DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, 16, 18, 26-32, and 41-42 in addition to the species SEQ ID NO: 6 (YSHGTFTSDYSKYLD(Aib)KYAQK(yGlu-yGlu-dpeg-CO(CH12)18CO2H)FV(Aib)WLEDEPSSGAPPPS(OH)) in the reply filed on 10/22/2025 is acknowledged.
Priority
The instant application is the 371 national stage entry of PCT/US2021/027763 filed 4/16/2021, which claims priority to 63/011,641, filed 4/17/2020. The priority date of 4/17/2020 is acknowledged.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 3-10, 16, 18, 26-32, and 46-48 are pending. Claims 7, 28, 30, 31, 47, and 48 are hereby withdrawn as non-elected species. Claims 3 and 29 are currently amended. Claims 46-48 are new. Claims 2, 11-15, 19-25, and 33-45 were cancelled by the Applicant. Claims 4-10, 16, and 32. Claims 46-48 are new.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS’s submitted on 3/29/2023 and 8/12/2024 are under consideration.
Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Disclosures
REQUIREMENTS FOR PATENT APPLICATIONS CONTAINING NUCLEOTIDE AND/OR AMINO ACID SEQUENCE DISCLOSURES
Items 1) and 2) provide general guidance related to requirements for sequence disclosures.
37 CFR 1.821(c) requires that patent applications which contain disclosures of nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences that fall within the definitions of 37 CFR 1.821(a) must contain a "Sequence Listing," as a separate part of the disclosure, which presents the nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences and associated information using the symbols and format in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825. This "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure may be submitted:
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system (see Section I.1 of the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System (https://www.uspto.gov/PatentLegalFramework), hereinafter "Legal Framework") as an ASCII text file, together with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file in a separate paragraph of the specification as required by 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) identifying:
the name of the ASCII text file;
ii) the date of creation; and
iii) the size of the ASCII text file in bytes;
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) on read-only optical disc(s) as permitted by 37 CFR 1.52(e)(1)(ii), labeled according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(5), with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(8) and 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) in a separate paragraph of the specification identifying:
the name of the ASCII text file;
the date of creation; and
the size of the ASCII text file in bytes;
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(2) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF file (not recommended); or
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(3) on physical sheets of paper (not recommended).
When a “Sequence Listing” has been submitted as a PDF file as in 1(c) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(2)) or on physical sheets of paper as in 1(d) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(3)), 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1) requires a computer readable form (CRF) of the “Sequence Listing” in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.824.
If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the PDF copy and the CRF copy (the ASCII text file copy) are identical.
If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed on paper or read-only optical disc, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the paper or read-only optical disc copy and the CRF are identical.
Specific deficiencies and the required response to this Office Action are as follows:
Specific deficiency - The Incorporation by Reference paragraph required by 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) is missing or incomplete. See item 1) a) or 1) b) above.
Required response – Applicant must provide:
A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125 inserting the required incorporation-by-reference paragraph, consisting of:
A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version);
A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and
A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter.
The file size must be listed in bytes.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In the Brief Description of the Drawings, Pg 3, the Figure 2 legend states that it depicts activity of glucagon, exenatide, and “compuond A6”. In other words, compound is misspelled.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, and 16 – each claim recites a “lipophilic” substituent, wherein the provided definition of lipophilic substituent is contrary to the conventional term in the art.
Claim 6 – line 2 recites that X21 is “optinally” covalently bound to a lipophilic substituent. In other words, optionally is misspelled.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The elected species SEQ ID NO: 6 is described in the instant specification as including a spacer and lipophilic substituent (yGlu-yGlu-dpeg-CO(CH12)18CO2H) but the Sequence Listing does not indicate the presence of these attachments/modifications. For purposes of examination, SEQ ID NO: 6 has been interpreted as including the spacer and lipophilic substituent as indicated in the Response to Restriction/Election and specification.
It is also noted that there are several other species that have similar discrepancies between their description in the Sequence Listing and the instant specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 16, 18, 26, 27, 29, 32, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 3 both recite that the isolated polypeptide can have –(OH/NH2) at the C-terminus. The scope of each claim is indefinite as it is unclear whether the isolated polypeptides are limited to only OH, only NH2, or one or the other at the C-terminus. Further, the parentheses imply that this C-terminal modification might be optional. For purposes of examination, the polypeptide is being interpreted as having OH at the C-terminus.
By virtue of their dependencies, claims 4-6, 8-10, 16, 18, 26, 27, 29, 32, and 45 are also hereby rejected for this same reasoning.
Moreover, claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, and 16 are further rejected based upon the recitation of a “lipophilic substituent”. The scope of these claims is indefinite because the definition provided in the instant specification consists of multiple carbon atom ranges and it is unclear which range is the standard that should be used. For purposes of examination, a “lipophilic substituent” has been interpreted as a substituent comprising 4 to 40 carbon atoms or the broadest definition provided on Pg 46.
Additionally, claim 18 is further rejected as being indefinite based upon the recitation that dpeg is –[CO(CH2)O(CH2)2O(CH2)NH]- in line 10 on Pg 5 of the claims. This formula for dpeg is different from what is listed in the instant specification in the Table 4 legend (see Pg 20, first bullet point) and structurally depicted in Table 8 (starting Pg 49). For purposes of examination, dpeg is being interpreted based upon what is shown in the instant specification, wherein dpeg is -[COCH2O(CH2)2O(CH2)2NH]-.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-10, 16, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Blackwell et al. (US 2018/0009871 A1 published 1/11/2018, cited on IDS filed 3/29/2023 and 8/12/2024).
Blackwell teaches isolated polypeptides that are glucagon-receptor selective analogs and peptide derivatives thereof that have improved solubility, thermal stability, and physiochemical properties as compared to native endogenous glucagon (Abstract). Blackwell teaches the peptide SEQ ID NO: 151:
X1SX3GTFTSDX10SKYLDX16X17X18AQX21FVX24WLEDEPX31SX33X34PPPS-OH
wherein X1 =Y or W; X3=H or Q; X10=Y, Kor K***; X16=A, S, Aib, Kor K***; X17=A, K, Aib or K***; X18=Y, Sor R; X21=E, Kor K***; X24=I, Aib, Kor K***; X31=S, Kor K***; X33=G, Kor K***; and X34=A or S; where K*** is lysine and the E-amino group of the lysine sidechain is covalently joined to a lipophilic substituent, optionally via a spacer ([0478-0491)]. In SEQ ID NO: 151, where X1 is Y, X3 is H, X10 is Y, X16 is Aib, X17 is K, X18 is Y, X21 is K***, X24 is Aib, X31 is S, X33 is G, and X34 is A reads on the instant SEQ ID NO: 80 wherein X1 is Y, X9 is D, X15 is D, X16 is Aib, X17 is K, X18 is Y, X20 is Q, X21 is K, X23 is V, X24 is Aib, X26 is L, and X28 is D.
Similarly, SEQ ID NO: 151 of Blackwell also anticipates SEQ ID NO: 82, as recited in claim 3, wherein X1 is Y, X16 is Aib, X17 is K, X20 is Q, X21 is K covalently bound to a lipophilic substituent, optionally via a spacer, X23 is V, X24 is Aib, X28 is D, and Z-tail is PSSGAPPPS (SEQ ID NO: 90). Thus, claims 1, 3, and 16 are anticipated.
Blackwell teaches that X16, X17, or X21 can be lysine bound to a lipophilic substituent. Thus, claim 4 is anticipated ([0478-0491)].
Blackwell teaches that X21 can be K or K covalently bound to a lipophilic substituent. Moreover, Blackwell also teaches that X20 can be Q and X16 can be K or K bound to a lipophilic substituent. Thus, claim 5 is anticipated ([0478-0491)].
Blackwell teaches that X20 is Q and X21 is K, which can be optionally bound to a lipophilic substituent, optionally via a spacer ([0478-0491)]. Thus, claim 6 is anticipated.
Blackwell teaches that X16 can be Aib or K covalently bound to a lipophilic substituent ([0483]). Thus, claim 8 is anticipated.
Blackwell teaches X24 can be Aib ([0487)]. Thus, claim 9 is anticipated.
Blackwell teaches X28 can be D ([0479]). Thus, claim 10 is anticipated.
Blackwell teaches pharmaceutical compositions of any peptides of the invention ([0212, 0523]). Thus, claim 32 is anticipated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1, 3-6, 8-10, 16, 18, 26, 27, 29, 32, and 46 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackwell et al. (US 2018/0009871 A1 published 1/11/2018, cited on IDS filed 3/29/2023 and 8/12/2024).
The teachings of Blackwell are stated above. Blackwell does not explicitly teach Formula IV, constituting a lipophilic substituent and spacer.
However, Blackwell states that conjugation of one or more lipophilic substituents, optionally via a bivalent spacer, is intended to prolong the action of the peptide by facilitating binding to serum albumin and delayed renal clearance of the conjugated peptide ([0446]). Blackwell teaches a number of lipophilic substituents as well as spacers. The lipophilic substituents can include acyl groups of the formula HOOC(CH2)mCO- wherein m is an integer from 4 to 38; Blackwell also specifically teaches the species HOOC(CH2)18CO- ([0450]). Bivalent spacers taught by Blackwell include dpeg (-[COCH2O(CH2)2O(CH2)2NH]-) and γ-glutamyl among others ([0451-0468]), which are conjugated to the ε-amino group of lysine residue(s) contained in the parent peptide. The examples given by Blackwell indicate that spacers taught can be mixed and matched to form a variety of spacers that connect the lipophilic substituent to the parent polypeptide (see, for instance, Formula II and Formula III).
Thus, regarding claim 18, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Blackwell teaches several spacers individually and in combination, including dpeg and γ-glutamyl, conjugated to a variety of different lipophilic substituents. Blackwell teaches each element claimed and the only difference between Blackwell and the instantly claimed invention is the lack of actual combination of elements resulting in the yGlu-yGlu-dpeg-CO(CH12)18CO2H spacer-lipophilic substituent combo. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the γ-glutamyl and dpeg spacers could be combined together, and as a combination they would continue to function as a spacer; moreover, the addition of a fatty acid such as CO(CH12)18CO2H to the spacer, then conjugated to the parent polypeptide, would prolong the parent polypeptide’s activity. Thus, the combination of elements leading to yGlu-yGlu-dpeg-CO(CH12)18CO2H as claimed would yield predictable results recognized by one skilled in the art.
Moreover, per MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B), duplication of parts is one legal precedent recognized by the court as directed to common practices that normally require only ordinary skill in the art and are considered routine expedients: “In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).” In the instant case, the lipophilic substituent and spacer of Formula IV/the elected species yGlu-yGlu-dpeg-CO(CH12)18CO2H is composed of duplicative yGlu spacers joined together, which does not yield new and unexpected results as evidenced by Tosi et al. (US2005255561 A1, published 11/17/2005), which teaches the creation of peptide conjugates to spacers comprising glutamic acid and PEG conjugated to fatty acids (see Abstract and [0054, 0125]).
Regarding claims 26, 27, 29, and 46, Blackwell teaches SEQ ID NO: 151; wherein X1 is Y, X3 is H, X10 is Y, X16 is Aib, X17 is K, X18 is Y, X21 is K***, X24 is Aib, X31 is S, X33 is G, and X34 is A, which is equivalent to the instant SEQ ID NO: 6.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3, 4-6, 8-10, 16, 18, and 32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 21-23, and 27 of U.S. Patent No. 10,501,517 B2 (US ‘517). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they contain overlapping subject matter.
Claim 1 of US ‘517 recites
PNG
media_image1.png
690
1122
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
728
548
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. SEQ ID NO: 151 reads on the instant SEQ ID NO: 80 of claim 1 wherein, in SEQ ID NO: 151, X1 = Y; X3 = H; X10 = Y; X16 = Aib, K, or K***; X17 = K or K***; X18 = R or Y; X21 = E, K, or K***; X24 = Aib, K, or K***; X31 = S; X33 = G; X34 = A or S; wherein K*** is lysine and the ε-amino group of the lysine side chain is covalently joined to a lipophilic substituent, optionally via a spacer.
Dependent claims include selection of the peptide SEQ ID NO: 151 (claim 21), species of the lipophilic substituents and spacers (claims 22 and 23), a pharmaceutical composition of the isolated peptide (claim 27).
Claims 1, 3, 4-6, 8-10, 16, 18, and 32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 14, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,214,607 B2
(US ‘607). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they contain overlapping subject matter.
In Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 95 USPQ2d 1797 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the Court determined that Claims of a later patent were held invalid for obviousness-type double patenting when the earlier patent claimed a compound and disclosed its utility in specification, and later patent claimed a method of using compound for use described in specification of earlier patent.
Claim 1 of US ‘607 recites
PNG
media_image3.png
794
786
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
318
404
media_image4.png
Greyscale
SEQ ID NO: 151 reads on the instant SEQ ID NO: 80 of claim 1 wherein, in SEQ ID NO: 151, X1 = Y; X3 = H; X10 = Y; X16 = Aib, K, or K***; X17 = K or K***; X18 = R or Y; X21 = E, K, or K***; X24 = Aib, K, or K***; X31 = S; X33 = G; X34 = A or S; wherein K*** is lysine and the ε-amino group of the lysine side chain is covalently joined to a lipophilic substituent, optionally via a spacer.
Dependent claims include selection of the peptide SEQ ID NO: 151 (claim 14) and species of the lipophilic substituents and spacers (claim 17).
Claims 1, 3, 4-6, 8-10, 16, 18, and 32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 32, 57, and 58 of copending Application No. 18/490,341 (‘341 reference application; claim set filed 3/21/2024). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they contain overlapping subject matter.
Claim 1 of copending Application No. ’34 recites a method of promoting weight loss, treating obesity, or suppressing appetite in a subject in need thereof, said method comprising administering to the subject an isolated polypeptide comprising: (i) the amino acid sequence: X1X2X3GTFTSDX10X11X12X13LX15X16X17X18AQEFX23X24X25LEDE-Z tail (SEQ ID NO: 1) or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof, wherein:
PNG
media_image5.png
610
552
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
842
632
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
SEQ ID NO: 151 reads on the instant SEQ ID NO: 80 of claim 1 wherein, in SEQ ID NO: 151, X1 = Y; X3 = H; X10 = Y; X16 = Aib, K, or K***; X17 = K or K***; X18 = R or Y; X21 = E, K, or K***; X24 = Aib, K, or K***; X31 = S; X33 = G; X34 = A or S; wherein K*** is lysine and the ε-amino group of the lysine side chain is covalently joined to a lipophilic substituent, optionally via a spacer. The instant specification indicates that peptides of the invention are useful for treating a variety of diseases, disorders, or conditions associated with the human glucagon receptor, including metabolic disease or disorders such as type 2 diabetes, obesity, and the need to attain weight loss (Pg 3, lines 13-16; Pg 4, lines 3-4; Pg 71, lines 1-15).
Dependent claims include a pharmaceutical composition of the isolated peptide (claim 32), selection of the peptide SEQ ID NO: 151 (claim 57), and species of the lipophilic substituents and spacers (claim 58).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara E Konopelski Snavely whose telephone number is (571)272-1841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6pm 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, Melissa L Fisher can be reached at 571-270-7430. 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.
/SARA E KONOPELSKI SNAVELY/Examiner, Art Unit 1658
/FRED H REYNOLDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1658