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
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 15, 19-26, 30-33, 35, 36, 38, 43, 47, and 48 are pending.
Claims 1, 24-26, 30-33, 35, 36, 38, 43, and 47 were previously withdrawn.
Claim 2-14, 16-18, 27-29, 34, 37, 39-42, 44-46 are canceled.
Claims 15, 19-23, and 26 are amended.
Claims 15, 19-23, and 48 are under consideration.
Claim Objections
(previous objection; withdrawn) Claims 15, 21, 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15: Spell out the acronym AAV.
Claim 21: Change “and or” to “and/or”.
Claim 23: For consistency with other claims, add a comma after “claim 15” and additional language like “wherein the AAV capsid protein is”. For example, “of claim 15, wherein the capsid protein is covalently linked…”.
Applicant contends: Claims 15, 21, and 23 are amended.
Office response: As a result of the amendments to claims 15, 21, and 23, their objection is withdrawn.
(new, necessitated by amendment) Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20: Add a comma after “of claim 15” for consistency with other claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(previous rejection; withdrawn) Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and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.
Applicant contends: Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection. Solely to expedite prosecution, claim 20 is amended to depend from claim 15 and not be based on the AAV8 capsid protein sequence or the corresponding residue in another AAV capsid protein. The rejection with respect to claim 20 is thereby moot.
Claim 21 is amended to depend from claim 15 and delete the allegedly unclear or
indefinite recitations and to recite that the VR1 loop comprises an amino acid sequence with at least 90% identity to any one of SEQ ID NOs: 29-41. Applicant respectfully submits that claim 21 as amended is clear and definite, and that the rejection has been obviated by the amendment.
Claim 22 is amended to recite that the AAV capsid protein further comprises an E531K or equivalent mutation. Applicant respectfully submits that a skilled person would understand an "E531K or equivalent mutation" to mean a mutation on the capsid that confers heparin binding ability, and that the clarity and indefiniteness rejection with respect to claim 22 has been obviated by the amendment.
Office Response: Applicant’s traversal of the rejection is acknowledged. As a result of the amendments to claims 20-22, their rejection is withdrawn.
(new rejection, necessitated by amendment) Claims 15, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 48 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.
See claims 15, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 48 as submitted 05/04/2026.
Claim 15: Claim 1 (amended) recites “at least 90% identical to SEQ ID NO: 20 [using just the elected claim] and one or more mutations at residue 105, 135…”. It is unclear if the mutation residue position must be the same as that of SEQ ID NO: 20 specifically or not; it is unclear if the amino acid sequence, if aligned with SEQ ID NO: 20, should have a different residue (mutation) at the same position when compared to SEQ ID NO: 20. Alternatively, it is unclear if the amino acid sequence should be at least 90% identical to SEQ ID NO: 20 with one or more of the mutations at the residues already incorporated in SEQ ID NO: 20, for example. If this is the case, the reference sequence used for identifying the mutation should be provided so that one can clearly identify the mutation in SEQ ID NO: 20. Additionally, it is unclear if the “one or more mutations at residues” reads on all SEQ ID NOS: 15-28 or if certain mutations read on some SEQ ID NOs while others do not.
For examination purposes, the claim is being interpreted as an amino acid sequence at least 90% identical to SEQ ID NO: 20. The amino acid sequence also has a different amino acid residue than SEQ ID NO: 20 at the specific position stipulated.
Claim 22: Claim 22 recites new language, e.g., “or equivalent” mutation. However, “equivalent mutation” can be interpreted in a myriad of ways beyond, as explained by the applicant, “for conferring heparin binding ability”. The non-patent literature support as described in the specification on E531K mutation in AAV6 [0220] but still does not alleviate the lack of clarity in the claim.
Claim 48: Claim 48 recites the limitation “the VR 1 loop”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
(previous rejection; withdrawn) Claims 15 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons set forth below. See MPEP § 2106.04 for analysis parameters.
Applicant contends: Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection. According to the Examiner, because Gao et al. (2004) discloses a full capsid protein with 96% identity to SEQ ID NO: 20, instant claims 15 and 23 recite judicial exceptions (law of nature) without additional elements to integrate it into a practical application. Office Action, pages 14-15.
Without acquiescing to the propriety of the rejection and solely to expedite prosecution, claim 15 is hereby amended to recite that the AAV capsid protein comprises one or more mutations at residue 105, 135, 179, 417, 459, 510, 523, 526, or 724, wherein an AAV particle comprising the encoded AAV capsid protein has decreased susceptibility to neutralizing antibodies when administered to a subject relative to an AAV particle comprising a wild-type AAV capsid protein.
Applicant respectfully submits that the AAV capsid protein described in claim 15 as amended is distinct from anything that exists in nature (or recited in Gao), and is thus not directed to a judicial exception (JE) in the form of a law of nature. Thus, at Step 2A, Prong One, the answer is NO. And even if the claimed AAV capsid protein were to be directed to a JE, amended claim 15 recites additional elements (i.e., specific mutations) that would integrate the JE into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the JE (i.e., conferring decreased susceptibility to neutralizing antibodies). Thus, at Step 2A, Prong Two, and Step 2B of the patentability analysis, the answer is YES. Accordingly, claim 15 as amended is patentable.
Claim 23 depends from claim 15 and is patent eligible for at least the same reasons.
For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of claims 15 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 101 be withdrawn.
Office response: Applicant’s traversal of the rejection is acknowledged. As a result of the amendments to claim 15, the rejection of claim 15 and 23 is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(previous rejection; withdrawn) Claims 15, 20, 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gray et al. (Gray)(WO2016081811-A1)(See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited).
Applicant contends: Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection. Without acquiescing to the propriety of the rejection and solely to expedite prosecution, claim 15 is hereby amended to recite that the AAV capsid protein comprises one or more mutations at residue 105, 135, 179, 417, 459, 510, 523, 526, or 724, wherein an AAV particle comprising the encoded capsid protein has decreased susceptibility to neutralizing antibodies when administered to a subject relative to an AAV particle comprising a wild-type capsid
protein. Further, claim 20 is amended to delete the mutations that are allegedly disclosed in Gray(i.e., the I18 88L, S200P, L201N, D348E, E360Q, D383N mutations).
Applicant submits that Gray does not disclose the mutations recited in claims 15 and 20 as amended and thus does not anticipate instant claims 15 and 20 as amended. Claims 22 and 23 depend from claim 15 and are novel over Gray for at least the same reasons.
Accordingly, Applicant submits that the rejection of claims 15, 20, 22, and 23 are under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) over Gray has been overcome and respectfully requests it be withdrawn.
Office response: Applicant’s traversal of the rejection is acknowledged. As a result of the amendments to claim 15, the rejection of claims 15, 20, 22-23 is withdrawn.
(previous rejection; withdrawn) Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bowles et al. (Bowles) (See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited).
Applicant contends: Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection. Without acquiescing to the propriety of the rejection and solely to expedite prosecution, claim 21 is hereby amended to be dependent from claim 15 and thereby include all the elements of amended claim 15. Applicant respectfully submits that Bowles does not disclose all the elements of amended of claim 15, including the one or more mutations at residue 105, 135, 179, 417, 459, 510, 523, 526, or 724. Thus, claim 21 as amended is not anticipated by Bowles.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) over Bowles be withdrawn.
Office response: Applicant’s traversal of the rejection is acknowledged. As a result of the amendment to claim 21, its rejection is withdrawn. With respect to instant SEQ ID NO: 36, see new as necessitated by amendment, 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection below. It is not free of the prior art on record.
Allowable Subject Matter
(previous objection; withdrawn) Claim 19 is objected (The AAV capsid protein of claim 15, comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 20) to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (e.g., claim 15), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Applicant contends: Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. See Office Action, page 9.
Solely to expedite prosecution, claim 19 is hereby rewritten in independent form. This objection has thereby been rendered moot.
Accordingly, Applicant submits this objection is overcome, and respectfully requests it be withdrawn.
Office response: As a result of the amendment to claim 19, its objection is withdrawn. Claim 19 reciting an AAV capsid protein comprising amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 20 (as elected) is free of the prior art of record.
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.
(new, necessitated by amendment) Claims 15, 20, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray (previously cited) in view of Bartel et al. (Bartel)(See PTO-892: Notice of References Cited) and Maersch et al. (Maersch)(See PTO-892: Notice of References Cited).
See claims 15, 20, 21, 22, and 23 as submitted 06/09/2026.
Regarding claims 15 and 20, Gray teaches recombinant AAV capsid protein, SEQ ID 116 [recombinant AAV capsid protein] with a 97.9% Query Match to SEQ ID NO: 20 (as recited in claim 15, “at least 90% identical”)(See Result 16, BDA63184, us-17-997-791-20.align450.rag, 2/16/2026, in supplemental content tab). Gray’s SEQ ID 116 has the 459T amino acid position (as recited in claim 15, “one or more mutations at residues…459).
Qy 420 PFHSSYAHSQSLDRLMNPLIDQYLYYLSRTQTTGGTANTQTLGFSQGGPNTMANQAKNWL 479
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 421 PFHSSYAHSQSLDRLMNPLIDQYLYYLSRTQTTGGTANTQTLGFSQGGPNTMANQAKNWL 480
With respect to “wherein an AAV particle comprising the encoded AAV capsid protein has decreased susceptibility to neutralizing antibodies when administered to a subject relative to an AAV particle comprising a wild-type AAV capsid”, MPEP 2112.01 I teaches when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Additionally, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
For claim 20, the claimed product appears to be the same as that of the prior art as taught by Gray even if the process by which the claim product and the prior art product were produced may potentially differ. As per MPEP 2113, Product-by-Process Claims [R-01.2024], I. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps: “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, for example, a threonine is finally located at position 459.
Regarding claim 22, Gray also teaches “Examples of specific targeting and detargeting sequences are known in the art. One example is the molecular basis for preferential liver tropism, which has been mapped, in the case of AAV2 and AAV6, to a continuous basic footprint that appears to be involved in the interaction of either serotype with heparin. Specifically, it has previously been demonstrated that a single lysine residue on AAV6 (K531) dictates heparin binding ability and consequently, liver tropism. In corollary, substitutional mutagenesis of the corresponding glutamate/aspartate residue on other serotypes with a lysine residue confers heparin binding, possibly by forming a minimum continuous basic footprint on the capsid surface” [0260].
Regarding claim 23, Gray teaches reference claim 72 which refers back to reference claims 64-71, and for example, SEQ ID No: 116 (e.g., The AAV capsid…comprising the amino acid sequence of any of the SEQ ID NOS: 64-71) and claim 72 which recites: The AAV capsid of any one of claims 64-71 covalently linked, bound to, or encapsidating a compound selected from the group consisting of a DNA molecule, an RNA molecule, a polypeptide, a carbohydrate, a lipid, and a small organic molecule.
Gray does not teach wherein an AAV particle comprising the encoded AAV capsid protein has decreased susceptibility to neutralizing antibodies when administered to a subject relative to an AAV particle comprising a wild-type AAV capsid protein.
Bartel, however, teaches different strategies to avoid neutralization by humoral anti-AAV immune response such as genetic modification of AAV capsid proteins to avoid antibody neutralization. This can include peptide insertions or site-directed mutagenesis. Remarking on previous studies, Bartel teaches “The most frequent selected clones carried mutations at capsid positions 459 and 551. Introduction of selected amino acid substitution at position 459 and/or 551 of capsids of recombinant AAV vectors conferred the vectors with an improved ability to evade neutralization”(p. 8).
Bartel does not specifically teach T459.
Maersch, however, teaches “To prove the importance of optimizing amino acid composition of immune-escaping mutants, here we combined rational design and evolutionary approaches randomizing five previously identified immunogenic residues located at positions…459 and 551…of the structural proteins ORF (cap) of AAV-2”(p. 168). Maersch also teaches clones with a R459T mutation (p. 169, Fig. 2A), such as B10 (See Table 2) (albeit with other mutations too) with decreased susceptibility to neutralization by antibodies when compared to wild-type, in this case, AAV-2 (see Fig. 3, particularly at higher % serum. For example, see S1, between 0.63% and 1.25%, as well as 1.25% sera or greater)(p. 171). Inherency aside as noted above from the claim, Maersch’s teaching is suggestive that the 459T mutation as taught in Gray’s reference SEQ ID NO: 116 imparts a decreased susceptibility to neutralizing antibodies.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Gray (T459) with the teachings of Bartel and Maersch (immune evasion) to arrive at the current invention in order to design an AAV vector, not only with excellent tissue tropism (especially for the liver thanks to the K531 mutation as a suggested modification by Gray) but also with the ability to evade the immune response, e.g. neutralizing antibodies (See MPEP 2143, Rationale A. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results and Rationale 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).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success for combining the teachings of Gray, Bartel and Maersch. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the underlying materials and methods are known, successfully demonstrated in the context of AAV technology, gene therapy, and commonly used as evidenced by the applied prior art.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(new, necessitated by amendment) Claims 21 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray in view of Bartel and Maersch as applied to claims 15, 20, 22, and 23 above, and further in view of Samulski et al. (Samulski)(WO2017106236A1)(See PTO-892: Notice of References Cited).
See claims 15, 20, 22, and 23 as submitted 06/09/2026.
See also the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above.
Gray, Bartel, Maersch teach claim 15.
Gray also teaches QISSASTGASNDNH with a 100% match to SEQ ID NO: 29.
Qy 240 ITTSTRTWALPTYNNHLYKQISSASTGASNDNHYFGYSTPWGYFDFNRFHCHFSPRDWQR 299
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 241 ITTSTRTWALPTYNNHLYKQISSASTGASNDNHYFGYSTPWGYFDFNRFHCHFSPRDWQR 300
Gray, Bartel and Maersch don’t specifically address the advantages of one or more mutations in the variable region 1 (VR1) loop or VR1 loops of different AAV serotypes and the replacement of one for the other (which also reads on one or more mutations in the variable region). The frameshift in Gray’s reference SEQ ID NO: 116 does, however, read on one or more mutations in the variable region.
Samulski, however, teaches modified parvovirus capsid proteins with enhanced transduction efficiency, viral vectors comprising the same, and methods of using the same for delivery of nucleic acids to a cell or a subject (Abstract). Samulski also teaches a “parvovirus capsid protein comprising a capsid protein amino acid sequence from an AAV serotype or any other parvovirus with an icosahedral capsid structure of T=l, wherein the variable region 1 (VRl) loop comprising amino acid residues 258 to 272 of AAV1 capsid protein or the corresponding amino acid residues from another AAV or parvovirus capsid protein is modified by deletion and/or substitution of one or more amino acid residues to cause regional destabilization within the loop due to the targeted destruction of hydrogen bonding patterns orchestrated by the residues, wherein the capsid protein comprising the modification provides to a virus vector comprising the capsid protein increased transduction efficiency relative to a virus vector comprising a capsid protein that does not contain the modification” (p. 3, [0009]). Samulski also teaches Table 4 which includes a list of exemplary VR1 amino acid residues (p. 27).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, when designing the AAV capsid, to modify the VR1 loop as taught by Samulski in order to increase tissue tropism or ultimately transduction efficiency by the vector (See MPEP 2143, Rationale 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).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success for replacing the VR1 loop with that of one from an AAV capsid protein of a different AAV serotype as taught by Samulski. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the underlying materials and methods are known, successfully demonstrated in the context of AAV technology, gene therapy, and commonly used as evidenced by the applied prior art.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(new, necessitated by amendment) Claims 15, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho et al. (Ho)(WO2017066764A2)(See PTO-892: Notice of References Cited).
See claims 15, 20, 21 as submitted 06/09/2026.
Ho teaches viral compositions and methods for modulating adeno- associated virus properties including transduction efficiency, virus capsid assembly, viral genome packaging, capsid stability and intracellular processing.
Regarding claims 15 and 20 c), Ho teaches AAV8 derived VP1 protein mutant del152 with a 97% Query Match to SEQ ID NO: 20 (reads on at least 90% identical to SEQ ID NO: 20). Within the sequence, Ho also teaches a mutation at position 179. In comparison to instant SEQ ID NO: 20 where there is a T179, the reference sequence has a S179 (see Result 55, BDV60770, us-17-997-791-20align450.rag, 02/17/2026, in supplemental contents tab). Thus, there appears to be a T179S mutation (as recited in claim 20 c)).
As to the decreased susceptibility to neutralizing antibodies, according to the MPEP, 2112.01 I , when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Additionally, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 21, Ho also teaches one or more mutations (6 mutations at amino acid positions 262, 263, 264, 266, 269, 273) in the variable region 1 (VR1) loop in comparison to instant SEQ ID NO: 20. The reference sequence also has a 100% match to SEQ ID NO: 36, e.g. QISNGTSGGATNDNT (see Result 55, BDV60770, us-17-997-791-20align450.rag, 02/17/2026, in supplemental contents tab).
In view of the foregoing, all the claimed limitations are found in one reference and are
taught to be optional variations to a base product they exemplify. As such, the
claimed product recited in claims 15, 20, and 21, is within the scope of Ho’s
invention, and thus Ho’s invention renders claims 15, 20, and 21 prima facie obvious. The
rationale to support this conclusion of obviousness is that Ho provides a teaching,
suggestion, and motivation to substitute different variables disclosed within the reference.
Furthermore, there is no evidence on the record that indicates that the claimed product exhibits any unexpected results compared to the prior art.
Conclusion
Elected SEQ ID NO: 20 is free of the prior art of record.
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 Claire Cornelius whose telephone number is (571)272-0860. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 0930-1700.
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, Thomas J. Visone can be reached at (571) 270-0684. 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.
/C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1672
/M FRANCO G SALVOZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1672
Prosecution Insights