DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 109-129 and 132, in the reply filed on 11/7/25 is acknowledged. Applicant has further elected depleting CD25+ cells as the species of depletion. Upon reconsideration, the species election requirement as to the species of antigen is withdrawn. Claims 130-131 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Claim 112 is withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected species.
Claims 109-111, 113-129 and 132 are being acted upon.
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 115-116, 119-124, 126, 128, and 132 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 115 is unclear and indefinite. As an initial matter, the claim recites that a concentration in the first culture medium “is that is at least the same as, or higher” which is unclear. Furthermore, the scope of the claimed concentrations cannot be established. For example, the claim recites that the second culture medium is “spiked” with an amount of peptide antigen, such that a concentration in the first culture medium is at least the same as, or higher than a second concentration of the peptide antigen in the second culture medium. Does the “spiking” refer to adding an additional amount of peptide antigen as compared to the amount already present presented on the APCs from the first culture to provide the second culture medium? If so, it is unclear how the concentration would be higher in the first culture, if more peptide is spiked into the second culture. Are the claims meant to be interpreted as a method wherein a second culture medium comprising the peptide antigen is added to the culture, wherein the concentration of the peptide antigen in the first culture medium is the same as or higher, than the peptide antigen concentration in the second culture medium that is added to the cultures? The claim scope is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 116 recites the limitation "the first concentration" and “the second concentration” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 119 and 132 are indefinite in the recitation of expanding the T cells in the presence of “an increasing concentration of the peptide antigen”. It is not clear what the increase is relative to. Do the claims mean using a higher concentration than in the first culture? Do the claims require performing sequential expansion steps using more than one peptide concentration, wherein the concentration increases in each step? The scope of the claims is unclear and indefinite.
Claims 120-124 and 126 are unclear and indefinite in the recitation of a “third”, “fourth” or fifth” concentration of the peptide antigen. Claim 120 also lacks antecedent basis for “the first concentration” of the peptide antigen in line 7. The claims depend from claim 109, which recites a single step a) using a peptide antigen, but the claim does not recite any limitations regarding a first or second concentration of the peptide antigen. Therefore, reference to a “third”, “fourth” or “fifth” concentration, in the absence of any step delineating how the first and second concentration would be used renders the claims indefinite. It is also unclear how the third, fourth fifth cultures are to be performed. Are they sequential stimulations a T cell population (i.e. stimulate for a period of time, wash, restimulate by adding the peptide again). Or are these performed in parallel? The claim do recite the steps as “followed by” a third, followed by a fourth, which implies sequential. However, the expanded population in the third, fourth, and fifth culture medium is “the third population”, which would imply parallel stimulations of different portions of the third population with different peptide concentrations, for example. The scope of the claims is unclear and indefinite.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 109, 114-115, 125, 127 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wolfl, 2007.
Wolfl teaches an ex-vivo method of producing antigen specific T cells comprising obtaining a T cell sample from PBMC of a subject, culturing the T cells in a first culture medium comprising dendritic cells comprising an epitope of a peptide antigen presented in the context of MHC (i.e. a first culture medium to obtain a first population of T cells, see pages 204-205, materials and methods and Fig. 3). Wolfl further teach restimulating said T cells with peptide pulsed PBMC (i.e. a second culture medium to produce a second population of T cells) and 24 hours later enriching therefrom CD137+ cells with an anti-CD137 reagent (i.e. producing a third population of T cells, see page 204-205, in particular). Wolfl further teach expanding said enriched T cells in IL-2 to provide expanded antigen specific T cells (see page 20204-205 and Fig. 3, in particular). Wolfl teach that the number of expanded peptide antigen specific T cells is at least 10 times higher than in the first T cell population and that the frequency of the expanded antigen specific cells is higher than the first or third population (see page 205, Table 1, in particular). Regarding claim 115, Wolfl teaches adding peptide pulsed PBMC into the second culture, which would be within the scope of “spiking” the second culture medium with the peptide antigen. Regarding the peptide concentration, Wolf teaches using the same peptide concentration (10ug/ml) for loading onto the APCs in the first and second culture, and therefore this would be within the scope of the peptide antigen being the same concentration in the first culture medium and second culture medium. Wolf teaches a peptide concentration of 10 ug/ml, which would be within the scope of 1 nM to 100 uM. Wolfl teaches that the third expansion begins at least 11 days after the beginning of the culture (See Fig. 3).
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.
Claims 109, 114-115, 119-128, and 132 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfl, 2007, in view of Watanabe, 2008, Leggatt, 2014 and Tuettenberg, 2003.
The teachings of Wolfl are described above.
The reference differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly teach fourth and fifth cultures and decreasing/increasing concentrations of peptide antigen.
Watanabe teaches an ex-vivo method of expanding antigen specific T cells comprising stimulating T cells with a first culture medium comprising a first concentration of peptide antigen and restimulating T cells with a second culture medium comprising a second concentration of peptide antigen to enriching therefrom CD137+ cells with an anti-CD137 reagent (See page 312-314, in particular). Watanabe teach the importance of optimizing the concentration of peptide antigen in cultures prior to sorting CD137+ cells, and that it is important to use the minimal concentration required to upregulate CD137 since excessive stimulation could cause activation induced cell death (see page 315, in particular). Watanabe teach using 10-100 ng/ml (i.e. ~ 10-100 nM) in the restimulation step, and using 10 ug/ml in the initial peptide stimulation step, i.e. ~10 uM. In other words, Watanabe teach “spiking” the second culture wherein the amount in the first culture is higher than the amount added as a second concentration in the second culture.
Leggatt teaches that the peptide concentration used for stimulation of T cells in vitro can be optimized, with higher peptide concentrations favoring those with lower avidity, which can be advantageous in the context of tumors with overexpressed self-antigens (see page 540, in particular).
Tuettenberg teaches that T cell lines can be maintained by repeated restimulation with peptide antigen (i.e. third, fourth, or fifth cell cultures), and that doing so can increase the number of antigen specific T cells (see Fig. 2, in particular). Tuettenberg also teaches using different conditions for priming and restimulations (i.e. between first and subsequent cultures) and using different amounts/types of antigens, and that doing so can optimize T cell expansion. For example Tuttenberg teaches using virus infected APCs (i.e. nucleic acid) expressing a peptide antigen in a first culture, and using peptide antigen pulsed APC in subsequent cultures, and that the virus infected APCs may expand high avidity and low avidity T cells to expand a higher number of antigen specific T cells (see page 247-248).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the peptide concentration, as taught by Watanabe, Tuettenberg, and Leggatt, in the T cell expansion method of Wolfl. The ordinary artisan at the time the invention was made would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success, because the references teach parameters for optimization, i.e. that peptide concentration is a results effective variable. For example, the ordinary artisan would be motivated to optimize the peptide concentration to a lower amount in the CD137 enrichment step of Wolfl, wince Watanabe teaches the advantages of using a lower, minimum amount in said step to avoid activation induced cell death. Furthermore, Wolfl teaches producing T cells lines for further functional studies, and it would be obvious to further expand and restimulate the lines with peptide antigen (i.e. third, fourth, fifth culture medium with peptide) as taught by Tuettenberg, to increase the number of antigen specific T cells available for use in functional assays. It would be obvious to optimize the peptide concentration, such as using an increasing concentration, since Tuttenberg and Leggat teach that optimization of peptide concentration is a results effective variable that can be used to optimize for T cell avidity. Arriving at the claimed peptide concentration ranges would be within the purview of the ordinary artisan. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Regarding the timeframe in claim 126, Tuettenberg teach peptide restimulations can be performed every 8 days, i.e. at least 1 or 2 days after.
Claims 109-111, 114-115, 117-118, 125, 127 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfl, 2007, in view of Bacher, 2013 and Watanabe 2008.
The teachings of Wolfl are described above. Wolfl also teach that the CD137+ T cells were also positive for CD69 (See Fig. 1, and page 203, in particular).
The reference differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly teach further enriching using an anti-CD69 reagent..
Bacher teaches that CD69 co-expression is a useful second parameter along with CD137 to increase sensitivity when sorting antigen specific T cells (see page 694, in particular).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further enrich using anti-CD69, as taught by Bacher, in the T cell expansion method of Wolfl. The ordinary artisan at the time the invention was made would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success, because Bacher teaches that CD69 co-expression is a useful second parameter along with CD137 to increase sensitivity when sorting antigen specific T cells.
Regarding claim 117, Wolfl teaches that the CD137 selection step is performed 9 days after the first culture, but also teach that it can be extended by performing more rounds of culture before enrichment (see Fig. 6, in particular). Watanabe teaches a CD137 enrichment step performed at 14 days. Thus, optimizing the time period for enrichment to be at least 10 days would be well within the purview of the ordinary artisan. Furthermore, optimizing the peptide concentration to use a lower amount in the CD137 upregulation step would also be obvious as taught by Watanabe. Regarding claim 118, Watanabe also teaches that expansion of the T cells after enrichment begins at least one day after culture, thus rending this timeframe obvious (see Fig. 4, no fold increase is seen at day 1, i.e. expansion of the T cells begins at least 1 day after enrichment).
Claims 109, 114-115, 125, 127 and 129 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfl, 2007, in view of Wehler, 2008.
The teachings of Wolfl are described above. Wolfl also teaches obtaining an absolute number of antigen specific T cells of 1-8 x 106 using a starting cell number of 1-6 x 105 (see Table 1). Wolf also teaches that the culture time is 17 days (i.e. less than 26 days See Fig. 3, in particular). Wolfl also teaches that CD137 is upregulated on CD4+ T cells (see 209, in particular), but does not explicitly teach that the expanded cells comprise CD4 T cells.
Wehler teach that CD137 expression can be used to sort both antigen specific CD4 and CD8 T cells, allowing simultaneous detection and enrichment of antigen specific CD4 and CD8 T cells in a single and easy to use in vitro procedure, and that CD4 and CD8 T cels are useful for in vitro expansion and adoptive immunotherapy (see page 36, in particular).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select both CD4 and CD8 T cells, as taught by Wehler, in the T cell expansion method of Wolfl. The ordinary artisan at the time the invention was made would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success, because Wehler teaches that CD137 selection allows for simultaneous detection and enrichment of antigen specific CD4 and CD8 T cells in a single and easy to use in vitro procedure, and that CD4 and CD8 T cels are useful for adoptive immunotherapy. Regarding the limitations of claim 129 that the expanded T cells comprise from 1 x107 to 1 x109, this would be readily optimizable based on Wolfl. For example, one could start with twice the number of cells in the initial culture to readily obtain the required cell number.
Claims 109, 113-116, 125, 127 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfl, 2007, in view of Mesei-Lemoine, 2006 and Leggatt, 2014.
The teachings of Wolfl are described above.
Wolfl does not explicitly teach depleting CD25+ cells..
Mesei-Lemoine teaches depleting CD25+ T cells before antigen specific T cell expansion is advantages since it depletes Tregs which suppress antigen specific T cell proliferation.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to deplete CD25+ cells, as taught by Mesei-Lemoine, in the T cell expansion method of Wolfl. The ordinary artisan at the time the invention was made would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success, because Mesei-Lemoine teaches depleting CD25+ T cells before antigen specific T cell expansion is advantages since it depletes Tregs which suppress antigen specific T cell proliferation. Regarding claim 116, Leggatt teaches that the peptide concentration used for stimulation of T cells in vitro can be optimized, with higher peptide concentrations favoring those with lower avidity, which can be advantageous in the context of tumors with overexpressed self-antigens. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the peptide concentration, as taught by Leggatt, in the T cell expansion method of Wolfl. Arriving at the claimed peptide concentration ranges would be within the purview of the ordinary artisan. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 132 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tuettenberg, 2003.
Tuettenberg teach a method of producing an ex vivo population of expanded antigen specific T cells comprising culturing T cells from a blood sample of a subject in a first culture medium comprising APCs that are infected with a virus encoding an epitope of a peptide antigen, such that the APCs present said epitope in a complex with an MHC protein to produce a first T cell population, culturing said first population of T cells in a second culture medium comprising said infected APCs to produce a second population of T cells, and expanding said second population of T cells in a third culture medium with APCs that have been pulsed with 50 um of said peptide antigen (i.e. plurality of peptide antigen comprising said peptide antigen) to obtain expanded antigen specific T cells (see page 247, and Fig. 7, in particular). The use of said dendritic cells pulsed with 50 uM of said peptide antigen would inherently result in an increasing concentration of said peptide antigen, since all of the MHC molecules would be complexed with the same peptide (which is not the case when using the infected APC in the first culture), thus meeting the limitation of the present claims. Regarding the recitation of a “therapeutic” T cells, this refers to an intended us of the T cells, however, as the T cells in Tuettenberg are specific for a tumor antigen, they meet all the structural requirements of this intended use limitation.
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 109-111, 113-129 and 132 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,162,072 or claims 1-21 of US 12,258,581, in view of Wolfl, 2007, Watanabe, 2008, Leggatt, 2014 and Tuettenberg, 2003, Bacher, 2013.
The patents claim methods of preparing antigen specific T cells ex vivo for T cell therapy comprising depleting CD25+ cells from a population of subject T immune cells and incubating the cells with APCs presenting a polypeptide antigen or a polynucleotide encoding the polypeptide antigen, thereby forming a population of stimulated T cells (first culture), and expanding the population of stimulated T cells (third culture). The patents claim that the expansion is performed in a culture comprising APCs presenting the antigen. The patents claim further expanding the T cells in a third culture and expanding CD8 and CD4 T cells.
The patents differ from the claimed invention in that they do not claim a step of enriching CD137/CD69 T cells, or an increasing concentration of peptide antigen or a fourth, fifth culture. However, these limitations are obvious optimizations to culture methods for producing antigen specific T cells based on the teachings of Wolfl, 2007, Watanabe, 2008, Leggatt, 2014 and Tuettenberg, 2003, and Bacher, 2013 for the same reasons set forth above.
Claims 109-111, 113-129 and 132 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-65 of 19/230,985, claims 52-69 of 18/701,073, claims 1-19 of 19/038,215, or claims 65-84 of 17/609,705, in view of Wolfl, 2007, Watanabe, 2008, Leggatt, 2014, Tuettenberg, 2003, Bacher, 2013, and Wehler, 2008.
The copending applications claim methods comprising preparing antigen specific T cells ex vivo for T cell therapy comprising depleting CD25+ cells from a population of subject T immune cells and incubating the cells with APCs presenting a polypeptide antigen, thereby forming a population of stimulated T cells (first culture), and expanding the population of stimulated T cells (third culture).
The patents differ from the claimed invention in that they do not claim a step of enriching CD137/CD69 T cells (i.e. second culture), or an increasing concentration of peptide antigen or a fourth, fifth culture. However, these limitations are obvious optimizations to culture methods for producing antigen specific T cells based on the teachings of Wolfl, 2007, Watanabe, 2008, Leggatt, 2014 and Tuettenberg, 2003, Bacher, 2013 for the same reasons set forth above. The copending applications claim expanding CD4 and CD8 T cells, or alternatively, it would be obvious to do so based on the teachings of Wehler and Wolfl for the same reasons set forth above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 109-111, 113-129 and 132 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 98-117 of 17/599,468, in view of in view of Wolfl, 2007, Watanabe, 2008, Leggatt, 2014, Tuettenberg, 2003, Bacher, 2013 .
The ‘468 application claims a method of preparing antigen specific T cells comprising contacting PBMC comprising T cells from a subject with an APC comprising a RNA encoding one or more peptides encoding the antigen (first culture) and expanding the antigen specific T cells ex-vivo (third culture), and wherein the T cells comprising CD4 and CD8 T cells. The ‘468 application claims depleting CD25+ cells from the PBMC T cell sample prior to culturing.
The ‘468 application does not claim a step of enriching CD137/CD69 T cells (i.e. second culture), or an increasing concentration of peptide antigen or a fourth, fifth culture. However, these limitations are obvious optimizations to culture methods for producing antigen specific T cells based on the teachings of Wolfl, 2007, Watanabe, 2008, Leggatt, 2014 and Tuettenberg, 2003, Bacher, 2013 for the same reasons set forth above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 109-111, 113-129 and 132 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14-16 of 12,246,067, claims 1-17 of 11,793,867, in view of Wolfl, 2007, Watanabe, 2008, Leggatt, 2014 and Tuettenberg, 2003, Bacher, 2013, of Mesei-Lemoine, 2006, and Wehler, 2008.
The patents claim methods comprising preparing antigen specific T cells ex vivo for T cell therapy comprising culturing subject T cells with APCs presenting a polypeptide antigen (first culture).
The patents differ from the claimed invention in that they do not claim the second or third culture of the present claims, a step of enriching CD137/CD69 T cells, or an increasing concentration of peptide antigen or a fourth, fifth culture. However, these limitations are obvious optimizations to culture methods for producing antigen specific T cells based on the teachings of Wolfl, 2007, Watanabe, 2008, Leggatt, 2014 and Tuettenberg, 2003, Bacher, 2013, Mesei-Lemoine, and Wehler, for the same reasons set forth above.
Claims 109-111, 113-129 and 132 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 56, 59-60, 86-93 of 17/253,922, claims 63-64 of 17618067, claims 12-13 of 19046067, claims 1-23 of 18/462,026, or claims 51-64 of 18/007,096, in view of Wolfl, 2007, Watanabe, 2008, Leggatt, 2014 and Tuettenberg, 2003, Bacher, 2013, of Mesei-Lemoine, 2006, and Wehler, 2008.
The copending applications claim methods comprising preparing antigen specific T cells ex vivo for T cell therapy comprising culturing subject T cells with APCs presenting a polypeptide antigen (first culture).
The patents differ from the claimed invention in that they do not claim the second or third culture of the present claims, a step of enriching CD137/CD69 T cells, or an increasing concentration of peptide antigen or a fourth, fifth culture. However, these limitations are obvious optimizations to culture methods for producing antigen specific T cells based on the teachings of Wolfl, 2007, Watanabe, 2008, Leggatt, 2014 and Tuettenberg, 2003, Bacher, 2013, Mesei-Lemoine, and Wehler, for the same reasons set forth above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMY E JUEDES whose telephone number is (571)272-4471. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 7am to 3pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dan Kolker, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3181. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
Amy E. Juedes
Patent Examiner
Technology Center 1600
/AMY E JUEDES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1644