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 1-3, 7-16, 19, 21-22, 27, 29, 35-36, and 40-41, and the required species: a chimeric adenoviral expression vector, comprising an expression cassette comprising a first, second, and third promoter, as recited in claims 1 and 35 and their dependents, in the reply filed on 11/10/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 30, 34, and 43 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 11/10/2025.
Claims 14-16, 19, 21-22, and 27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/10/2025.
Amended claims 1-3, 7-13, 29, 35-36, and 40-41 are under examination on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDSs) submitted on 1/16/2025, 11/10/2025, 3/4/2025, 8/9/2024, 8/22/2023, and 12/2/2022 are in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDSs are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 13 are 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.
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 36 and 41 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.
Claim 36 recites “[t]he chimeric polynucleotide of claim 35, optionally, wherein [...]" on lines 1-2. Claim 35 is indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. It is not clear if the claim limitations after “optionally” further limit the claim.
Claim 41’s preamble states “the method of claim 35”, but claim 35 is drawn to a chimeric polynucleotide, which is a composition. It is unclear whether claim 41 is intended to be (i) a composition or (ii) a method and depend from another claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 36 recites “[t]he chimeric polynucleotide of claim 35, optionally, wherein [...]" on lines 1-2. Claim 36 does not further limit claim 35, because the claim limitations presented after “optionally” are not required. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-3, 9-11, 29, 35-36, and 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker (US 20110081375 A1, published 4/7/2011, priority date 2/28/2006; on IDS) in view of Johnson (WO 2017176596 A1, published 10/12/2017, filing date 3/31/2017) and Wu (Nature. 2020 Mar;579(7798):265-269. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2008-3. Epub 2020 Feb 3. Erratum in: Nature. 2020 Apr;580(7803):E7. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2202-3. PMID: 32015508; on IDS).
The claimed invention encompasses a chimeric adenoviral expression vector, comprising an expression cassette comprising the following elements: (a) a first promoter operably linked to a nucleic acid encoding a first severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) protein; (b) a second promoter operably linked toa nucleic acid encoding a toll-like receptor-3 (TLR-3) agonist; and (c) a third promoter operably linked to a nucleic acid encoding a SARS-CoV-2 N protein (claim 1). One embodiment encompasses an immunogenic composition comprising the chimeric adenoviral expression vector and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier (claim 29). In another embodiment, the SARS-CoV-2 N protein comprises an amino acid sequence having at least 95% identity to the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 2; and/or the SARS-CoV-2 protein of (a) comprises a SARS-CoV-2 S protein having a sequence with at least 95% identity to the sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1, SEQ ID NO: 21, or SEQ ID NO: 22; and/or the nucleic acid encoding the TLR-3 agonist comprises a nucleic acid encoding a dsRNA (claim 2). In another embodiment, element (c) is situated between elements (a) and (b) in the expression cassette (claim 3). In specific embodiments, the first promoter and the second promoter are identical (claim 9), or more specifically are each a CMV promoter (claim 10). In a more specific embodiment, the first promoter is a CMV promoter, the second promoter is a CMV promoter, and the third promoter is a beta-actin promoter (claim 11).
Another embodiment of the claimed invention encompasses a chimeric polynucleotide, comprising an expression cassette comprising the following elements: (a) a first promoter operably linked to a nucleic acid encoding an antigenic protein; (b) a second promoter operably linked to a nucleic acid encoding a toll-like receptor-3 (TLR-3) agonist; and a third promoter operably linked to a nucleic acid encoding a SARS-CoV-2 N-protein (claims 35 & 36). In a specific embodiment, element (c) is situated between elements (a) and (b) in the expression cassette (claim 40). Alternatively, the antigenic protein is from a bacteria, fungus, virus, or parasite; or the antigenic protein is a cancer antigen (claim 41). Although claim 41 is indefinite for the reasons described above in the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection, in the interest of compact prosecution, and because Applicant grouped it with the composition claims, in the previous response to restriction requirement, the Examiner is interpreting it to be a drawn to a composition of a chimeric polynucleotide.
The Prior Art
Tucker discloses chimeric adenoviral vectors and methods for using the vectors to elicit an immune response to an antigen of interest (Abstract). Tucker also discloses a method for eliciting an immune response, the method comprising an immunogenic composition comprising (a) a chimeric viral vector comprising a first promoter operably linked to a nucleic acid encoding a heterologous polypeptide; (b) a non-specific immune response enhancer; and (c) a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, wherein the immune response is directed against the heterologous polypeptide (claim 29), wherein the immune response enhancer is a toll-like receptor 3 (TLR3) agonist (claims 30-31). Tucker also teaches the immune response enhancer is encoded on the chimeric viral vector under the control of a second promoter (claim 34), and that the first and second promoters are the same (claim 35) or different (claim 36). Tucker further discloses that the promoters are independently selected from the beta actin promoter and the CMV promoter (paras. [0004] and [0082])). Regarding TLR-3 agonists, expressed TLR-3 agonists (e.g., dsRNA) could also be used with the invention (para. [0111]; claim 32). Tucker discloses that nucleic acids encoding suitable heterologous polypeptides may be derived from antigens, such as viral antigens, bacterial antigens, cancer antigens, fungal antigens, or parasite antigens (para. [0088]). Tucker also demonstrates that using a TLR-3 agonist along with a chimeric recombinant adenoviral vector can be generally applied to multiple different heterologous antigens, with a 100 fold improvement in antibody titer (para. [0136]). Further, Tucker discloses vector configurations with TLR-3 agonists (expressed dsRNA constructs) which are located downstream of an element expressing a heterologous viral protein (Fig. 5).
However, Tucker does not teach a chimeric adenoviral expression vector comprising an expression cassette comprising three elements, each with a promoter and encoding an antigenic protein, TLR-3 agonist, and SARS-CoV-2 N protein, nor does it disclose SARS-CoV-2 genes or a particular configuration wherein element (c) is situated between elements (a) and (b) in the expression cassette.
Johnson discloses methods and compositions for inducing an immune response that confers dual protection against by either or both of a rabies virus and a coronavirus (Abstract). Johnson specifically discloses a multivalent vaccine effective to protect against both rabies and at least one coronavirus, comprising a recombinant rabies virus vector that expresses at least one immunogenic glycoprotein or fragment thereof of at least one coronavirus (claim 16), which can be MERS-CoV or SARS-CoV (claim 17), and the immunogenic glycoprotein is a coronavirus spike glycoprotein (claim 18). Johnson also discloses that the viral genome further expresses one or more additional coronavirus protein or immunogenic fragments thereof (claim 22), and the additional coronavirus protein is a replicase polyprotein, E protein, N protein, M protein, or nonstructural protein from MERS-CoV or SARS-CoV (claim 23). Johnson specifically contemplates introducing more than a single coronavirus polypeptide immunogen into the same recombinant rabies virus vector, wherein the vector contains and expresses both a single coronavirus glycoprotein and another coronavirus polypeptide fragment (para. [0108]).
Wu discloses a new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease, SARS-CoV-2 (title; p. 269, col. 1, para. 2). Wu further discloses the viral genome organization of SARS-CoV-2 (also called “WHCV”) was similar to SARS-CoV to SARS-CoV and another coronavirus, bat SL-CoVZC45, with the order of genes (5’ to 3’) of replicase ORF1ab, spike (S), envelope (E), membrane (M) and nucleocapsid (N) (p. 266, col. 2). Wu also discloses the nucleic acid sequence of the SARS-CoV-2 under the Genbank accession number MN908947 (p. 66, col. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the chimeric adenoviral expression vector or chimeric polynucleotide taught by Tucker to feature a first promoter operably linked to a nucleic acid encoding a first SARS-CoV-2 protein (or other antigenic protein), a second promoter operably linked to a nucleic acid encoding a TLR-3 agonist, and a third promoter operably linked to a nucleic acid encoding a SARS-CoV-2 N protein. Tucker discloses that its chimeric adenoviral vectors are suitable for expressing an antigenic protein from a virus, and that TLR-3 agonists along with a chimeric recombinant adenoviral vector can be generally applied to multiple different heterologous antigens, with a 100 fold improvement in antibody titer. Johnson discloses a viral vector configured to express multiple coronavirus genes, and Wu discloses SARS-CoV-2 replicase ORF1ab, spike (S), envelope (E), membrane (M) and nucleocapsid (N) genes. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to situate element (c), encoding a SARS-CoV-2 N protein, between elements (a) a nucleic acid encoding a SARS-CoV-2 protein and (b) a nucleic acid encoding a TLR-3 agonist, because Tucker discloses configurations where the TLR-3 agonist is 3’ of the gene encoding the heterologous viral protein, and there are only so many orientations possible with three elements in an expression cassette.
A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381. Although the copending claims do not specifically disclose element (c) being between elements (a) and (b), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, because there are only so many configurations possible with three elements. See MPEP §2131.02(III).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the chimeric adenoviral expression vector such that the first promoter and second promoter are identical, are each a CMV promoter, or wherein the first and second promoters are CMV promoters and the third promoter is a beta-actin promoter, because Tucker discloses use of each promoter for genes encoding heterologous proteins and TLR-3 agonists. Further, an immunogenic composition comprising the chimeric adenoviral expression vector and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, because Tucker teaches immunogenic compositions that comprise chimeric adenoviral vectors and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier. Additionally, Tucker discloses that the gene encoding a heterologous protein can encode an antigenic protein from a bacterium, fungus, virus, parasite, or cancer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to express multiple SARS-CoV-2 genes, along with a TLR-3 agonist to improve antibody titer. There would be a reasonable expectation of success because Tucker demonstrates the suitability of chimeric adenoviral vectors and chimeric polynucleotides expressing viral antigens and TLR-3 agonists, and Johnson discloses viral vectors encoding multiple coronavirus genes.
Therefore, claims 1-3, 9-11, 29, 35-36, and 40-41 were prima facie obvious before the priority date of the instant invention.
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, 7-11, 29, 35-36 and 40-41 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 8-9, 15-16, 20-21, 24, 30-31, 33, 43-44, 48-49, 51, 56-57, 64, and 67 of copending Application No. 18/263,462 (reference application) in view of Tucker, Johnson, and Wu (supra) Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each set of claims is drawn to a chimeric adenoviral expression vector or chimeric polynucleotide, comprising an expression cassette comprising a nucleic acid encoding an antigenic polypeptide and a nucleic acid encoding a SARS-CoV-2 N protein, the sets of claims differ in that the instant claims do not require the proviso that the antigenic polypeptide is not a SARS-CoV-2 protein, but instead is generically an antigenic protein (instant claim 35, copending claim 30). Additionally, each set of claims encompasses the nucleic acids encoding the antigenic polypeptide being operably linked to a first promoter and the SARS-CoV-2N operably linked to another promoter (instant claim 35, copending claim 43). Further, each set of claims encompasses the chimeric polynucleotide further comprising a nucleic acid encoding a TLR-3 agonist (instant claim 35, copending claims 48-49, 67). Each set of claims also encompasses an antigenic polypeptide being a cancer, virus, bacteria, fungus, or parasite polypeptide (instant claim 41, copending claim 33). Additionally, the copending claims encompass a chimeric adenoviral expression vector, comprising a bicistronic or multicistronic expression construct comprising a nucleic acid encoding a SARS-CoV-2 S protein; and a nucleic acid encoding a SARS-CoV-2 N protein, wherein the bicistronic construct is operably linked to a promoter (copending claim 56), wherein the N protein comprises an amino acid sequence having at least 95% identity to SEQ ID NO: 2, and optionally the nucleic acid encoding the SARS-CoV-2 N protein comprises a sequence having at least 85% identity to SEQ ID NO: 4, or wherein the nucleic acid encoding the SARS-CoV-2 S protein comprises a sequence having at least 85% identity to SEQ ID NO: 3. SEQ ID NOs: 2-4 are identical between the instant and copending claims.
The teachings of Tucker, Johnson, and Wu are described above
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the copending claims with the teachings of Tucker, Johnson, and Wu, to come to the instant claims. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Tucker discloses chimeric adenoviral expression vectors and polynucleotides, and Johnson discloses viral vectors encoding more than one coronavirus protein.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-3, 9, 29, 35-36 and 40-41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 8222224 B2 in view of Johnson and Wu (supra) Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, while the instant claims are drawn to a composition, a chimeric adenoviral expression vector or a chimeric polynucleotide, and the ‘224 claims are drawn to a method for eliciting an immune response, ‘224’s method comprises administering an immunogenic composition, the immunogenic composition comprising (a) a chimeric viral vector comprising a first promoter operably linked to a nucleic acid encoding a heterologous polypeptide, (b) a non-specific immune response enhancer; and (c) a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, wherein the immune response is directed against the heterologous polypeptide (claim 1). ‘224 also discloses an immunogenic composition comprising a chimeric adenoviral expression vector comprising a first promoter operably linked toa nucleic acid encoding a TLR-3 agonist that is dsRNA (claim 9). The first and second promoters may be the same (claim 3), or different (claim 4). Additionally, ‘224’s claims encompass the heterologous polypeptide being a viral (claims 5-6), bacterial (claim 7), or fungal (claim 8) antigen.
However, Notably, ‘224 does not encompass a chimeric adenoviral expression vector comprising an expression cassette comprising three elements, each with a promoter and encoding an antigenic protein, TLR-3 agonist, and SARS-CoV-2 N protein, nor does it disclose SARS-CoV-2 genes.
The teachings of Johnson and Wu are described above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the chimeric adenoviral expression vector taught by ‘224 to feature a first promoter operably linked to a nucleic acid encoding a first SARS-CoV-2 protein (or other antigenic protein), a second promoter operably linked to a nucleic acid encoding a TLR-3 agonist, and a third promoter operably linked to a nucleic acid encoding a SARS-CoV-2 N protein. ‘224 discloses that its chimeric adenoviral vectors are suitable for expressing an antigenic protein from a virus. Johnson discloses a viral vector configured to express multiple coronavirus genes, and Wu discloses SARS-CoV-2 replicase ORF1ab, spike (S), envelope (E), membrane (M) and nucleocapsid (N) genes. Further, an immunogenic composition comprising the chimeric adenoviral expression vector and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, because ‘224 teaches immunogenic compositions that comprise chimeric adenoviral vectors and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier. Additionally, ‘224 discloses that the gene encoding a heterologous protein can encode an antigenic protein from a bacterium, fungus or virus.
A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381. Although the copending claims do not specifically disclose element (c) being between elements (a) and (b), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, because there are only so many configurations possible with three elements. See MPEP §2131.02(III).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to express multiple SARS-CoV-2 genes, along with a TLR-3 agonist. There would be a reasonable expectation of success because ‘224 demonstrates the suitability of chimeric adenoviral vectors and chimeric polynucleotides expressing viral antigens and TLR-3 agonists, and Johnson discloses viral vectors encoding multiple coronavirus genes.
Allowable Subject Matter
SEQ ID NOs: 3, 4, 7, and 10 are free of the prior art of record.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY MARK SIFFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-7289. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. ET with alternating Fridays off.
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, Michael Allen can be reached at 571-270-3497. 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.
/JEFFREY MARK SIFFORD/Examiner, Art Unit 1671 /BENJAMIN P BLUMEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1671