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
This action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed December 10, 2025 in reply to the First Office Action on the Merits mailed September 10, 2025. Claims 1, 25, 27, and 97 have been amended; claims 2-4, 6-21, 23, 24, 26, 28-36, 38, 39, 42, 46-49, 52-55, 57-70, 72-96, 98-110, 112-183, 185, and 186 have been canceled; and claims 187 and 188 have been newly added. Claims 50, 51, 71, 111, and 184 have been withdrawn. Claims 1, 5, 22, 25, 27, 37, 40, 41, 43-45, 56, 97, 187, and 188 are currently under examination in the application.
Withdrawal of Prior Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
Claim 97 has been satisfactorily amended. Therefore, the 35 USC 112(d) rejection presented in the First Office Action on the Merits mailed September 10, 2025 is hereby withdrawn.
Withdrawal of Prior Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
Fina et al. do not explicitly disclose a laser sintering process “with a hatch spacing from about 5 mm to about 100 mm”, as now stipulated in newly amended claim 1. Therefore, the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection presented in the First Office Action on the Merits mailed September 10, 2025 is hereby withdrawn.
Withdrawal of Prior Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Neither Fina et al. nor Barakh Ali et al. explicitly disclose a laser sintering process “with a hatch spacing from about 5 mm to about 100 mm”, as now stipulated in newly amended claim 1. Therefore, the 35 USC 103 rejection presented in the First Office Action on the Merits mailed September 10, 2025 is hereby withdrawn. However, upon further search and examination, new prior art has been procured, and a new grounds of rejection has been formulated that addresses all currently pending claim limitations, and is presented herein below.
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure remains objected to because of the following:
1. The abstract should be a concise summary of the key technical aspects of the invention which are new to the art to which the invention pertains. If the invention is a composition, the abstract should recite the key requisite ingredients. If the invention is a method, the abstract should recite the key requisite active steps.
2. The abstract continues to inform the reader in rather generic terms about the invention. For example, the abstract merely discloses making a pharmaceutical composition using a sintering process to render the active into an amorphous form. This is generally not new to the art, and was known at least since the Fina et al. reference in 2016, likely earlier. Further, the abstract informs the reader that the composition contains a pharmaceutical ingredient, a polymer, and an EM-absorbing excipient, which is generally also not new to the art.
3. Applicant is advised to include the particulars of their specific method and their specific composition to overcome the issue. For example, 3d laser sintering process using a hatch spacing of 10-40 mm, or about 25 mm. And perhaps a specific EM-absorbing material in a specific amount.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
1. Figures 1 and 6 are not in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1), which states, in part, that “partial views intended to form one complete view, on one or several sheets, must be identified by the same number followed by a capital letter” and that “view numbers must be preceded by the abbreviation “FIG.””. Further, Fig. 6 remains of poor print quality, the lines are not clear and crisp, parts remain illegible, as if printed from an older dot matrix printer, the numbering along the y-axis is partially or completely cut off at the top, and the label for the x-axis on at least one graph is partially cut off and thus illegible.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because there should be a comma between “5 mm to about 100 mm” and “and wherein”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Obviousness-Type 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, 5, 22, 25, 27, 37, 40, 41, 43-45, 56, and 97 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 19, 23, 24, 29, 30, 35, 41, 45, 46, 56, 57, 76, 81, 92, 99, and 102 of copending Application No. 18/708,717, in view of Achten et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2019/0184632).
Applicant’s elected subject matter is directed to a method of producing a pharmaceutical composition, via an additive technique, comprising laser sintering a composition comprising 5-50 wt% of a pharmaceutical active ingredient, 50-90 wt% of a polymer, and 1-15 wt% of an electromagnetic energy-absorbing aluminum material; wherein the active ingredient is present as an amorphous solid dispersion, and the ratio of the active ingredient to the electromagnetic energy-absorbing aluminum material is from about 1:1 to 1:3.
Claims 1, 4, 19, 23, 24, 29, 30, 35, 41, 45, 46, 56, 57, 76, 81, 92, 99, and 102 of copending Application No. 18/708,717 disclose a method of producing a pharmaceutical composition, via an additive technique, comprising subjecting to an energy source a composition comprising 5-50 wt% of a pharmaceutical active ingredient, 5-95 wt% of a polymer, and 0.01-60 wt% of an electromagnetic energy-absorbing material; wherein the active ingredient is present as an amorphous solid dispersion.
Achten et al. disclose that for selective laser sintering of a selected powder layer for additive manufacturing of an article, a hatch spacing of about 0.01-5 mm is suitable (see e.g. paragraphs 0042-0044).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the disclosure of copending Application No. 18/708,717 defines an additive manufacturing technique employing a laser as an energy source as being laser sintering; and defines an electromagnetic energy-absorbing material as e.g. an electromagnetic energy-absorbing aluminum material, and Achten et al. disclose that for selective laser sintering of a selected powder layer for additive manufacturing of an article, a hatch spacing of about 0.01-5 mm is suitable.
Moreover, the claims of copending Application No. 18/708,717 provide for e.g. 5-50 wt% of the active and 0.01-60 wt% of the electromagnetic energy-absorbing material. At e.g, 25 wt% active and 25 wt% electromagnetic energy-absorbing material, the ratio of the active ingredient to the electromagnetic energy-absorbing aluminum material is thus about 1:1.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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, 5, 22, 25, 27, 37, 40, 41, 43-45, 56, 97, 187, and 188 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 1 is indefinite for the following reasons:
1. Claim 1 is directed to a method of preparing a pharmaceutical composition and comprises the active steps of A. “obtaining a composition” and then B. “laser sintering the composition to obtain a pharmaceutical composition. However, the composition “obtained” in A contains a pharmaceutical active and a pharmaceutically acceptable polymer. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot definitively ascertain how and why the “composition” of A is not already a “pharmaceutical” composition? In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot definitively ascertain how the composition in A is not a “pharmaceutical composition” but the composition in B, because of laser sintering, is a “pharmaceutical composition”. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot make heads or tails out of this, and thus cannot definitively ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter.
***To remedy this issue, Applicant can delete the phrase “to obtain a pharmaceutical composition” from part B.
2. Claim 1 is directed to a method of preparing a composition, not to a method of treating any specific disease or disorder. Claim 1 never discloses any disease, disorder, or any condition whatsoever that is necessarily being treated or modified. Since the disease, disorder, or condition being treated or modified is not known, the requisite “active ingredient” cannot be definitively ascertained. Moreover, the “active ingredient” is limited by necessarily being in an amorphous form before and/or after laser sintering. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot definitively ascertain what “active” ingredients for treating an unspecified and unknown disease, disorder, or condition, which also must be in an amorphous state before and/or after laser sintering, are necessarily present in the composition, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art cannot definitively ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter.
Claims 25 and 27 provide that the ratio can be anywhere from 5:1 to 1:10. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot definitively ascertain whether the specified ratios are limited to the active:EM-absorbing excipient ratio, the EM-absorbing excipient:active ratio, or either one. For example, is a ratio of 1:10 limited to being the active:EM-absorbing excipient ratio, the EM-absorbing excipient:active ratio, or either one? It is noted, for example, that claim 22 provides for an active amount of 5-50%, while claim 56 provides for an EM-absorbing excipient amount of 1-15%. Even with the lowest amount of active, and the highest amount of EM-absorbing excipient, the active:EM absorbing excipient weight ratio is 5:15 or 1:3. Hence, an active:EM absorbing excipient weight ratio of e.g. 1:10 is not consistent with the values provided in other claims.
Claim 187, which is newly added, depends from claim 64, which is canceled.
Claim 188 depends from claim 187, which depends from claim 64, which is canceled.
Claims 5, 22, 25, 27, 37, 40, 41, 43-45, 56, 97, and 188 are (also) indefinite for depending from an indefinite claim.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (I and II)
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.
I. Claims 1, 5, 22, 25, 27, 37, 40, 41, 43-45, and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fina et al. (Int J Pharm. 2017; 529: 285-293), in view of Achten et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2019/0184632).
Applicant Claims
Applicant’s elected subject matter is directed to a method of producing a pharmaceutical composition comprising laser sintering a composition comprising 5-50 wt% of a pharmaceutical active ingredient, 50-90 wt% of a polymer, and 1-15 wt% of an electromagnetic energy-absorbing aluminum material; wherein the active ingredient is present as an amorphous solid dispersion, and the ratio of the active ingredient to the electromagnetic energy-absorbing aluminum material is from about 1:1 to 1:3.
Determination of the Scope and Content of the Prior Art (MPEP §2141.01)
Fina et al. disclose a method of producing printlet E20 (i.e. a pharmaceutical composition) comprising selective laser sintering formulation E20, comprising 5-35 wt% paracetamol (i.e. the active ingredient), 62-92 wt% Eudragit L100-55 (i.e. polymer), and 3 wt% Candurin (i.e. an electromagnetic energy-absorbing aluminum material), wherein the paracetamol is present as an amorphous solid dispersion, and wherein the laser sintering hatch spacing is from about 5 mm to about 100 mm (see e.g. Table 1, Figure 5; page 289).
Achten et al. disclose that for selective laser sintering of a selected powder layer for additive manufacturing of an article, a hatch spacing of about 0.01-5 mm is suitable (see e.g. paragraphs 0042-0044).
Ascertainment of the Difference Between the Scope of the Prior Art and the Claims (MPEP §2141.02)
Fina et al. do not explicitly disclose that the hatch spacing is from about 5 mm to about 100 mm. This deficiency is cured by the teachings of Achten et al.
Finding of Prima Facie Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the present application was filed to combine the respective teachings of Fina et al. and Achten et al., outlined supra, to devise Applicant’s presently claimed method.
Fina et al. disclose a method of producing printlets (i.e. a pharmaceutical composition, a 3d article) comprising selective laser sintering a formulation comprising 5-35 wt% paracetamol (i.e. the active ingredient), 62-92 wt% Eudragit L100-55 (i.e. polymer), and 3 wt% Candurin (i.e. an electromagnetic energy-absorbing aluminum material), wherein the paracetamol is present as an amorphous solid dispersion (see e.g. Table 1, Figure 5; page 289). Since Achten et al. disclose that for selective laser sintering of a selected powder layer for additive manufacturing of an article, a hatch spacing of about 0.01-5 mm is suitable; one of ordinary skill in the art would thus be motivated to employ a hatch spacing of 0.01-5 mm in the Fina et al. manufacturing process, with the reasonable expectation that the resulting process will produce the desired dosage form.
With a paracetamol amount of e.g. 5 wt%, and a Candurin amount of 3 wt%, the weight ratio of paracetamol to Candurin is about 1:1.
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103(a).
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
II. Claim 97 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fina et al. (Int J Pharm. 2017; 529: 285-293), in view of Achten et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2019/0184632), and Barakh Ali et al. (Int J Pharm. 2019; 570: 118651).
II. Applicant Claims
Applicant’s elected subject matter is directed to a method of producing a pharmaceutical composition comprising laser sintering a composition comprising a pharmaceutical active ingredient, a polymer, an electromagnetic energy-absorbing aluminum material, and one or more additional excipients; wherein the active ingredient is present as an amorphous solid dispersion.
II. Determination of the Scope and Content of the Prior Art (MPEP §2141.01)
Fina et al. disclose a method of producing printlets (i.e. a pharmaceutical composition) comprising selective laser sintering a formulation comprising 5-35 wt% paracetamol (i.e. the active ingredient), 62-92 wt% Eudragit L100-55 (i.e. polymer), and 3 wt% Candurin (i.e. an electromagnetic energy-absorbing aluminum material), wherein the paracetamol is present as an amorphous solid dispersion (see e.g. Table 1, Figure 5; page 289).
Achten et al. disclose that for selective laser sintering of a selected powder layer for additive manufacturing of an article, a hatch spacing of about 0.01-5 mm is suitable (see e.g. paragraphs 0042-0044).
Barakh Ali et al. disclose a method of producing a pharmaceutical composition comprising laser sintering a composition comprising a pharmaceutical active ingredient, a polymer, 3 wt% Candurin (i.e. an electromagnetic energy-absorbing aluminum material), and lactose monohydrate (i.e. one or more additional excipients); wherein the lactose monohydrate was found to facilitate printing mechanically improved printlets, shorten the disintegration time, and increase drug loading (see e.g. abstract; page 2, left column; page 3, right column).
II. Ascertainment of the Difference Between the Scope of the Prior Art and the Claims (MPEP §2141.02)
Fina et al. do not explicitly disclose that the hatch spacing is from about 5 mm to about 100 mm, and that the composition further comprises one or more additional excipients. This deficiency is cured by the teachings of Achen et al. and Barakh Ali et al.
II. Finding of Prima Facie Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the present application was filed to combine the respective teachings of Fina et al., Achen et al., and Barakh Ali et al., outlined supra, to devise Applicant’s presently claimed method.
Fina et al. disclose a method of producing printlets (i.e. a pharmaceutical composition) comprising selective laser sintering a formulation comprising 5-35 wt% paracetamol (i.e. the active ingredient), 62-92 wt% Eudragit L100-55 (i.e. polymer), and 3 wt% Candurin (i.e. an electromagnetic energy-absorbing aluminum material), wherein the paracetamol is present as an amorphous solid dispersion (see e.g. Table 1, Figure 5; page 289). Since Achten et al. disclose that for selective laser sintering of a selected powder layer for additive manufacturing of an article, a hatch spacing of about 0.01-5 mm is suitable; and since Barakh Ali et al. disclose that lactose monohydrate; when included in a selective laser scanning-produced printlet with a pharmaceutical active ingredient, a polymer, and 3 wt% Candurin; was found to facilitate e.g. printing mechanically improved printlets; one of ordinary skill in the art would thus be motivated to employ a hatch spacing of 0.01-5 mm in the Fina et al. manufacturing process, and to further include lactose monohydrate in the Fina et al. printlet, with the reasonable expectation that the resulting printlet will successfully exhibit improved mechanical properties.
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103(a).
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed December 10, 2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the present amendment.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 187 and 188 are currently rejected under 35 USC 112. However, it is noted that no prior art rejection and no double patenting rejection are being applied to newly added claims 187 and 188.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize hatch spacing as a results effective variable for controlling print density and porosity, with smaller hatch distances improving strength but potentially causing thermal deformation. However, the hatch spacing for selective laser sintering processes are generally known to be “less than 1 mm”, typically in the range of 100 to 125 µm (i.e. 0.1-0.125 mm). As noted, supra, the cited Achten reference discloses that for selective laser sintering of a selected powder layer for additive manufacturing of an article, a hatch spacing of about 0.01-5 mm is suitable. This is taken as the broadest range that would generally be known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the present application, and within which one of ordinary skill in the art would generally seek to optimize a hatch spacing for their particular application. Therefore, the claimed hatch spacing of claims 187 and 188 are considered outside the range of what one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as suitable at the time of filing the present application. Applicant is thus advised to amend claim 1 to include the limitation of claim 187 or 188.
Conclusion
No claims are 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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID BROWE whose telephone number is (571)270-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 AM to 6 PM 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, Johann Richter can be reached at 571-272-0646. 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.
/DAVID BROWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617