient information or evidence to demonstrate that Applicant is in possession of the claimed fentanyl haptens comprising the structures recited in claim 1 without any carrier or conjugate have any activity or have the activity to induce an antibody against fentanyl, sufentanil, alfentanil, remifentanil or off-target opioids including Buprenorphine, Naloxone, Naltrexone and Methadone as F1-CRM1/CRM2/Alum, F2-sKLH/Alum, F2-CRM1/Alum, F3-sKLH/Alum, F4-sKLH/Alum, F5-sKLH/Alum and F6-CRM2/Alum shown in Table 2 or 11-12(see p. 63, Table 2; p. 92-99, Table 11-12).
ii. There is no well-established structural and functional relationship or correlation between a fentanyl hapten comprising the structure of F13 and the fentanyl hapten-carrier conjugate: F1-CRM, F6-CRM or F12-CRM in reducing serum/brain fentanyl shown in Fig 20C-D.
There is also no well-established structural and functional relationship or correlation between a fentanyl hapten-carrier conjugate comprising the claimed fentanyl hapten having the structure of F13 and the fentanyl hapten-carrier conjugate: F1-CRM, F6-CRM or F12-CRM in reducing serum/brain fentanyl shown in Fig 20C-D.
Based on Applicant’s own admission on p. 28 of the instant specification (or paragraph [0135] of the published specification), Fentanyl hapten-carrier conjugates including the F1, F11, or F13 (elected) haptens conjugated to CRM were not effective in reducing effects of carfentanil-, fentanyl-, or carfentanil and fentanyl-induced antinociception in the hot plate test, respiratory depression indicated by oxygen saturation % and measured by oximetry, and bradycardia indicated by heart rate and measured by oximetry (see figures 16-19, p.97-99, tables 8A-C~11A-C).
The specification provides no well-established structural and functional relationship or correlation between a fentanyl hapten comprising the structure of F13 recited in claim 1 or a fentanyl hapten-carrier conjugate comprising the claimed fentanyl hapten comprising the structure of F13 recited in claim 2 and the fentanyl hapten-carrier conjugate: F1-CRM, F6-CRM or F12-CRM in reducing serum/brain fentanyl shown in Fig 20C-D.
The specification does not disclose what the activity of a fentanyl hapten comprising the structure of F13 recited in claim 1 is or what the activity of a fentanyl hapten-carrier conjugate comprising the claimed fentanyl hapten comprising the structure of F13 recited in claim 2 is. The specification does not disclose that a fentanyl hapten comprising the structure of F13 recited in claim 1 or a fentanyl hapten-carrier conjugate comprising the claimed fentanyl hapten comprising the structure of F13 recited in claim 2 has any activity.
iii. There is no well-established structural and functional relationship or correlation between the claimed fentanyl hapten comprising the structure of F13 recited in claim 1, and the vaccine formulation of F1-CRM1/CRM2/Alum, F2-sKLH/Alum, F2-CRM1/Alum, F3-sKLH/Alum, F4-sKLH/Alum, F5-sKLH/Alum and F6-CRM2/Alum shown in Table 2 and Table 11-12.
There is also no well-established structural and functional relationship or correlation between the claimed fentanyl hapten-carrier conjugate comprising the claimed fentanyl hapten comprising the structure of F13 recited in claim 2, and the vaccine formulation of F1-CRM1/CRM2/Alum, F2-sKLH/Alum, F2-CRM1/Alum, F3-sKLH/Alum, F4-sKLH/Alum, F5-sKLH/Alum and F6-CRM2/Alum shown in Table 2 and Table 11-12.
Based on Applicant’s own admission, F4-sKLH has no significant effect (Fig 2A), F7-sKLH has no effect (Fig 2B); ii) F1-sKLH, F4-sKLH, F5-sKLH, F6-CRM2 has no significant effect on Brain fentanyl (Fig 12C); iii) F1-CRM2, F8-CRM2, F9a-CRM1, F9b-CRM1 and F10-CRM1 has no effect on post challenge (Fig 13).
The specification fails to disclose a well-established structural and functional relationship or correlation between the claimed fentanyl hapten comprising the structure of F13 recited in claim 1 or the claimed fentanyl hapten-carrier conjugate comprising the claimed fentanyl hapten comprising the structure of F13 recited in claim 2, and the vaccine formulation of F1-CRM1/CRM2/Alum, F2-sKLH/Alum, F2-CRM1/Alum, F3-sKLH/Alum, F4-sKLH/Alum, F5-sKLH/Alum and F6-CRM2/Alum shown in Table 2 and Table 11-12.
The specification also fails to disclose a well-established structural and functional relationship or correlation between the F1-F6-sKLH/CRM1/CRM2 and the claimed fentanyl hapten comprising the structure of F13 or fentanyl hapten carrier conjugate comprising the F13 hapten and a structural and functionally undefined immunogenic carrier.
The specification provides no information regarding the relation of structure of the claimed fentanyl hapten comprising the structure of F13 or fentanyl hapten carrier conjugate comprising the F13 hapten and a structural and functionally undefined immunogenic carrier to the function of the vaccine formulation of F1-CRM1/CRM2/Alum, F2-sKLH/Alum, F2-CRM1/Alum, F3-sKLH/Alum, F4-sKLH/Alum, F5-sKLH/Alum and F6-CRM2/Alum shown in Table 2 and Table 11-12.
Furthermore, the prior art does not provide compensatory structural or correlative teachings sufficient to enable one of skill to identify what the function of the claimed fentanyl hapten comprising the structure of F13 or the claimed fentanyl hapten carrier conjugate comprising the F13 hapten with a structural and functionally undefined immunogenic carrier might be.
Since the common characteristics/features and functions of the claimed fentanyl hapten comprising the structure of F13 or the claimed fentanyl hapten carrier conjugate comprising the F13 hapten and a structural and functionally undefined immunogenic carrier are unknown, a skilled artisan cannot envision the functional correlations of the fentanyl hapten comprising the structure of F13 or the claimed genus of fentanyl hapten carrier conjugate comprising the F13 hapten and a structural and functionally undefined immunogenic carrier with the claimed invention. Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient recitation of distinguishing identifying characteristics, the specification does not provide adequate written description of the fentanyl hapten comprising the structure of F13 or the genus of fentanyl hapten carrier conjugate comprising the F13 hapten and a structural and functionally undefined immunogenic carrier.
Based on MPEP § 2161.01 and §2163, “to satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116”.
Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 19USPQ2d 1111, clearly states “applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention. The invention is, for purposes of the ‘written description’ inquiry, whatever is now claimed.” (See page 1117.) The specification does not “clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed.” (See Vas-Cath at page 1116).
As discussed above, the skilled artisan cannot envision the detailed chemical structure of the encompassed genus of the fentanyl hapten comprising the structure of F13 or the genus of fentanyl hapten carrier conjugate comprising the F13 hapten and a structural and functionally undefined immunogenic carrier, and therefore conception is not achieved until reduction to practice has occurred, regardless of the complexity or simplicity of the method of isolation. Adequate written description requires more than a mere statement that it is part of the invention and reference to a potential method of isolating it. The compound itself is required. See Fiers v. Revel, 25 USPQ2d 1601 at 1606 (CAFC 1993) and Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., 18 USPQ2d 1016. One cannot describe what one has not conceived. See Fiddes v. Baird, 30 USPQ2d 1481 at 1483.
Therefore, the claimed fentanyl hapten comprising the structure of F13 or the claimed fentanyl hapten carrier conjugate comprising the F13 hapten and an immunogenic carrier have not met the written description provision of 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph. Applicant is reminded that Vas-Cath makes clear that the written description provision of 35 U.S.C. §112 is severable from its enablement provision (see page 1115). Applicant is directed to the Guidelines for the Examination of Patent Applications Under the 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 1 "Written Description" Requirement. See MPEP § 2161.01 and 2163.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-6 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 is maintained.
Conclusion
8. NO CLAIM IS ALLOWED.
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Raleigh et al. (J of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 368: 282-291, February 2019; as in IDS) teaches a fentanyl hapten or a fentanyl hapten carrier conjugate comprising a fentanyl hapten and an immunogenic carrier, e.g., e.g., keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH) carrier protein or GMP-grade subunit KLH (sKLH) wherein the fentanyl] hapten is conjugated to the immunogenic carrier and the fentanyl hapten comprises a structure:
PNG
media_image5.png
286
364
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Pentel et al. (US20140093525 as in IDS) teaches a hapten-carrier conjugate, e.g., hapten-X-Z, wherein the hapten is fentanyl, X is a linker, e.g., (Gly)4, and Z is an antigen carrier molecule, e.g., KLH (see para. [0051], [0054], claims 11-15, 17, Fig. 15).
Janda et al. (US20220081400) teaches a fentanyl-hapten-carrier conjugate or a carfentanil-hapten-carrier, wherein the carrier includes KLH, BSA, tetanus toxoid, CRM197, biotin, fluorophore, streptavidin-fluorophore or avidin-fluorophore (para. [0182]-[0257])
PNG
media_image6.png
274
288
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
218
244
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
300
700
media_image8.png
Greyscale
10. 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.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANG-YU WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4521. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:00am-5:00pm 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, Jeffrey Stucker can be reached at 571-272-0911. 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.
Chang-Yu Wang
April 3, 2026
/CHANG-YU WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1675
Prosecution Insights