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 .
The amendment filed 12/10/2025 has been received, entered and considered. The following information has been made of record in the instant amendment:
1. Claims 2-4, 6, 9, 12, 15-16, 18 and 22-25 have been canceled.
2. No new Claims have been added.
3. Claims 5, 17, and 26 have been amended.
4. Remarks drawn to objections and rejections under 35 USC 112, 102, 103 and double patenting.
The following objection(s)/rejection(s) have been overcome:
5. The objection to Figure 9 for being fuzzy has been overcome by filing a corrected drawing which is clear.
6. The rejection of Claims 5, 13-14, 17, and 26 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, has been overcome by amendments. The rejection of claims 15 and 22-25 has been rendered moot by cancelation.
7. The rejection of Claim(s) 5, 13-14, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cohen et al (WO 2017/025951 A1; cited in IDS filed 10/06/2022) has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s remarks. Cohen teaches that none of its cationic pillar [5-6]arenes inhibited the formation of biofilm by Gram-negative strains of E.coli and P.aeruginosa (para 0106). Therefore, Cohen does to anticipate the instant claims. The rejection of claims 15 and 22-23 has been rendered moot by cancelation.
8. The rejection of Claim(s) 5, and 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ragle et al (Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 2010, 54(1), 298-304), and the rejection of Claim(s) 5, 13-14, 17, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grare et al (US 2014/0066365 A1; cited in IDS filed 10/06/2022) has been withdrawn in view of the amendment and applicant’s remarks. Both references do not teach a method of treating/inhibiting Gram-negative bacterial infection using pillararene or a salt thereof as the active agent. The rejection of claims 15 and 22 has been rendered moot by cancelation.
9. The rejection of Claim(s) 5, 13-14, 17 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamura et al (Chemistry Select Communications, 2016, 3, 469-472) in view of Grare et al (US 2014/0066365 A1; cited in IDS filed 10/06/2022), and the rejection of Claim(s) 5, 13-14, 17, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (Chem Soc Rev, 2007, 36, 267-279; cited in IDS filed 10/06/2022) in view of Grare et al (US 2014/0066365 A1; cited in IDS filed 10/06/2022), and the rejection of Claim(s) 5, 13-14, 17, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Febeles et al (Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry Letters, 2016, 26(22), 5591-5593; cited in IDS filed 10/06/2022) in view of; cited in IDS filed 10/06/2022) and further in view of Grare et al (US 2014/0066365 A1; cited in IDS filed 10/06/2022) have been withdrawn in view of the amendments and applicant’s remarks. The cited references do not teach the use of a pillararene or salts thereof as the active agent in a method of treating, inhibiting Gram-negative bacterial infection in a subject.
The rejection of claims 15, 22, 24 and 25 has been rendered moot by cancelation.
10. The rejection of Claims 5, 13-14, 17 and 26 provisionally on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17, 30 and 36 of copending Application No. 17/917,338 (‘338, reference application) has been rendered moot by cancelation of claims 17, 30 and 36 in the ‘338 application.
Claims 1, 5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, 17, 19-21 and 26 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 7-8, 10-11, and 19-21 have been withdrawn for consideration as being drawn to non-elected invention. Claims 5, 13-14, 17 and 26 are under prosecution.
The following rejections are necessitated by Applicant's amendment filed 12/10/2025 wherein the limitations in pending claims 5, 17, and 26 have been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 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 5, 13-15, 17 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the specification, while enabling for a method of inhibiting/treating infection by Gram-negative bacteria using pillar[5]arene or a salt thereof, does not reasonably provide enablement for a method of prevention of these infections in a subject or inhibiting/treating/preventing Gram-negative bacterial infections in a subject at risk of such infection using pillar[5]arene or a salt thereof as in claim 5. 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.
Attention is directed to In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (CAFC 1988) at 1404 where the court set forth the 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.
The most relevant Wands factors are discussed below.
1. The nature of the invention: The instant invention as amended pertains to a method of inhibiting/treating/preventing Gram-negative bacterial infections in a subject or in a subject at risk of such infection by administering via inhalation a formulation comprising a pillararene or a salt thereof, optionally pillar[5]arene or a salt thereof.
2. The breadth of the claims and the predictability of the art: The pharmaceutical art is unpredictable, requiring each embodiment to be individually assessed for physiological activity. In re Fisher, 166 USPQ 18 indicates that the more unpredictable an area is, the more specific enablement is necessary in order to satisfy the statute.
Claim 5 recites the term ‘preventing’ of Gram-negative bacterial infection in a subject or being at risk of a Gram-negative bacterial infection. Applicants have not provided the definition for prevention. Being at risk of a microbial infection also means that the subject does not have the infection yet. In the absence of a definition the ordinary dictionary meaning is used. “Preventing” as recited in the instant claims, based on the ordinary dictionary meaning (Dictionary.com) is to keep from happening or existing. The term prevention also encompasses absolute prevention of the claimed infection. In the instant case prevention means keeping the said infection from happening in a mammal and is interpreted to mean the complete and total blocking of the infection for an indefinite period of time. Prevention is seen to include the administration of the claimed compound to a healthy mammal, and subsequent exposure to conditions that would cause the infection, wherein the claimed compound prevents said exposure to the infection from manifesting itself in said mammal so exposed. Any therapy which merely reduces the severity of the infection, or which is effective for a period shorter than the subject’s remaining lifespan, is considered to be ineffective at preventing. In general, prevention is not possible as any so-called preventive effects of a drug therapy are expected to cease when the drug is cleared from the patient’s system. More generally, prevention of the claimed infection in the sense being used herein is not a recognized clinical outcome in the art, as no treatment is perfectly effective. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider it highly unlikely that the instant compound will prevent Gram-negative bacterial infection in a subject and also prevent such an infection in a subject at risk of such infection.
3. The state of the prior art:
According to Tacconelli et al (Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2014, 20 (Suppl I), 1-55), patient to patient transmission was frequently thought to be the most important route of transmission. However, intermediate vectors for spread between patients, including contaminated hands of health care workers, environment and visitors should also be taken into consideration (page 4, right col. first para through page 5, left col. first para). Transmission may occur via food chain and from contaminated sinks has also been shown to occur (page 5, right col. last para). This tells one of ordinary skill in the art that Gram-negative bacterial infection cannot be prevented when several mechanisms of transmission are possible.
Therefore, administering the instant compounds to a healthy mammal will not prevent the infection since infection takes place in different ways. One of ordinary skill in the art would not expect the instant active agent to prevent Gram-negative bacteria infection in a subject or in a subject at risk of such infections.
4. The presence or absence of working examples: Examples 2 and 3 (at pages 19-20 in the specification) shows the interaction of P[5]a with the lipopolysaccharide of P. aeruginosa strain PA10, and the effect of P[5]a on the formation of biofilm in the pathogenic gram negative bacteria P. aeruginosa. This is not commensurate in scope with the claimed prevention of the said infection. See MPEP § 716.02(d). Thus, the specification fails to provide sufficient support for the prevention of microbial infections as instantly claimed.
Genentech, 108 F.3d at 1366, states that “a patent is not a hunting license. It is not a reward for search, but compensation for its successful conclusion” and “[p]atent protection is granted in return for an enabling disclosure of an invention, not for vague intimations of general ideas that may or may not be workable”.
Therefore, in view of the Wands factor and In re Fisher (CCPA 1970) discussed above, to practice the claimed invention herein, a person of skill in the art would have to engage in undue experimentation to test the instant compounds in preventive methods, with no assurance of success.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant has traversed the rejection of claim 5 and dependents thereof under 35 USC 112, first paragraph, arguing that claim 5 and dependents are limited to a method of treating, preventing and/or inhibiting a microbial infection caused by a Gram-negative bacterium with a pillararene or salt thereof. Examples 2 and 3 teach that P[5], a pillararene, inhibits the formation of biofilm in pathogenic Gram-negative bacteria. The specification is sufficiently enabling for the claims as currently amended (pages 6-7 of Remarks).
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Amended Claim 5 and dependents thereof are still drawn to a method of preventing infection by Gram-negative bacteria. The prevention as claimed is not enabled. There is no enabling disclosure of examples that show prevention. The state of the prior art as set forth above also indicates several mechanisms of transmission of the infection which still occurs even with some preventive measures. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5, 13-14, 17 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haag et al (WO 2019/121946 A1; newly cited necessitated by amendment) in view of Grare et al (US 2014/0066365 A1; of record and newly cited in this rejection necessitated by amendment).
The object of the invention of Haag et al is to provide novel compounds that exhibit antimicrobial activity The object is achieved by zwitterionic pillararenes having formula (I). The zwitterionic pillararenes demonstrated broad-spectrum antibacterial activity against Gram-negative bacteria and exhibited excellent antiseptic ability against young and mature biofilms, and showed durable and highly antibacterial effects against bacterial colonies (page 2, line 33 through page 3, line 20; page 4, line 1 through page 6, line 2; active agent and gram-negative bacteria as in claim 5). Another aspect of the invention is a method of treating a human in need thereof with a compound comprising the zwitterionic pillararene to inhibit and/or ameliorate a bacterial infection (page 6, line 35 through page 7, line 2). The compound can be a pillar[5]arene (page 6, lines 1-2; as in claim 5).
The compound ZW-PA exhibited remarkable antibacterial activity against E. coli with more than 99.99% efficiency at an extremely low concentration (page 11, lines 10-18; limitation of claim 17-Escherichia). Haag also teaches that its zwitterionic pillararenes can be in the form of nanoparticles (page 6, lines 19-21).
Haag does not expressly teach a method of inhibiting/treating infection caused by Gram-negative bacteria in a subject in need thereof by administration of a pillararene or a salt thereof via inhalation. Since Haag teaches that its pillararenes exhibit excellent antibacterial property against E. coli and that it can be made into particles one of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that the pillararens can be made into an inhalation formulation and administered via inhalation to a subject having infection caused by Gram-negative bacteria with a reasonable expectation of success as in claim 5.
Haag does not expressly teach the use of another antimicrobial agent with its pillararenes as in claim 5 and 26, and does not expressly teach the limitations of claims 13-14.
Grare teaches a method of treating bacterial infection by E. Coli, P. aeruginosa and S. aureus via administration of a composition comprising a calixarene and an antibiotic (page 21, claim 13). The composition can be in the form of a spray or powder both of which are inhalable forms (para 106; method of claim 5; limitations of claims 5 and 17).
Grare et al teaches the use of antibacterials like beta-lactams, aminoglycosides, fluroquinolones etc., in combination with macrocyclic cavity containing compounds for treating bacterial infections in a subject (see above: as in claim 5 and claim 26). In view of this teaching, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to administer an inhalable composition comprising pillararenes and an inhalable composition of pillararenes in combination with antibacterials in the claimed method. It would be obvious to use all of the other antibacterials recited in claim 26 in view of Grare et al. It would also be obvious to the artisan to use the compounds for treating the infections as in claims 13-14. There is also a reasonable expectation of success for treating infections caused by all the other Gram-negative bacteria recited in claim 17.
MPEP 2141 states, "The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that "[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusatory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.'" KSR, 550 U.S. at, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (E) " Obvious to try " choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; (F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention."
According to the rationale discussed in KSR above, the rationale in (G) above is seen to be applicable here since based on the prior art teachings, both pillararenes and antibacterials are individually taught in the art to be used in a method of treating/inhibiting Gram-negative bacterial infection.
Thus, the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention over the combined teachings of the prior art. Method improvement is the motivation. Since the prior art teaches that pillararenes are highly effective against Gram-negative infections and suggest the use of a combination of a cavity containing compound and other antibacterials for treating Gram-negative bacterial infections, the artisan would be motivated to also use pillararene and an antibacterial in combination in order to produce an enhanced effect in the claimed method.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
In view of the amendment to claim 5 the above rejection under 35 USC 103 is made of record.
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 5, 13-14, 17 and 26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10, 15, 18, 20, 23, 25-26, 31-32 and 37-44 of copending Application No. 17/917,338 (‘338, reference application) in view of Haag et al (WO 2019/121946 A1; newly cited necessitated by amendment) in view of in view of Grare et al (US 2014/0066365 A1; of record). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Instant claim 5 is drawn to a method of inhibiting/treating/preventing an infection caused by Gram-negative bacteria in a subject or being at risk of an infection by Gram-negative bacteria via administration of an inhalable formulation comprising a pillararene and optionally an antimicrobial agent to the subject. Dependent claims 13-14, 17 and 26 recite limitations drawn to type of infections, specific bacteria, and antimicrobial agents.
Claim 10 of ‘338 is drawn to a method of sensitizing a gram-negative bacterium or reducing build-up of resistance of a gram-negative bacterium towards an antimicrobial agent by exposing the microbe to a pillararene and the antimicrobial agent. Claim 15 is drawn to a method of inhibiting and/or treating and/or preventing a microbial infection in a subject having microbial infection or being at risk of a microbial infection or formation of a biofilm by a gram-negative bacterium in the subject by administering an antimicrobial agent and a pillararene to the subject. Dependent claims 18, 20, 23, 25-26, 31-32 and 37-44 recite limitations drawn to the type of cavity containing compounds, type of microbial infection, and antimicrobial agent.
The teachings of Haag and Grare are set forth above.
In view of Haag and Grare the method of claim 10 in ‘338 is also seen as treating/inhibiting a gram-negative microbial infection in a subject using the claimed active agents.
The copending claims of ‘338 differ from the instant claims in that the instant claims are drawn to administration of pillararene via inhalation, and optionally an antimicrobial agent, whereas the claims of ‘338 require the administration of the pillararene and the antimicrobial agent.
One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that the method taught by '338 could be employed in the instant invention with a reasonable expectation of success since the instant pillararene and antimicrobial agents belong to same class and are useful for the treatment of microbial infections including Gram-negative bacterial infections.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that the instant method of treating Gram-negative bacterial infections using a pillararene and optionally an antimicrobial agent, would have same or substantially similar beneficial therapeutic effects and usefulness in method for treating Gram-negative bacterial infection via inhalation, based on the reasonable expectation that structurally similar species usually have similar properties. See, e.g., Dillon, 919 F.2d at 693, 696, 16 USPQ2d at 1901, 1904. See also Deuel, 51 F.3d at 1558, 34 USPQ2d at 1214, and if the claimed invention and the structurally similar prior art species share any useful property, that will generally be sufficient to motivate an artisan of ordinary skill to make the claimed species. In fact, similar properties may normally be presumed when compounds are very close in structure. Dillon, 919 F.2d at 693, 696, 16 USPQ2d at 1901, 1904, as noted in MPEP 2144.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant has stated that the rejection is acknowledged and will take appropriate corrective action of filing a terminal disclaimer or distinguishing the claims once allowable subject matter is obtained in one of the applications.
The filing of a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s/patents claims is necessary. Since neither has been made of record the rejection(s) are being maintained.
Conclusion
1. Elected claims 5, 13-14, 17 and 26 (Group II) are rejected.
2. Group I Claims 1, 7-8, 10-11 and 19-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
3. Claims 2-4, 6, 9, 12, 15-16, 18, and 22-25 have been canceled.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GANAPATHY KRISHNAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0654. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8.30am-5pm.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/GANAPATHY KRISHNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1693