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 .
Formal Matters
Applicant’s response in the reply filed on 20 October 2025 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 1-5, 8, 11-15, 18, 21-25, 28, 31-34, and 37 are pending. Claims 1-5, 8, 11-15, and 18, are under consideration in the instant office action.
Claims 21-25, 28, 31-34, and 37 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 6-7, 9-10, 16-17, 19-20, 26-27, 29-30, 35-36, , 21-22, 28-29, 31-33, and 35-36 are canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08 December 2022 is noted and the submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner has considered the references. A signed copy is attached herein.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-5 and 8) in the reply filed on 20 October 2025 is acknowledged. Additionally, Applicant’s election without traverse of the species both poly-L-lysine (PLL) and a vitelline protein B (VpB) for agents added within the protein shell; an adjuvant as specific further agent; and an alginate microsphere as specific further agent from an outer shell surrounding the protein shell in the reply filed on 20 October 2025 is also acknowledged. Upon further consideration by the Examiner claims 11-15 and 18 (Group II) are hereby rejoined for further examination on the merits given claims 11-15 and 18 recite in the body of the claims the same structure as Group I (claims 1-5 and 8). Furthermore, the rejections set forth below under 35 USC 103 do address vaccines covering the subject matter of Group II (claims 11-15 and 18. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 20 October 2025.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objection
Claims 8 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 recites “or the alginate is at 0.1, 0.2. ,0.3, 0.4, 0.5. 0.75, 1, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75, 2, 2.25, 2.5, 2.75, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10% weight to volume (w/v).” The claim lacks a proper conjunction to recite the amounts. 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.
Claims 1-5, 8, 11-15 and 18 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.
The recitation “in an amount sufficient to protect an animal or human from a lethal dose of anthrax” in claims 1 and 11 render the claims unclear. The phrase as whole is relative/functional phrase whose boundaries cannot be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art. Specifically, “lethal dose of anthrax” is not defined by the claim or the specification. It is unclear whether this refers to LD50, LD100, minimum lethal dose, or some other metrics; whether the challenge is spores, vegetative cells, or toxin; the route of challenge (oral, inhalation, cutaneous, etc.); or the strain of B. anthracis used. Furthermore, the term “protect” is also unclear. The claim and the specification do not specify the required level or type of protection (e.g., 100% survival, statistically significant increase in survival time, reduction in clinical signs, prevention of bacteremia, or induction of measurable anti-B. anthracis IgG titers). Even furthermore, the phrase “an animal or human” encompasses an enormous scope (mice, rabbits, goats, non-human primates, livestock, etc., and humans) without providing species specific criteria. The examiner notes that no objective standard (e.g., a reference challenge model, survival curve, or statistical threshold) is recited in the claim or defined in the specification to clarify the phrase. As a result, it is impossible to determine the metes and bounds of the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(b) for relative terms and functional limitations that lack clear boundaries render a claim indefinite.
Note: Claims 2-5,8, 12-15, and 18 do not clarify the issue and are included in the rejection for depending from an indefinite base claim.
Claims 8 and 18 recite
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Note: The claims are examined with respect to the elected species wherein both poly-L-lysine (PLL) and a vitelline protein B (VpB) for agents added within the protein shell; an adjuvant as specific further agent; and an alginate microsphere as specific further agent from an outer shell surrounding the protein shell.
Claims 1-2,4-5, 11-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakya et al. (Vaccine, 25, 5374–5377, 2007, IDS reference 12/08/22) in view of Arenas-Gamboa et al. (Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 45(4), 2009, pp. 1021–1029, IDS reference 12/08/22).
Applicants’ claims
Applicants recite in claim 1 “An oral immunization against Bacillus anthracis comprising: B. anthracis Sterne strain 34F2 spores suspended in alginate and coated with a shell containing poly-L-lysine (PLL), a vitelline protein B (VpB), or both in an amount sufficient to protect an animal or human from a lethal dose of anthrax.” Claim 11 recites “A vaccine comprising: B. anthracis Sterne strain 34F2 spores suspended in alginate and coated with a shell containing poly-L-lysine (PLL), a vitelline protein B (VpB), or both in an amount sufficient to protect an animal or human from a lethal dose of anthrax.” Dependent claims thereof recite additional features.
Determination of the Scope and Content of the Prior Art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Shakya et al. teach “Evaluation of immune response to orally administered Sterne strain 34F2 anthrax vaccine” (see title). Shakya et al. teach an oral immunization against Bacillius anthracis comprising B. anthracis Sterne strain 34F2 spores (see abstract, page 5373). The commercially available Sterne strain 34F2 vaccine consisting of attenuated live spores of B. anthracis Sterne strain 34F2. The study evaluates oral administration in goats as a proof of concept for wildlife/livestock use where parenteral vaccination is impractical. Shakya et al. administers the Sterne 34F2 spores orally (mixed with scarifying agents in feed to abrade oropharyngeal mucosa) in amounts that induce an immune response measured by anti-protective antigen (PA) IgG titers via ELISA (see page 5375, results section and page 5376, table 1 and discussion: titers rise post-oral dosing, though lower than subcutaneous controls). Shakya et al. expressly aims at protective immunity against anthrax infection (see abstract, page 5372 and introduction. Present animal vaccines against Bacillius anthracis infection are capable of inducing protective immunity. However, due to the route of administration, the vaccine has limited or no use in wildlife…Hence, an oral vaccine is needed.
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope of the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Shakya et al. do not specifically teach suspension in alginate or coating with a shell of poly-L-lysine (PLL) and vitelline protein B (VpB), nor does it explicitly add a separate adjuvant beyond the scarifying agent/adhesive components. These deficiencies are cured by the teachings of Arenas-Gamboa et al.
Arenas-Gamboa et al. teach a microencapsulation technique for live attenuated bacteria the provides gastric protection and enhances immunogenicity/protection in an immunization regimen (see abstract and page 2448). Alginate microspheres coated with a protein of the parasite Fasciola hepatica (vitelline protein B (VpB) and containing live Brucella melitensis attenuated mutant, single dose immunization improved protection against wild-type B. melitensis 16M challenge compared to the nonencapsulated vaccine strain (p< 0.05); sustained IgG elevation and Th1-biased response). The exact formulation matches the instantly claimed shell: bacteria (here, live attenuated mutant) are suspended in alginate , extruded into calcium chloride to form beads or microspheres, crosslinked with 0.05% poly-L-lysine (PLL) (MW 22,000 daltons) and coated with a final outer shell; VpB is incorporated either in the alginate core or the shell as a crosslinking agent in an equimolar ratio of poly-L-lysine /VpB (see methods section on page 2449). The “Microencapsulation” section shows detailed protocol for alginate suspension, CaCl2 extrusion, PLL crosslinking, and VpB/shell or core addition; viability > 95% post encapsulation. Shakya et al. notes that microencapsulation offers the ability to increase the efficacy of vaccine candidates for the organisms beyond Brucella (see abstract, page 2454, and discussions section)
Finding of Prima Facie Obviousness Rational and Motivation
(MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the teachings of Shakya et al. by incorporating suspension in alginate or coating with a shell of poly-L-lysine (PLL) and vitelline protein B (VpB) and also adding adjuvant because Arenas-Gamboa et al. teach a microencapsulation technique for live attenuated bacteria the provides gastric protection and enhances immunogenicity/protection in an immunization regimen (see abstract and page 2448). Alginate microspheres coated with a protein of the parasite Fasciola hepatica (vitelline protein B (VpB) and containing live Brucella melitensis attenuated mutant, single dose immunization improved protection against wild-type B. melitensis 16M challenge compared to the nonencapsulated vaccine strain (p< 0.05); sustained IgG elevation and Th1-biased response). The exact formulation matches the instantly claimed shell: bacteria (here, live attenuated mutant) are suspended in alginate , extruded into calcium chloride to form beads or microspheres, crosslinked with 0.05% poly-L-lysine (PLL) (MW 22,000 daltons) and coated with a final outer shell; VpB is incorporated either in the alginate core or the shell as a crosslinking agent in an equimolar ratio of poly-L-lysine /VpB (see methods section on page 2449). The “Microencapsulation” section shows detailed protocol for alginate suspension, CaCl2 extrusion, PLL crosslinking, and VpB/shell or core addition; viability > 95% post encapsulation. Shakya et al. notes that microencapsulation offers the ability to increase the efficacy of vaccine candidates for the organisms beyond Brucella (see abstract, page 2454, and discussions section). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because first Shakya et al. expressly identify the need for an improved oral anthrax vaccine using Sterne 34F2 spores because parenteral routes are impractical for wildlife/livestock and unencapsulated oral dosing yields suboptimal immunogenicity and variable/lower titers vs SC. Controls (see Shakya et al. abstract, pages 5372, 5376-5377) the study is a proof of concept that highlights the gastric degradation problem implicitly. Arenas-Gamboa et al. provide the solution through the utilization of the alginate /PLL/VpB microencapsulation protecting live attenuated bacteria from gastric acid (as demonstrated by in vitro stability and sustained release data) while enhancing protection and antibody responses (see abstract, pages 2450-2451, results, page 2454 and discussions sections). Applying this known, proven microencapsulation technique to the known Sterne 34F2 spores would predictably yield an oral formulation that delivers viable spores past the stomach in an amount sufficient to protect animals/humans from lethal anthrax challenge (the motivation is explicit in Shakya et al.’s call for better oral anthrax vaccines and Arenas-Gamboa et al.’s teaching the microencapsulation method improves efficacy of vaccine candidates generally). The amount sufficient to protect is a routine optimization (one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to titrate spore dose based on Shakya’s dosing data and Arenas-Gamboa et al.’s protection results, as effective protective doses for Sterne spores were already known from the commercial injectable vaccine). Regarding the further addition of adjuvant” Arenas-Gamboa et al.’s alginate /VpB microcapsule itself displays adjuvant like properties (sustained release and Th1-biased response, see page 2451-2452, cytokine data, elevated IFB-g and IL-12). Even if an additional adjuvant were required, inclusion of conventional adjuvants (e.g., alum, saponin, or oil-based) in spore vaccines was routine and obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application to further boost mucosal/systemic responses in oral formulations (see Shakya et al.’s use of scarifying agents as mucosal adjuvants, see page 5373). The combination thus renders the claimed invention obvious. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Shakya et al. by utilizing an alginate suspension and encapsulating the spores in the presence of a PLL and VpB in the coating, with a reasonable expectation of success as demonstrated by Arenas-Gamboa et al.
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakya et al. (Vaccine, 25, 5374–5377, 2007, IDS reference 12/08/22) in view of Arenas-Gamboa et al. (Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 45(4), 2009, pp. 1021–1029, IDS reference 12/08/22) as applied to claims 1-2 and 4-5 above, and further in view of Ficht et al. (US 2017/0135958, IDS reference 12/08/22).
Applicants’ claims
Applicants claim Applicants claim “An oral immunization against Bacillus anthracis comprising: B. anthracis Sterne strain 34F2 spores suspended in alginate and coated with a shell containing poly-L-lysine (PLL), a vitelline protein B (VpB), or both in an amount sufficient to protect an animal or human from a lethal dose of anthrax. Claim 3 recites “The oral immunization of claim 1, wherein the vitelline protein B is a recombinant protein.” Claim 13 recites ““The vaccine of claim 11, wherein the vitelline protein B is a recombinant protein.”
Determination of the Scope and Content of the Prior Art
(MPEP 2141.01)
The teachings Shakya et al. and Arenas-Gamboa et al. are described above in detail and are incorporated herein by reference.
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope of the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Shakya et al. and Arenas-Gamboa et al. do not specifically teach wherein the vitelline protein B is a recombinant protein. This deficiency is cured by the teachings of Ficht et al.
Ficht et al. teach compositions and methods for the use of an encapsulation additive having between about 0.1 to about 30 percent isolated and purified vitelline protein B to provide for mixed and extended release formulations (abstract). The compositions and methods of the present invention include, generally, an encapsulation additive comprising between about 0.1 to about 30 percent isolated and purified vitelline protein B. The present inventors recognized that a key aspect of trematode infection and survival is the avoidance of host immune responses. Studies as to the causes for evasion of host immune surveillance led to the isolation and characterization of proteins from trematode eggshells. Upon isolation of the genes for the trematode proteins, vitelline protein A (vpA), vitelline protein B (vpB) and vitelline protein C (vpC) and isoforms of the same, it was discovered, as disclosed herein that the vpB protein, in particular, is stable at a wide range of pHs, is protease resistant and non-immunogenic. As such, the present investigators used the vpB protein as an additive for the encapsulation and extended release of, small molecules, antigens and the like (paragraph 0009). The Vitelline protein B may be closed and/or isolated by purification from, e.g., Fasciola hepatica. Alternatively, the Vitelline protein B may be made synthetically, by recombinant methods and combinations thereof (paragraph 0033).
Finding of Prima Facie Obviousness Rational and Motivation
(MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the teachings of Shakya et al. and Arenas-Gamboa et al. by utilizing a recombinant vitelline protein B for encapsulation because Ficht et al. teach compositions and methods for the use of an encapsulation additive having between about 0.1 to about 30 percent isolated and purified vitelline protein B to provide for mixed and extended release formulations (abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Ficht et al. teach that the compositions and methods of the present invention include, generally, an encapsulation additive comprising between about 0.1 to about 30 percent isolated and purified vitelline protein B. The present inventors recognized that a key aspect of trematode infection and survival is the avoidance of host immune responses. Studies as to the causes for evasion of host immune surveillance led to the isolation and characterization of proteins from trematode eggshells. Upon isolation of the genes for the trematode proteins, vitelline protein A (vpA), vitelline protein B (vpB) and vitelline protein C (vpC) and isoforms of the same, it was discovered, as disclosed herein that the vpB protein, in particular, is stable at a wide range of pHs, is protease resistant and non-immunogenic. As such, the present investigators used the vpB protein as an additive for the encapsulation and extended release of, small molecules, antigens and the like (paragraph 0009). The Vitelline protein B may be closed and/or isolated by purification from, e.g., Fasciola hepatica. Alternatively, the Vitelline protein B may be made synthetically, by recombinant methods and combinations thereof (paragraph 0033). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable chance of success in combining the references because Shakya et al. address the utilization of oral vaccines containing spores and Arenas-Gamboa et al. teach the use of encapsulation to deliver bacterial spores containing vaccines using VpB as an encapsulating agent. Ficht et al. teach that the Vitelline protein B (VpB) may be closed and/or isolated by purification from, e.g., Fasciola hepatica. Alternatively, the Vitelline protein B may be made synthetically, by recombinant methods and combinations thereof (paragraph 0033).
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakya et al. (Vaccine, 25, 5374–5377, 2007, IDS reference 12/08/22) in view of Arenas-Gamboa et al. (Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 45(4), 2009, pp. 1021–1029, IDS reference 12/08/22) as applied to claims 1-2 and 4-5 above, and further in view of Hu et al. (Cellular Microbiology, 8(10), 1634-1642, 2006, newly cited).
Applicants’ claims
Applicants claim Applicants claim “An oral immunization against Bacillus anthracis comprising: B. anthracis Sterne strain 34F2 spores suspended in alginate and coated with a shell containing poly-L-lysine (PLL), a vitelline protein B (VpB), or both in an amount sufficient to protect an animal or human from a lethal dose of anthrax. Claim 8 recites “The oral immunization of claim 1, wherein at least one of: the alginate further comprises an amount of D-alanine sufficient to prevent germination of the B. anthracis Sterne strain 34F2 spores; the alginate further comprises an amount of D-alanine at an amount of 0.1, 0.2. ,0.3, 0.4, 0.5. 0.75, 1, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 or more mM; or the alginate is at 0.1, 0.2. ,0.3, 0.4, 0.5. 0.75, 1, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75, 2, 2.25, 2.5, 2.75, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10% weight to volume (w/v).” claim 18 recites “The vaccine of claim 11, wherein at least one of: the alginate further comprises an amount of D-alanine sufficient to prevent germination of the B. anthracis Sterne strain 34F2 spores; the alginate further comprises an amount of D-alanine at an amount of 0.1, 0.2. ,0.3, 0.4, 0.5. 0.75, 1, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 or more mM; or the alginate is at 0.1, 0.2. ,0.3, 0.4, 0.5. 0.75, 1, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75, 2, 2.25, 2.5, 2.75, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10% weight to volume (w/v).”
Determination of the Scope and Content of the Prior Art
(MPEP 2141.01)
The teachings Shakya et al. and Arenas-Gamboa et al. are described above in detail and are incorporated herein by reference.
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope of the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Shakya et al. and Arenas-Gamboa et al. do not specifically teach the inclusion of D-alanine. This deficiency is cured by the teachings of Hu et al.
Hu et al. teach the current model for pathogenesis of inhalation anthrax indicates that the uptake and fate of Bacillus anthracis spores in alveolar macrophages are critical to the infection process. We have employed primary macrophages, which are more efficient for spore uptake than the macrophage-like cell line RAW264.7, to investigate spore uptake and survival. We found that at a multiplicity of infection (moi) of 5, greater than 80% of the spores of the Sterne strain containing only the pXO1 plasmid were internalized within 1 h. Within 4 h post infection, viability of internalized Sterne spores decreased to approximately 40%. Intracellular vegetative bacteria represented less than 1% of the total spore inoculum throughout the course of infection suggesting effective killing of germinated spores and/or vegetative bacteria. The Sterne spores trafficked quickly to phagolysosomes as indicated by colocalization with lysosome-associated membrane protein 1 (LAMP1). Expression of a dominant-negative Rab7 that blocked lysosome fusion enhanced Sterne spore survival. Addition of d-alanine to the infection resulted in 75% inhibition of spore germination and increased survival of internalized spores of the Sterne strain and a pathogenic strain containing both the pXO1 and pXO2 plasmids. (see summary).
Finding of Prima Facie Obviousness Rational and Motivation
(MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the teachings of Shakya et al. and Arenas-Gamboa et al. by incorporating D-alanine because Hu et al. teach the current model for pathogenesis of inhalation anthrax indicates that the uptake and fate of Bacillus anthracis spores in alveolar macrophages are critical to the infection process. We have employed primary macrophages, which are more efficient for spore uptake than the macrophage-like cell line RAW264.7, to investigate spore uptake and survival. We found that at a multiplicity of infection (moi) of 5, greater than 80% of the spores of the Sterne strain containing only the pXO1 plasmid were internalized within 1 h. Within 4 h post infection, viability of internalized Sterne spores decreased to approximately 40%. Intracellular vegetative bacteria represented less than 1% of the total spore inoculum throughout the course of infection suggesting effective killing of germinated spores and/or vegetative bacteria. The Sterne spores trafficked quickly to phagolysosomes as indicated by colocalization with lysosome-associated membrane protein 1 (LAMP1). Expression of a dominant-negative Rab7 that blocked lysosome fusion enhanced Sterne spore survival. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Hu et al. teach that addition of d-alanine to the infection resulted in 75% inhibition of spore germination and increased survival of internalized spores of the Sterne strain and a pathogenic strain containing both the pXO1 and pXO2 plasmids. (see summary). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable chance of success in combining the references because Shakya et al. address the utilization of oral vaccines containing spores and Arenas-Gamboa et al. also teach spores and Hu et al. specifically teach the use of the addition of D-alanine to inhibit germination of B. anthracis spores.
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIGABU KASSA whose telephone number is (571)270-5867. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM-5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Blanchard can be reached on 571-272-0827. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIGABU KASSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1619
Prosecution Insights