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 April 20, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims1, 3-11, 15, 17-18, 20-22, 24-25, 27-29 and 31-47 are canceled. Claims 2, 12-14, 16, 19, 23, 26 and 30 are amended. Claims 48-58 are newly added. Claims 2, 12-14, 16, 19, 23, 26, 30 and new claims 48-58 are pending in this application. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 28, 2025.
3. Claims 2, 12-14, 16, 19, 23, 26, 30 and 48-58 are under examination with respect to SEQ ID NOs: 16-18 and SEQ ID NOs: 19-21 for CDR-H1-3 and CDR-L1-3, SEQ ID NOs: 100 and 101 for VH and VL or encoded by SEQ ID NO:78 and 79 recited in b) of claim 2, SEQ ID NO:182 for linker, SEQ ID NO:174 for targeting moiety linker, SEQ ID NO:258 for nucleic acid sequence in this office action.
4. Applicant’s arguments filed on April 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
Specification
5. The objection to the specification is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendment to the specification.
Claim Rejections/Objections Withdrawn
6. The objection to claims 2 and 19 is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendment to the claims.
The rejection of claim 1 on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives is moot because the claim is canceled.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 12-14, 16, 19, 23, 26 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendment to the claims and cancelation of claim 1.
The rejection of claim 1 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 moot because the claim is canceled.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 19, 26 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cashman et al. (WO2020118458) is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s arguments on p. 16 of the response.
The rejection of claims 12-14 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cashman et al. (WO2020118458) in view of Skrlj et al. (Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol., 2013; 169:159-169. DOI 10.1007/s12010-012-9962-7) and Walensky et al. (US11952432) is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s arguments on p.17 of the response.
The rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cashman et al. (WO2020118458) in view of Skrlj et al. (2013) and Walensky et al. (US11952432) as applied to claims 12-14 and 16, and further in view of August et al. (WO200280851) is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s arguments on p.17 of the response.
The provisional rejection of claims 1-2, 12-14, 19, 23, 26 and 30 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 7, 10, 12, 15, 25, 57-68 of copending Application No. 17/413881 in view of Cashman (WO2020118458), Skrlj (2013), Walensky (US11952432) and August et al. (WO200280851) is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s arguments on p. 17 of the response.
Claim Rejections/Objections Maintained
In view of the amendment filed on April 20, 2026, the following rejections are maintained.
Improper Markush Grouping
7. Claims 2, 12-14, 16, 19, 23, 26, 30 and 48-58 are rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). The rejection is maintained for the reasons of record and the reasons set forth below.
Response to Arguments
On p. 12-13 of the response, Applicant acknowledges that each nucleic acid sequence encoding different amino acid compositions and structures and each encoded single chain antibody has a different binding activity. But Applicant argues that sequence differences among different single chain antibodies encoded by different nucleic acids are not enough for considering as an improper Markush grouping because all these different single chain antibodies binding at least the W residue in the context of DAGWGNL (SEQ ID NO:1) in misfolded TDP-43 (anti-Trp68-TDP-43 scAbs), which share the common use of binding misfolded TDP-43. Applicant further cites para. [0017] of the instant specification, Ex parte Narva and Ex parte Buyyarapu in support of the arguments.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, based on MPEP § 803.02, the examiner asserts that
Claim 2, 12-14, 16, 19, 23, 26, 30 and 48-58 are rejected under the judicially approved "improper Markush grouping" doctrine. (See Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 27, Wednesday, February 9, 2011, page 7166). This rejection is appropriate when the claim contains an improper grouping of alternatively useable species. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 719-20 (CCPA 1980).
A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush claim contains an "improper Markush grouping" if: (1) the species do not share a common use; or (2) the species of the Markush group do not share a "single structural similarity" wherein the structural similarity is essential to a common use. See MPEP § 803.02.
In this case, the recited alternative species do not “share a single structural similarity” because each species of nucleic acid molecules, each species of single chain antibodies binding to Trp-68 in misfold TDP-43 or each species of sequences encoding the antibody and linker portions and targeting moiety has a different chemical structure. Each species of anti-Trp68-TDP-43 scAbs comprises different amino acid sequences for CDR-H1-3 and CDR-L1-3; VH and VL or antibodies/moieties. Each nucleic acid sequence has a different sequence encoding different amino acid compositions and structures, and each encoded single chain antibody has a different binding activity to different epitopes including W in the context of SEQ ID NO:1 or Trp68-TDP-43. Thus, the nucleic acid molecules comprising sequences encoding the claimed single chain antibodies do not share a single structural similarity or biological activity. See MPEP § 706.03(y).
Each anti-Trp68-TDP-43 scAb encoded by different polynucleotide sequences has a different binding activity and effect. Thus, the polynucleotides having different sequences encoding different anti-Trp68-TDP-43 scAbs do not share a single structural similarity or binding/biological activity. The only structural similarity present is that all of the polynucleotides are nucleic acids. The fact that the polynucleotides comprise nucleotides per se does not support a conclusion that they have a common single structural similarity because the structure of comprising nucleotides alone is not essential to the common binding activity of encoded anti-Trp68-TDP-43 scAbs and their effects. Accordingly, the different polynucleotides encoding different anti-Trp68-TDP-43 scAbs do not share a common single structural similarity.
Note that when the Markush grouping is for alternatives of chemical compounds, the alternatives are regarded as being of a similar nature where the following criteria are fulfilled:
(A) all alternatives have a common property or activity; AND
(B)(1) a common structure is present, that is, a significant structural element is shared by all of the alternatives; OR
(B)(2) in cases where the common structure cannot be the unifying criteria, all alternatives belong to a recognized class of chemical compounds in the art to which the invention pertains.
The phrase “significant structural element is shared by all of the alternatives” refers to cases where the compounds share a common chemical structure which occupies a large portion of their structures, or in case the compounds have in common only a small portion of their structures, the commonly shared structure constitutes a structurally distinctive portion in view of existing prior art, and the common structure is essential to the common property or activity.
The phrase “recognized class of chemical compounds” means that there is an expectation from the knowledge in the art that members of the class will behave in the same way in the context of the claimed invention, i.e. each member could be substituted one for the other, with the expectation that the same intended result would be achieved.
In the present case, there is no evidence of record to establish that it is clear from their very nature that the different polynucleotide sequences encoding different anti-Trp68-TDP-43 scAbs having different sequences for HCDR1-3 and LCDR1-3 or VH and VL possess the common binding activity to the claimed epitopes. Following this analysis, the claims are rejected as containing an improper Markush grouping.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 2, 12-14, 16, 19, 23, 26, 30 and 48-58 on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. The following is a quotation 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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 2, 12-14, 16, 19, 23, 26, 30 and 48-58 are 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 2, 12-14, 16, 19, 23, 26, 30 and 48-58 as amended encompass a genus of nucleic acid comprising a genus of sequences encoding a genus of single chain antibodies binding to at least the W residue in the context of DAGAWGNL (SEQ ID NO:1 or aa 65-71 of TDP-43) in misfolded TDP-43 (anti-Trp68-TDP-43 scAb) comprising a VH and a VL linked by a linker, wherein the VH comprises an amino acid sequence as set forth in recited SEQ ID NO: including SEQ ID NO:100 or a conservatively substituted sequence thereof or humanized thereof, and wherein the VL comprises an amino acid sequence as set forth in recited SEQ ID NO: including SEQ ID NO:101 or a conservatively substituted sequence thereof or humanized version thereof, and/or wherein the VH is encoded by a nucleotide sequence as set out in SEQ ID NO:78 and the VL is encoded by a nucleotide sequence as set out in SEQ ID NO:79 or humanized versions thereof, and wherein the linker comprises about 10-25 amino acids or is selected from recited SEQ ID NOs:.
Claims 16 and 57 encompass a genus of nucleic acid further encoding a genus of targeting moiety and/or a genus of signal peptide and/or a genus of cell penetrating peptide. Claim 57 encompasses a genus of targeting moiety linker.
Applicant has not disclosed sufficient species for the broad genus of nucleic acid sequences encoding the broad genus of anti-Trp68-TDP-43 scAbs that comprise a VH and a VL linked by a linker and wherein the VH and VL comprise fragments or variants of recited SEQ ID NO: and wherein the linker comprises structurally and functionally undefined 10-25 amino acids; the broad genus of anti-Trp68-TDP-43 scAbs comprising a VH that is encoded by fragments within SEQ ID NO:78 and a VL that is encoded by fragments within SEQ ID NO:79 or humanized versions thereof; the broad genus of targeting moiety, signal peptide and/or cell penetrating peptide, and the broad genus of targeting moiety linker.
Response to Amendment
On p. 15-16 of the response, Applicant argues that the rejection is moot in view of amendment to claim 2 and cancelation of claim 1, and the Examples and Tables 9-14 of the specification provides support for the features recited in amended claim 2
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 nucleic acid comprising a genus of sequences encoding the genus of anti-Trp68-TDP-43 scAbs that comprise a VH and a VL linked by a linker and wherein the VH and VL comprise fragments or variants of recited SEQ ID NO: and wherein the linker comprises structurally and functionally undefined 10-25 amino acids, the genus of anti-Trp68-TDP-43 scAbs comprising a VH that is encoded by fragments within SEQ ID NO:78 and a VL that is encoded by fragments within SEQ ID NO:79 or humanized versions thereof; or the genus of targeting moiety, signal peptide and/or cell penetrating peptide, and targeting moiety linker because:
i. The limitation “an amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:x” recited in instant claims encompasses fragments within the recited SEQ ID NO:x. Thus, the limitation “a single chain antibody…… comprising the VH comprising an amino acid sequence as set forth in SEQ ID NO: 100 and the VL comprising an amino acid sequence as set forth in SEQ ID NO:101” encompasses anti-Trp68-TDP-43 scAbs comprising fragments or variants of recited SEQ ID NOs: 100-101 for VH and VL and undefined linker and encoded by fragments within SEQ ID NOs: 78-79 for VH and VL.
ii. There is no well-established structural and functional relationship or correlation between the claimed genus of anti-Trp68-TDP-43 scAbs comprising fragments or variants of recited SEQ ID NOs: for VH and VL and undefined linker and the anti-Trp68-TDP-43 scAbs comprising the amino acid sequences of SEQ ID NOs:100 and 101 for VH and VL.
There is no well-established structural and functional relationship or correlation between the claimed genus of nucleic acids encoding anti-Trp68-TDP-43 scAbs comprising fragments or variants of recited SEQ ID NOs: for VH and VL and undefined linker and polynucleotides encoding anti-Trp68-TDP-43 scAbs comprising the amino acid sequences of SEQ ID NOs:100 and 101 for VH and VL.
There is no well-established structural and functional relationship or correlation between the claimed genus of nucleic acids encoding anti-Trp68-TDP-43 scAbs comprising fragments or variants of recited SEQ ID NOs: for VH and VL and undefined linker and the polynucleotide sequences of SEQ ID NOs:78 and 79 encoding for VH and VL of an anti-Trp68-TDP-43 scAb.
ii. As previously made of record, the specification only describes:
i) monoclonal antibodies 2F7, 1H3-1K3, 28H3-28K1 and 14H1-14K2 capable of binding to Trp68 in TDP-43 (tables 5 and 8; p. 39-40) and their amino acid sequences for VH and VL and HCDRs1-3 and LCDRs1-3, and DNA sequences for the VH and VL (see p. 30-35;Table 4, amino acid sequences for VH and VL; Table 2: amino acid sequence for HCDRs1-3 and LCDRs1-3, Table 3, DNA sequences for VH and VL); and
ii) ScFv constructs:
1) with an N-terminal Flag tag lysosomal constructs: LYS-2F7, LYS-1H3-1K3, LYS-28H3-28K1 and LYS-14H1-14K2 comprising a lysosomal-targeting tag and their polynucleotide and amino acid sequences (table 9, p. 41-43);
2) C-terminal Flag-YPTL intrabodies YPTL-2F7, YPTL-1H3-1K3, YPTL-28H3-28K1 and YPTL-14H1-14K2 and their polynucleotide and amino acid sequences (table 10, p. 43-45);
3) C-terminal MYC tag constructs with a VL linked to a VH through a 15 amino acid linker: the VL sequence-15 amino acid ScFv linker sequence-VH-three amino acid MYC linker sequence-MYC tag: MYCL15H-2F7, MYC15H-1H3-1K3, MYCL15H-28H-288K1 and MYCL15H-14H1-14K2 and their polynucleotide and amino acid sequences (table 11; p. 45-47);
4) MYC constructs with a VH linked to a VL through a 15 amino acid linker: the VH sequence-15 amino acid ScFv linker sequence-the VL sequence-3 amino acid MYC linker sequence -MYC tag and their polynucleotide and amino acid sequences (table 12, p. 47-49);
5) MYC constructs with a VL linked to a VH through a 20 amino acid linker: the VL sequence-20 amino acid ScFv linker sequence-the VH sequence-three amino acid MYC linker sequence-MYC tag (table 13; p. 49-51);
6) MYC construct with a VH linked to a VL through a 20 amino acid linker: the VH sequence-20 amino acid ScFv linker sequence-the VL sequence-three amino acid MYC linker sequence-MYC tag and their polynucleotide and amino acid sequences (table 14, p. 51-53).
iii. The specification has not disclosed sufficient species for the broad genus of anti-Trp68-TDP-43 scAbs comprising fragments or variants of recited SEQ ID NOs: including SEQ ID NOs: 100-101 for VH and VL and undefined linker or polynucleotide sequences encoding the anti-Trp68-TDP-43 scAbs thereof. The specification also has not disclosed sufficient species for the broad genus of anti-Trp68-TDP-43 scAbs encoded by fragments or variants of recited SEQ ID NOs: including SEQ ID NOs: 78-79 for VH and VL.
The specification also has provided no structures or sequences sufficiently detailed to show that he/she was in possession of the claimed invention as a whole. There was no known or disclosed correlation between the required function (binding to at least the W residue in the context of DAGAWGNL (SEQ ID NO:1 or aa 65-71 of TDP-43) in misfolded TDP-43) and any particular structure or sequence for anti-Trp68-TDP-43 scAbs comprising fragments or variants of recited SEQ ID NOs: including SEQ ID NOs: 100-101 for VH and VL and undefined linker or encoded by fragments or variants or recited SEQ ID NOs:78-79.
The specification fails to teach the detailed structures and sequences and characteristics for the claimed genus of nucleic acid encoding anti-Trp68-TDP-43 scAbs comprising fragments or variants of recited SEQ ID NOs: including SEQ ID NOs: 100-101 for VH and VL and undefined linker or encoded by fragments or variants or recited SEQ ID NOs:78-79.
The specification fails to provide sufficient description or information as to what other common structures and sequences are required by the claimed genus of nucleic acid encoding anti-Trp68-TDP-43 scAbs comprising fragments or variants of recited SEQ ID NOs: including SEQ ID NOs: 100-101 for VH and VL and undefined linker or encoded by fragments or variants or recited SEQ ID NOs:78-79 for VH and VL in order to preserve the activity of anti-Trp68-TDP-43 scAb comprising SEQ ID NOs: 100-101 for VH and VL or encoded by SEQ ID NOs:78-79 for VH and VL.
The specification fails to provide sufficient description or information as to what other common structures and sequences are required by the claimed genus of targeting moiety, signal peptide and/or cell penetrating peptide, and targeting moiety linker.
The specification fails to provide sufficient description or evidence to demonstrate that Applicant is in possession of the claimed genus of anti-Trp68-TDP-43 scAbs comprising fragments or variants of recited SEQ ID NOs: including SEQ ID NOs: 100-101 for VH and VL and undefined linker or encoded by fragments or variants or recited SEQ ID NOs:78-79 or the claimed genus of nucleic acid encoding the anti-Trp6-TDP-43 scAbs thereof, or the claimed genus of targeting moiety, signal peptide and/or cell penetrating peptide, and targeting moiety linker.
Since the common characteristics/features of other anti-Trp68-TDP-43 scAbs comprising fragments or variants of recited SEQ ID NOs: 100-101 for VH and VL and undefined linker or encoded by fragments or variants or recited SEQ ID NOs:78-79 or other nucleic acid encoding the anti-Trp6-TDP-43 scAbs thereof, or other targeting moieties, signal peptides and/or cell penetrating peptides, and targeting moiety linkers are unknown, a skilled artisan cannot envision the functional correlations of the genus with the claimed invention in view of Burgess et al. (J of Cell Bio. 1990, 111:2129-2138, cited previously), Bowie et al. (see col 2, p. 1306, Bowie et al. Science, 1990, 247:1306-1310, cited previously), Pawson et al. (see p. 445 the second column, first paragraph, Pawson et al. 2003, Science 300:445-452, cited previously), Alaoui-lsmaili et al. (see p. 502, right col., 2th paragraph; Alaoui-lsmaili et al., Cytokine Growth Factor Rev. 2009; 20:501-507, cited previously), Guo et al. (see p. 9207, left col., 2th paragraph, Guo et al., PNAS 2004; 101:9205-9210, cited previously) and Rudikoff et al. (see p. 1979; Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1982 Vol. 79: page 1979, cited previously).
Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient recitation of distinguishing identifying characteristics, the specification does not provide adequate written description of the genus of nucleic acid encoding the anti-Trp6-TDP-43 scAbs comprising fragments or variants of recited SEQ ID NOs: including SEQ ID NOs: 100-101 for VH and VL and undefined linker or encoded by fragments or variants or recited SEQ ID NOs:78-79 or the genus of targeting moiety, signal peptide and/or cell penetrating peptide, and the genus of targeting moiety linker.
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 nucleic acid encoding the anti-Trp6-TDP-43 scAbs comprising fragments or variants of recited SEQ ID NOs: including SEQ ID NOs: 100-101 for VH and VL and undefined linker or encoded by fragments or variants or recited SEQ ID NOs:78-79 or the genus of targeting moiety, signal peptide and/or cell penetrating peptide, and the genus of targeting moiety linker, 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 and Centocor v. Abbott, 636 F.3d1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011) and AbbVie v. Janssen, 759 F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir.2014).
Therefore, the claimed nucleic acid has 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 2, 12-14, 16, 19, 23, 26, 30 and 48-58 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
9. NO CLAIM IS ALLOWED.
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
June 24, 2026
/CHANG-YU WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1675
Prosecution Insights