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
Pursuant to the amendment dated 10/31/2025, claims 10-16, 18-21, 28-35, 37-40 44-51, and 53-56 are cancelled and claims 1, 5, 9, 22, 24, 41, 43, and 57-60 are amended. Claims 1-9, 17, 22-27, 36, 41-43, 52, and 57-60 are pending in the instant application and are examined on the merits herein.
Priority
This application is a National Stage Application of PCT/US2021/038600, filed on 06/23/2021 and claims benefit to provisional applications 63/043,024 filed on 6/23/2020, 63/043,048 filed on 6/23/2020, 63/043,054 filed on 6/23/2020, 63/043,059 filed on 6/23/2020, and 63/043,065 filed on 6/23/2020.
Withdrawn Rejections
Applicant’s amendment, filed on 10/31/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 5, 42, and 52 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, has been fully considered and is persuasive. Applicant has amended claims 5 and 43 to specify the additional therapeutic agents. The rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment, filed on 10/31/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1, 2, 6, 7, 22, 25, 26, 57, and 58 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (CN 101744794 A B2, 06/23/2010, see PTO-892 dated 07/31/2025) has been fully considered and is persuasive. Applicant amended claims 1, 22, and 57 to remove hypercin. The rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment, filed on 10/31/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 22, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (KR 20190092776 A, published 08/08/2019, see PTO-892 dated 07/31/2025) has been fully considered and is persuasive. Applicant has amended claims 1 and 22 to remove amentoflavone. The rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment, filed on 10/31/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 4, 8, 23, 27, and 59 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (KR 20190092776 A, published 08/08/2019, see PTO-892 dated 07/31/2025) as applied to claims 1, 6, 7, 22, 25, and 26 above, and further in view of Peterson (SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3599426, accessed 7/16/2025, published 5/20/2020, see PTO-892 dated 07/31/2025) been fully considered and is persuasive. Applicant has amended claims 1, 22 and 57 to remove amentoflavone. The rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment, filed on 10/31/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 5, 17, 24, 27, 36, and 60 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (KR 20190092776 A, published 08/08/2019, see PTO-892 dated 07/31/2025) and Peterson (SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3599426, accessed 7/16/2025, published 5/20/2020, see PTO-892 dated 07/31/2025) as applied to claims 1, 6, 7, 22, 25, and 26 above, and further in view Wang et al. (Cell Research, published February 4, 2020, see PTO-892 dated 07/31/2025) been fully considered and is persuasive. Applicant has amended claims 1, 22 and 60 to remove amentoflavone. The rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment, filed on 10/31/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 43 and 52 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (EP 1245230 A2, published 10/02/02, see PTO-892 dated 07/31/2025) has been fully considered and is persuasive. Applicant has amended claims 41 to remove amentoflavone. The rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment, filed on 10/31/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 41 and 42 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (EP 1245230 A2, published 10/02/02, see PTO-892 dated 07/31/2025) as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (Cell Research, published 02/04/2020, see PTO-892 dated 07/31/2025) has been fully considered and is persuasive. Applicant has amended claims 41 to remove amentoflavone. The rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Rejections Necessitated by Amendment
The following are new ground(s) necessitated by Applicants' amendment, filed on 10/31/2025, wherein instant independent claims 1, 22, 41, 57, 58, 59, and 60 were amended to alter the breadth and scope of the claim, and wherein the remaining pending claims 2-9, 17. 23-27, 36, 42-43, and 52 depend from said independent claims.
New or Maintained Grounds of Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 41-43 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a natural phenomenon without significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims are evaluated below using the “Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes” flow chart as shown in MPEP § 2106 III.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes. The claims are drawn to a composition of matter which is one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claims are directed to a natural phenomenon. The claim(s) recite(s) “a pharmaceutical composition comprising (a) a compound selected from the group consisting of bilobetin, urolithin A and urolithin B, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt of any thereof”. As evidenced by Larrosa et al. (J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006, 54, 1611-1620, published February 11, 2006) urolithin A and urolithin B occurs naturally (Title). As evidenced by Saponara et al. (J. Nat. Prod. 1998, 61, 1386-1387, published September 25, 1998) bilebetin occurs naturally (page 1386). Since there is no indication in the record that isolation of bilobetin, urolithin A, and urolithin B have resulted in a marked difference in structure, function or other properties as compared to its counterparts of “bilobetin, urolithin A and urolithin B, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt of any thereof "; as such this is a product of nature exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. There are no additional steps recited in the claim that integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Regarding instant claim 41, the composition unit dosage does not further limit the composition with a practical application. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because beyond the “bilobetin, urolithin A, and urolithin B, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt of any thereof "; the claims add pharmaceutically acceptable carrier or excipient which the instant specification states could be water and sesame oil, respectively, which are in themselves judicial exceptions (instant specification page 4). Regarding instant claim 42, the additional elements of a second anti-viral agent, an anti-inflammatory agent, an anticoagulant, and an analgesic. Yoon et al. (WO 2005/076761 A2, published 08/25/2005, see PTO-892) teaches a pharmaceutical composition comprising vitamin C and ginkgetin (abstract). Yoon teaches that vitamin C is a natural product found in the body (page 7, lines 1-15) and can inhibit the cold virus (page 15, lines 10-15) meeting the limitations of an additional anti-viral. Therefore, none of the limitations in these additional claims integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Regarding instant claims 41 and 42, the instant claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
While instant claim 41 recites a pharmaceutical composition comprising (a) a compound selected from the group consisting of bilobetin, urolithin A, and urolithin B, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt of any thereof, which is a nature-based product. The specification does not teach a combination of the natural products resulting in a markedly different characteristic. Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the product of nature exception as those additional elements were well understood, routine and conventional in the field as taught above.
Instant claim 42 recites a pharmaceutical composition comprising (a) a compound selected from the group consisting of bilobetin, urolithin A, and urolithin B, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt of any thereof, which is a nature-based product, and at least one additional therapeutic agent selected from a group consisting of a second anti-viral agent, anti-inflammatory agent, an anticoagulant, and an analgesic. The at least one additional therapeutic agent could be an anti-viral agent that is a natural product such as vitamin C as taught by Yoon. Therefore, the claim does not include an additional element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the product of nature exception.
As the instant claims 41 and 42 recites judicial exceptions that are not integrated into a practical application and recite no elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions, the claim was found to not be drawn to eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Thus, the instant claims 41 and 42 does not qualify as eligible subject matter. Claims 43 and 52 are rejected for being based on a rejected claim base.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/18/2025 have been fully considered in so far as they apply to the rejections of the office action dated 09/24/2025, but were not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of instant claims 41-43, and 53 under 35 U.S.C. 101, applicant argues that bilobetin, urolithin A, and urolithin B do not naturally occur in such discrete units and would require special preparation to extract the compounds. The argument is not persuasive. Bilobetin, urolithin A and urolithin B are products of nature and the process of separating and purifying the compounds does not create a compound that is markedly different than what is found in nature (see MPEP 2106.04(c)). Additionally, the amounts of bilobetin, urolithin A and urolith B extracted do not obviate the 101 as the amount of a natural product does not create a compound that is markedly different than what is found in nature.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 22, 23, 41, 42, and 57-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoon et al. (WO 2005/076761 A2, published 08/25/2005, see PTO-892).
Yoon is drawn to compositions comprising vitamin C and ginkgetin and methods of use for treating cold viruses such as influenza viruses, coronaviruses, rhinoviruses and adenoviruses (abstract). The composition can be prepared into conventional preparations, for example, drinks such as solution, syrup and capsule, mixed with pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, excipient, etc.; and can be administered orally or parenterally (page 16, lines 5-10). Yoon exemplifies the administration of the composition comprising vitamin C and ginkgetin three times a day of a 1 g capsule per administration after meal for 40 months wherein the composition was 5% by weight ginkgetin. The results showed that the experimental group compared to the placebo group had reduced frequency of cold (page 20, lines 3-15, and Table 2). Yoon further teaches that the composition increases immunity (page 13) and that the improvement of immunity may be a good means for the prevention and treatment of cold. The immune response to viral invasion is performed by the T cells which block the proliferation of viruses and thereby remove viruses by killing virus-infected cells (pages 4-5).
Although Yoon does not explicitly state that there was a reduced infection rate of the virus in the subject, the reduced frequency of reported cold would necessarily mean are reduced infection rate of the virus.
Regarding instant claim 22, several subjects of the experimental group did exhibit a low frequency of cold during the 40-month treatment period (Table 2, page 20). Therefore, as the subjects had a cold and continued to take the composition, the limitation of treating a viral infection in a subject, is met.
Regarding instant claim 41, Yoon teaches that the composition should preferably be administered in 0.01-500 g/kg a day in an adult (page 16, line 20) and Yoon exemplified the administration of a 1g capsule that comprises 5% by weight of ginkgetin which would be 50 mg ginkgetin (Table 2, page 20).
Regarding instant claims 4, 23, 42 and 59, Yoon further teaches that some cold prevention effect is shown in the group administrating vitamin C, but administration of only vitamin C was not enough to completely prevent cold (page 15, lines 10-15). As vitamin C exhibited antiviral activity, it would be reasonable to call it an antiviral, thereby meeting the limitations of a composition comprising ginkgetin and an additional antiviral.
Regarding instant claim 57, Yoon teaches that the composition improves the immune response and therefore remove viruses by killing virus-infected cells.
Accordingly, the claims are anticipated by the art.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 22, 25, and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (WO 2005/076761 A2, published 08/25/2005, see PTO-892).
Instant claims 1 and 22 are rejected as discussed above.
The teachings of Yoon are discussed above.
Yoon does not identify the specific viruses reduced in the experiments are coronaviruses.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to administer the composition comprising vitamin C and ginkgetin to a subject in need to reduce the infection rate of the virus or for treating a viral infection that is coronavirus as taught by Yoon to arrive at the claimed invention. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to administer the composition to a patient with coronavirus because Yoon teaches that the composition may be administered to reduce cold infections including coronaviruses. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because Yoon teaches the administration the composition comprising vitamin C and ginkgetin to a subject for reducing cold infections such as from coronaviruses.
Regarding instant claims 2 and 3, it is noted that Yoon does not expressly teach that administration of the composition to a subject would result in reduced coronavirus infection rates in one or more of nasal tissue, bronchi, lung, kidney, esophagus, ileum, colon, rectum, heart, thymus, liver, and blood or reduced coronavirus infection rates in one or more of epithelial cells, decidual cells, parenchymal cells, and immune cells. However, since the teachings of the prior art suggests administration of the same active, ginkgetin, to the same population experiencing a coronavirus, the result of reducing coronavirus infection rates one or more of nasal tissue, bronchi, lung, kidney, esophagus, ileum, colon, rectum, heart, thymus, liver, and blood or reduced coronavirus infection rates in one or more of epithelial cells, decidual cells, parenchymal cells, and immune cells would necessarily flow, thereby meeting the instant claims limitations. The recitation “reduces coronavirus infection rate in one or more of nasal tissue, bronchi, lung, kidney, esophagus, ileum, colon, rectum, heart, thymus, liver, and blood” and “reduces coronavirus infection rate in one or more of epithelial cells, decidual cells, parenchymal cells, and immune cells” is merely a mechanism of action resulting from the administration step. MPEP 2112(II) makes clear that there is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Furthermore, MPEP 2145 states that mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. Applicant’s recitation of a new mechanism of action for the prior art method would not, by itself, distinguish the instant claims over the prior art teaching the same or nearly the same method steps.
Claims 5, 24, 43 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (WO 2005/076761 A2, published 08/25/2005, see PTO-892) as applied to claims 1, 22 and 41 above, and further in view of Rana et al. (ChemRixiv, published 02/06/2020, see PTO-892) and Peterson (SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3599426, accessed 7/16/2025, published 5/20/2020, see PTO-892 dated 07/31/2025).
Claims 1, 22, and 41 are rejected as discussed above.
The teachings of Yoon are discussed above.
Yoon does not teach the administration of an additional therapeutic agent listed in instant claim 5, instant claim 24, or instant claim 43.
Rana is drawn the study of naturally occurring antiviral molecules for SARS-CoV-2 mitigation (title). Rana teaches that 3CLpro is an important molecular target for SARS-CoV-2 and is required for the replication of the virus. Rana teaches that ginkgetin, an amentoflavone, possesses excellent inhibitory potential with nanomolar inhibition constant towards 3CLpro and has a strong binding at the catalytic site of the enzyme which is crucial for viral replication (page 10). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that inhibiting 3CLpro would reduce the viral replication and infection process. Rana further teaches that remdesivir also inhibits 3CLpro and was undergoing clinical trials against SARS-CoV-2 at the time of publication (page 8 and Table 1).
Peterson is drawn to the study of flavonoids for inhibiting the main protease 3CLpro of SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 and using them as antivirals to shorten patient recovery times from Covid-19 (abstract). Peterson teaches that the proteolytic activity of the original SARS-CoV 3CLpro was inhibited by amentoflavone (page 2). Peterson also teaches that existing antiviral clinical trials should investigate combined therapy involving antiviral and flavonoids (page 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Rana, Peterson, and Yoon before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by administering a flavonoid that inhibits 3CLpro as taught by Rana and remdesivir as taught Peterson by including the additional components in the administration of the composition for treating a coronavirus as taught by Yoon. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to administer ginkgetin and remdesivir to treat a SARS-CoV-2 viral infection because Rana teaches that ginkgetin and remdesivir inhibits SARS-CoV-2 3CLpro and Peterson teaches that existing antiviral clinical trials for SARS-CoV-2 should investigate combined therapy involving antiviral and flavonoids. One or ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because Rana teaches that both ginkgetin and remdesivir inhibit 3CLpro and Peterson teaches that a combined therapy involving antivirals and flavonoids should be investigated for treating SARS-CoV-2.
Claims 7, 8, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (WO 2005/076761 A2, published 08/25/2005, see PTO-892) as applied to claim 1, 6, 22, and 25 above, and further in view of Rana et al. (ChemRixiv, published 02/06/2020, see PTO-892).
Claims 1, 6, 22, and 25 are rejected as discussed above.
The teachings of Yoon are discussed above.
Yoon does not teach the virus is SARS, MERS, or COVID-19.
The teachings of Rana are discussed above.
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine Yoon and Rana before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by treating a subject with a SARS-CoV-2 infection with ginkgetin to inhibit 3CLpro of the SARS-CoV-2 virus as taught by Rana by administering the composition comprising ginkgetin as taught by Yoon. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to administer ginkgetin because Rana teaches that ginkgetn inhibits 3CLpro of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because Yoon teaches that a composition comprising ginkgetin may be used for treating coronaviruses and Rana teaches that ginkgetin may inhibit inhibits 3CLpro of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
Claims 1, 9, 17 and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (CN 111297838 A, published 06/19/2020, see PTO-892), Peterson (SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3599426, accessed 7/16/2025, published 5/20/2020, see PTO-892 dated 07/31/2025), and Rana et al. (ChemRixiv, published 02/06/2020, see PTO-892).
Shi is drawn to an anti-coronavirus medicine inhalation spray and its use for treatment of Covid-19 infection (page 9). The medicine is comprised of 0% ~ 30% antiviral active agent, 0% ~ 30% auxiliary agent, 0% ~ 30% taste masking agent, and the rest is solvent (abstract). The antiviral agent may be remdesivir. The medication prevents virus infection and propagation (page 7). The pharmaceutical composition is atomized into an aerosol for inhalation by a patient (page 6).
Shi does not teach the administration of a composition comprising a compound from instant claim 1. Shi does not exemplify a composition comprising remdesivir and a compound from instant claim 1.
The teachings of Peterson are discussed above.
The teachings of Rana are discussed above.
Rana further teaches that bilobetin inhibits 3CLpro (abstract).
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Shi, Peterson, and Rana before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by modifying the composition comprising remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19 taught by Shi by adding bilobetin as a 3CLpro inhibitor as taught by Rana and Peterson to arrive at the claimed invention. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition comprising remdesivir taught by Shi by adding bilobetin because Rana teaches that both remdesivir and bilobetin inhibits 3CLpro and 3CLpro is important for viral replication and Peterson teaches that flavonoids that inhibit 3CLpro should be combined with remdesivir for the treatment of COVID019. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP 2144.06. I.). One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because Shi teaches a composition comprising remdesivir for treating Covid-19, Rana teaches that remdesivir and bilobetin both target 3CLpro, and Peterson teaches that flavonoids and remdesivir should be combined.
Claims 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (WO 2005/076761 A2, published 08/25/2005, see PTO-892) and Rana et al. (ChemRixiv, published 02/06/2020, see PTO-892) as applied to claim 22 and 25-27, and further in view of Peterson (SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3599426, accessed 7/16/2025, published 5/20/2020, see PTO-892 dated 07/31/2025).
Claims 22 and 25-27 are rejected as discussed above.
The teachings of Yoon are discussed above.
The teachings of Rana are discussed above.
The teachings of Peterson are discussed above.
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Rana, Peterson, and Yoon before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by administering a flavonoid that inhibits 3CLpro as taught by Rana and remdesivir as taught Peterson by applying the method of treating a coronavirus with administering a composition comprising ginkgetin as taught by Yoon. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to administer ginkgetin and remdesivir to treat a SARS-CoV-2 viral infection because Rana teaches that ginkgetin and remdesivir inhibits SARS-CoV-2 3CLpro and Peterson teaches that existing antiviral clinical trials for SARS-CoV-2 should investigate combined therapy involving antiviral and flavonoids. One or ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because Rana teaches that both ginkgetin and remdesivir inhibit 3CLpro and Peterson teaches that a combined therapy involving antivirals and flavonoids should be investigated for treating SARS-CoV-2.
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.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA SCHACHERMEYER whose telephone number is (703) 756-5337. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 AM – 3:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scarlett Goon can be reached on (571) 270-5241. 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 and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SAMANTHA LYNN SCHACHERMEYER/Examiner, Art Unit 1693
/SCARLETT Y GOON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1693