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 .
Claim Status
1. The amendment filed 01/14/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3 – 12 remain pending and are under consideration. Claims 2 and 13 – 18 have been cancelled.
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1 – 16) in the reply filed on 08/21/2025 is acknowledged.
3. Claims 17 – 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/21/2025.
Priority
4. This application is a National Stage entry from PCT application KR2021006068 filed on 05/14/2021 and claims benefit to foreign application KR10-20200058661 filed 05/15/2020.
Withdrawn Specification Objection
5. The objection to the specification for improper trade name or marker usage is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to the specification.
Withdrawn Claim Objections and Rejections
6. The objection to claim 12 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to the claim.
7. The rejection of claims 2 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are rendered moot in view of Applicant’s cancellation of these claims.
8. The rejection of claims 13 – 16 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is rendered moot in view of Applicant’s cancellation of these claims.
9. The rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is rendered moot in view of Applicant’s cancellation of the claim.
10. The rejection of claims 13, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is rendered moot in view of Applicant’s cancellation of these claims.
11. The rejection of claim 2 and 13 – 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is rendered moot in view of Applicant’s cancellation of these claims.
12. The rejection of claims 1, 3 – 10, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to claim 1.
13. The rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to claim 1.
Claim Interpretation
14. For the purpose of applying prior art, “stromal vascular fraction” of claim 1 is interpreted as cells found in stromal vascular fraction (SVF) isolated from adipose tissue because Applicant’s specification discloses that cultured SVF contains various types of cells and this composition was mixed with dendritic cells and transplanted into mice at (page 23, para. 96 – 98 and page 24, para. 99 – 101; page 27, para. 116, para. 116; page 117, para. 117 – 120) and because Nguyen (Nguyen A, et. al. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016 Feb;69(2):170-9; previously cited) teaches SVF is a heterogeneous collection of cells contained within adipose tissue and with the removal of adipose cells, connective tissue, and blood comes the SVF, a mix including mesenchymal stem cells, endothelial precursor cells, T regulatory cells, macrophages, smooth muscle cells, pericytes, and preadipocytes (Abstract; page 171, left col. para. 1).
15. For the purpose of applying prior art, “wherein the immune response is performed by T cells” of claim 3 is interpreted as an intended use of the composition of claim 1 wherein the composition modulates T cell activation because Applicant’s specification teaches that loading the antigen on dendritic cells increases the immune response by inducing the activity of T cells at page 8, para. 28 and page 12 – 13, para. 40.
16. For the purpose of applying prior art, claim 5 is interpreted as an intended use of the composition of claim 1 for treating or preventing wherein the composition comprises dendritic cells loaded with an antigen that is viral antigen, microbial antigen, or tumor antigen.
17. For the purpose of applying prior art, claim 6 is interpreted as the dendritic cells are autologous, allogeneic, or xenogeneic relative to the stromal vascular fraction because the claims are drawn to a composition and not a method of administering.
18. For the purpose of applying prior art, claim 11 is interpreted as the composition of claim 1 further comprising an anti-viral agent, an anti-microbial agent, or an anti-cancer agent.
Maintained Claim Rejections
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.
19. Claim(s) 1, 3 – 10, and 12 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (Wang, Yu-Chi, et al. Experimental cell research 370.2 (2018): 708-717; previously cited), hereinafter Wang in view of Cho (Cho NH, et. al. Nat Nanotechnol. 2011 Sep 11;6(10):675-82; previously cited), hereinafter Cho as evidenced by Jansen (Jansen, Kristina, et al. Cancers 16.23 (2024): 4052; previously cited), hereinafter Jansen in view of Lee (Lee, Jun Hee, et. al. Biomolecules & therapeutics 24.3 (2016): 260; previously cited), hereinafter Lee. Although maintained, note that the rejection is revised in light of the amendments to the claims.
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a composition comprising adipose-derived stem cells (ASCs) (“stromal vascular fraction”) and dendritic cells (page 709, left col. para. 5 and right col. para. 4). Wang does not teach the dendritic cells are “loaded with an antigen” or “the stromal vascular fraction is a three-dimensional spheroid culture”.
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches the dendritic cells are allogeneic to the ASCs (page 709, left col. para. 5 – 6).
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches the dendritic cells are mature (page 709, right col. para. 1; page 710, left col. last para.).
Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches ASC isolation from groin adipose tissue (“subcutaneous fat tissue”) (page 709, left col. para. 5).
Wang does not teach the dendritic cells are “loaded with an antigen” or “the stromal vascular fraction is a three-dimensional spheroid culture” of claim 1 or “the immune response is performed by T cells” of claim 3 or “tumor-derived antigen” of claim 4 or “anti-tumor immune-enhancing composition for tumor treatment” of claim 5 or the tumor-derived antigen is “a surface-expressed protein of a tumor cell” of claim 9, or the tumor-derived antigen is “CEA” of claim 10 or “the composition is a pharmaceutical composition” of claim 12. However, Wang teaches a composition comprising ASC-treated dendritic cells and T cells and that ASCs modulate tolerogenic dendritic cells and increase the Treg population (page 709, right col. para. 4; page 710, right col. para. 3 – 4; page 712, left col. para. 2; page 713, left col. para. 1; page 716, left col. para. 2). Wang teaches ASCs could be used as a potential immunomodulatory strategy for clinical application in allotransplantation (Abstract). Wang teaches ASCs have gained attention as a therapeutic tool for immunomodulation in various disease models including graft-versus-host diseases, autoimmune diseases and neurodegenerative disorders (page 708, left col. para. 1). Wang teaches dendritic cells are potent, well-equipped antigen-presenting cells that are regarded as classic sentinels of the immune response by triggering the activation of antigen-specific T cells (page 708, right col. para. 2).
Regarding “dendritic cells loaded with an antigen” of claim 1, Cho teaches dendritic cells loaded with the tumor antigen carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) (Abstract; page 679, left col.; Supplementary Information page 3, para. 1). Cho teaches the dendritic cells are allogeneic as they were obtained from Rag2 knock-out mice and the loaded DCs were administered to C57BL/6 mice (Supplementary Information page 2, last para. and page 10, para. 2). Cho teaches the DCs are mature (Supplementary Information page 3, para. 1). Cho does not teach “the stromal vascular fraction is a three-dimensional spheroid culture”.
Regarding “the immune response is performed by T cells” of claim 3, Cho teaches immunizing mice with DCs loaded with CEA resulted in an approximate 10-fold increase in IFN-g-secreting CD8+ T cells and generated CEA-specific IFN-g producing CD4+ and CD8+ T cells (page 679, left col. para. 2; Supplementary Information page 3, para. 1). Cho teaches that CEA-loaded DC group of mice showed significant suppression of tumor growth compared with control groups suggesting that loaded DCs can break peripheral T-cell tolerance against the tumor antigen and induce potent protective immune responses against CEA-positive tumors in vivo (page 679, right col. para. 2; page 680, left col. para. 1).
Regarding “tumor-derived antigen” of claim 4, Cho teaches the antigen is a tumor-derived antigen that is carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) (page 675, right col. para. 2).
Regarding anti-tumor immune-enhancing composition for tumor treatment” of claim 5, Cho teaches the CEA-loaded DCs are an anti-tumor immune-enhancing composition for tumor treatment as Cho teaches that CEA-loaded DC group of mice showed significant suppression of tumor growth compared with control groups suggesting that loaded DCs can break peripheral T-cell tolerance against the tumor antigen and induce potent protective immune responses against CEA-positive tumors in vivo (page 679, right col. para. 2; page 680, left col. para. 1).
Regarding “a surface-expressed protein of a tumor cell” of claim 9, Cho teaches the antigen is the tumor-derived antigen carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) which is a surface-expressed protein of a tumor cell as evidenced by Jansen (Abstract; page 2, para. 1; page 5, para. 1; Table 1; page 7 – 8).
Regarding “CEA” of claim 10, Cho teaches the tumor-derived antigen is CEA (Abstract; page 679, left col.; Supplementary Information page 3, para. 1).
Regarding “the composition is a pharmaceutical composition” of claim 12, Cho teaches the DCs loaded with CEA are a pharmaceutical composition for inhibition of tumor growth in vivo in mice (Supplementary Information page 2, last para. and page 10, para. 2; page 679, right col. para. 2; page 680, left col. para. 1).
Cho does not teach “the stromal vascular fraction is a three-dimensional spheroid culture” of claim 1. However, Cho teaches DCs have been used as potent therapeutic vaccines against human cancers and ex vivo-generated DCs that are pulsed with tumor antigens show therapeutic immunity in some cancer patients but clinical trials have demonstrated poor efficacy (page 675, left col. para. 1). Cho teaches the DCs were pulsed with nanoparticles containing CEA and could be applied in diverse DC-based immunotherapies that need to monitor antigen loading in vitro and track DCs in vivo to ensure consistent clinical efficacy (page 680, right col.). One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Wang and Cho because both teach compositions comprising dendritic cells for therapeutic immunomodulation in various disease models.
Regarding “the stromal vascular fraction is a three-dimensional spheroid culture” of claim 1, Lee teaches spheroids of adipose-derived stem cells (MSCs) by 3D culture (page 261, left col. para. 4 – 5; page 262, left col. para. 1; Figure 1). Lee teaches the MSCs when cultured as spheroids show reduced apoptosis and increased cell proliferation (page 262, left col. last para. and right col.; page 265, left col.). Lee teaches transplantation of these spheroids into a murine hindlimb ischemia model showed enhanced proliferation compared to monolayer MSCs (page 261, right col. para. 4; page 263, left col. and right col.; Figure 5; page 265, right col.). Lee teaches MSCs are used for treating various diseases and MSCs can modulate immune responses and reduce inflammation (page 264, left col. para. 2). Lee teaches adipose-derived MSC spheroids may be an efficient and suitable strategy for clinical application in regenerative medicine (page 266, left col. para. 2).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention as claimed for the person or ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wang regarding a composition comprising ASCs isolated form adipose tissue and dendritic cells with the teachings of Cho regarding dendritic cells loaded with CEA reduce tumor growth with the teachings of Lee regarding adipose-derived stem cells in spheroid form showed increased cell proliferation in vivo to arrive at the claimed composition wherein the stromal vascular fraction is a spheroid that is a three-dimensional culture. One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Wang, Cho and Lee in a composition for cancer immunotherapy as Wang teaches ASCs have gained attention as a therapeutic tool for immunomodulation in various disease models and Cho teaches DCs have been used as potent therapeutic vaccines against human cancers and ex vivo-generated DCs that are pulsed with tumor antigens show therapeutic immunity in some cancer patients but clinical trials have demonstrated poor efficacy and Lee teaches adipose-derived MSC spheroids may be an efficient and suitable strategy for clinical application in regenerative medicine. One would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings as Wang teaches ASCs-treated dendritic cells increase the Treg population and Cho teaches immunizing mice with DCs loaded with CEA resulted in an increase of CD8+ T cells and CD4+ T cells and significant suppression of tumor growth suggesting that loaded DCs induce potent protective immune responses against CEA-positive tumors in vivo and Lee teaches enhanced proliferation of adipose-derived stem cells in vivo.
Rejections Necessitated by Amendment
20. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (Wang, Yu-Chi, et al. Experimental cell research 370.2 (2018): 708-717; previously cited), hereinafter Wang in view of Cho (Cho NH, et. al. Nat Nanotechnol. 2011 Sep 11;6(10):675-82; previously cited), hereinafter Cho as evidenced by Jansen (Jansen, Kristina, et al. Cancers 16.23 (2024): 4052; previously cited), hereinafter Jansen in view of Lee (Lee, Jun Hee, et. al. Biomolecules & therapeutics 24.3 (2016): 260; previously cited), hereinafter Lee as applied to claims 1, 3 – 10, and 12 above, and further in view of Yu (Yu, Bin, et al. Clinical cancer research 9.1 (2003): 285-294; previously cited), hereinafter Yu.
Wang in view of Cho and Lee make obvious the limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Wang, Cho, and Lee do not teach the composition further comprises an anti-cancer agent of claim 11. However, Cho teaches DCs have been used as potent therapeutic vaccines against human cancers and ex vivo-generated DCs that are pulsed with tumor antigens show therapeutic immunity in some cancer patients but clinical trials have demonstrated poor efficacy (page 675, left col. para. 1). Cho teaches the DCs were pulsed with nanoparticles containing CEA and could be applied in diverse DC-based immunotherapies that need to monitor antigen loading in vitro and track DCs in vivo to ensure consistent clinical efficacy (page 680, right col.).
Yu teaches combination of dendritic cells (DCs) with paclitaxel significantly increases survival of mice bearing tumors compared to either DCs or paclitaxel alone (Figure 6; page 291, right col. para. 2 – 3; page 293, left col. last para. and right col.). Yu teaches the dose of paclitaxel is important so as to not inhibit T cell function in combined therapy (page 288, right col.; page 293, right col.). Yu teaches successful treatment of advanced stage breast cancer is a significant clinical problem and it is clear that neither cytotoxic therapy nor immunotherapy alone would be able to solve this problem (page 291, right col. last para.). Yu teaches chemotherapy frequently fails because of the development of drug resistance and immunotherapy alone is not able to maintain effective antitumor immune response (page 291, right col. last para.). Yu teaches it appears that only a combination of different modalities may provide the necessary breakthrough in the treatment of this group of patients (page 292, left col. para. 1).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention as claimed for the person or ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wang regarding a composition comprising ASCs isolated form adipose tissue and dendritic cells with the teachings of Cho regarding dendritic cells loaded with CEA reduce tumor growth with the teachings of Lee regarding adipose-derived stem cells in spheroid form showed increased cell proliferation with the teachings of Yu regarding combination therapy of DCs and chemotherapy to arrive at the claimed composition where the composition comprises an anti-cancer agent. One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Wang, Cho, Lee, and Yu in a composition for cancer immunotherapy as Wang teaches ASCs have gained attention as a therapeutic tool for immunomodulation in various disease models and Cho teaches DCs have been used as potent therapeutic vaccines against human cancers and ex vivo-generated DCs that are pulsed with tumor antigens show therapeutic immunity in some cancer patients but clinical trials have demonstrated poor efficacy and Yu teaches successful treatment of advanced stage breast cancer is a significant clinical problem and it is clear that neither cytotoxic therapy nor immunotherapy alone would be able to solve this problem and only a combination of different modalities may provide the necessary breakthrough for treatment. One would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings as Yu teaches combination of dendritic cells (DCs) with paclitaxel significantly increases survival of mice bearing tumors compared to either DCs or paclitaxel alone.
Applicant’s Arguments/ Response to Arguments
21. Applicant Argues: On page 8, para. 2 – page 10, Applicant traverses the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 because the cited references fail to disclose all elements and there is no motivation to combine, and there is no reasonable expectation of success. Applicant asserts on page 8, para. 4 that Wang, Cho, and Lee fail to describe SVF and three-dimensional spheroid culture. Applicant asserts on page 9, para. 1 that Wang’s ASCs comprise a homogenous, purified stem-cell subpopulation, which is different from the heterogenous SVF of claim 1. Applicant asserts on page 9, para. 2 that Lee merely describes a 3D culture of MSCs and MSCs are different than SVF.
Response to Arguments: This is not found persuasive because Applicant’s SVF and Wang’s ASCs are prepared by almost identical methods. Applicant’s example teaches at paragraph 65 how SVF was isolated and cultured:
PNG
media_image1.png
742
1097
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wang’s method of isolating ASCs is as follows (and previously cited):
PNG
media_image2.png
434
663
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the ASCs of Wang and the claimed SVF were prepared by very similar procedures including chopping the adipose tissue, digesting with collagenase, centrifuging at 500 g, harvesting the resulting cell pellets and resuspending in DMEM with 10% FBS plus pen/strep and cultured. Further, Applicant’s specification teaches the characteristics of the SVF is similar to lymph node stromal cells (para. 96 – 101). Solely to rebut Applicant’s arguments, He (He Y, et. al. Mesenchymal stem cells empower T cells in the lymph nodes via MCP-1/PD-L1 axis. Cell Death Dis. 2022 Apr 18;13(4):365) teaches that lymph node MSCs coexist with the active immune cells and exhibit strong immunoregulatory function (page 1, right col. para. 2 – 3; page 2, left col. para. 2). Therefore, the ASCs of Wang and the adipose-derived MSCs of Lee are similar to the claimed SVF of Applicant’s example.
Applicant Argues: On page 9, para. 3, Applicant asserts that Lee’s 3D culture of MSCs is different from the three-dimensional spheroid culture of SVF of claim 1.
Response to Arguments: This is not found persuasive for the same reasons explained above. Applicant’s specification teaches that the SVF is similar to lymph node stromal cells and therefore the 3D spheroids of adipose-derived MSCs of Lee provide motivation to combine with Wang because Lee teaches the MSCs when cultured as spheroids show reduced apoptosis and increased cell proliferation (page 262, left col. last para. and right col.; page 265, left col.) and both Wang and Lee teach these cells may be used therapeutically.
Applicant Argues: On page 9, last para., Applicant asserts that there is no motivation to combine Wang and Cho because Wang describes suppressing T cell proliferation while Cho emphasizes robust T cell response.
Response to Arguments: This is not found persuasive because the claims are directed to a composition and not to a method of treating and claim 1 broadly recites “antigen”, and because Applicant’s cited teachings of Wang and Cho do not clarify the types of T cells whose proliferation is suppressed or the type of T cell response. Therefore, solely to rebut Applicant’s arguments, Wang teaches ASCs have demonstrated a profound immune regulation effect in various disease models including graft-versus-host disease, autoimmune diseases, and neurodegenerative disorders (page 708, left col.). Wang teaches ASCs regulate immune responses by secreting cytokines resulting mainly in the induction of regulatory T cells (Tregs) (page 708, left col.). Wang teaches immature DCs lack the ability to activate T cells and infusion of immature DCs prolongs allograft survival and induces immune tolerance (page 708, right col. para. 2). Wang teaches their previous studies demonstrated that ASCs combined with short-term immunosuppression agents could modulate T cell activation and promote immune tolerance in rodent and swine hind-limb allotransplant models and immature DCs pulsed with alloantigen prolonged allograft survival and increased the population of Treg (page 709, left col. para. 3). Wang teaches ASC-treated mature DCs (ASCmDCs) mimicked immature DCs leading to suppressed T cell proliferation and increased the Treg population (page 710, left col. last para. and right col. para. 3). Cho teaches a hurdle in DC-based immunotherapy is the development of a clinically relevant delivery system that can efficiently deliver target antigens into DCs as sufficient amounts of antigen must be delivered into the DC to generate potent cytotoxic T lymphocytes and CD4+ helper T cells that kill tumors (page 675, left col. last para.). Cho teaches the DCs loaded with CEA antigen elicited cytotoxic responses in vivo where IFN-gamma-secreting CD4+ and CD8+ T cells increased and tumor growth decreased (page 679, left col. and right col. para. 2). Therefore, as claim 1 is broadly drawn to a composition comprising dendritic cells loaded with any antigen, one would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Wang and Cho because both teach DC cells for immunotherapy.
Applicant Argues: On page 10, para. 1 – 2, Applicant asserts that there is no reasonable expectation of success in view of the cited references. Applicant asserts that claim 1 recites a “composition for enhancing an immune response” and the specification describes that the composition of claim 1 activates T cells. Applicant asserts that in contrast Wang’s ASCmDCs suppressed T cell proliferation and therefore Wang’s ASCs have the complete opposite effect than the SVF of claim 1.
Response to Arguments: This is not found persuasive because as stated in the response above, Wang’s increased the Treg population (page 710, left col. last para. and right col. para. 3). Further, recitation of a “composition for enhancing an immune response” is an intended use of the composition and the claims are drawn to a composition and not a method of treating or activating T cells. As previously cited, Wang teaches DCs are regarded as classic sentinels of the immune response by triggering the activation of antigen-specific T cells (page 708, right col. para. 2). Solely to rebut Applicant’s arguments, Wang teaches their previous studies demonstrated that ASCs combined with short-term immunosuppression agents could modulate T cell activation and promote immune tolerance in rodent and swine hind-limb allotransplant models and immature DCs pulsed with alloantigen prolonged allograft survival and increased the population of Treg (page 709, left col. para. 3). Thus, Wang teaches a composition for enhancing an immune response as the composition comprising ASCs and DCs increases Tregs.
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
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 ZANNA M BEHARRY whose telephone number is (571)270-0411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:45 am - 5:45 pm.
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, Peter Paras can be reached at (571)272-4517. 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.
/ZANNA MARIA BEHARRY/Examiner, Art Unit 1632
/MARCIA S NOBLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1632