NON-FINAL REJECTION
This application is a 35 U.S.C. 371 (national stage) application of PCT/US2021/038870, filed Jun. 24, 2021, which claims benefit of priority to Provisional Application 63/044,127, filed Jun. 25, 2020.
Claims 1, 8-10, 12, 45-48, 53-66, and 68-71, as amended, are pending.
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 .
Priority
Applicant' s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on Aug. 8, 2023, Aug. 19, 2024, and Mar. 6, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of methods of treating; multiple myeloma as the species of cancer to be treated; and the combination of Compound 5 (iberdomide, a.k.a. (S)-3-(4-((4-(morpholinomethyl)benzyl)oxy)-1-oxoisoindolin-2-yl)piperidine-2,6-dione), having the structural formula,
PNG
media_image1.png
325
515
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and the BET/BRD4 inhibitor JQ-1, having the structural formula,
PNG
media_image2.png
379
355
media_image2.png
Greyscale
in the reply filed on Mar. 6, 2026 is acknowledged.
The elected species read on claims 1, 45, 53-62, and 68-70.
Claims 8-10, 12, 46-48, 63-66, and 71 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on Mar. 6, 2026.
Claims 1, 45, 53-62, and 68-70 are currently pending and under consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) - Indefiniteness
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, 45, 53-62, and 68-70 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 disclosure defines "prodrug" at para. [0065], as follows:
As used herein, and unless otherwise specified, the term “prodrug” of an active compound refers to compounds that are transformed in vivo to yield the active compound or a pharmaceutically acceptable form of the active compound. A prodrug can be inactive when administered to a subject, but is converted in vivo to an active compound, for example, by hydrolysis (e.g., hydrolysis in blood). Prodrugs include compounds wherein a hydroxy, amino or mercapto group is bonded to any group that, when the prodrug of the active compound is administered to a subject, cleaves to form a free hydroxy, free amino or free mercapto group, respectively.
However, the specification does not define "prodrug" in limiting terms. While a prodrug is generally understood in the art as a compound which is therapeutically inactive until administered and metabolized to its active form, the term "prodrug" is also understood to refer to a genus of compounds in purely functional terms, without defining any boundary or setting any limit on the functional groups or chemical moieties which may be added to the compound to yield a “prodrug” thereof.
Thus, the scope of the compounds encompassed by the term “prodrug,” and the nature of the steps required to prepare them, have no clear boundary. What might constitute a “prodrug” of the claimed compounds is vague and open to interpretation. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could not readily distinguish compounds which are included by the claims, from compounds which are excluded.
Because a skilled artisan would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed invention, infringing compounds cannot be distinguished from non-infringing compounds, rendering the metes and bounds of the claims indefinite.
This rejection may be overcome by amending the claims to omit the term “prodrug.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 45, 53, and 68-70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bradner et al. (WO 2015/070020) as evidenced by Jan et al. (WO 2020/132039) (both cited on PTO-892).
Bradner et al. disclose and claim a method of treating neoplasia comprising administering to a subject in need thereof JQ-1 in combination with an anti-neoplastic agent selected from, e.g., revlimid (a.k.a. lenalidomide; 3-(4-amino-1-oxo-1,3-dihydro-2H-isoindol-2-yl)piperidine-2,6-dione) in an amount effective to treat the neoplasia (claim 7).
As evidenced by, e.g., Jan et al., lenalidomide was marketed under the name REVLIMID® (para. [0290]).
Subjects treated include mammals (claim 12) and human patients (claim 13), wherein the neoplasia is, e.g., myeloma (claim 14). Bradner et al. disclose that "hematological cancers are exemplified by aggressive and indolent forms of . . . multiple myeloma" (p. 5, lines 20-26).
Thus, Bradner et al. disclose and claim methods of treating multiple myeloma, a hematological malignancy, by administering to a patient in need thereof a therapeutically effective amount of the combination of lenalidomide (compound 2) in combination with the elected BET/BRD4 inhibitor, JQ-1, as recited by claims 1, 45, 53, and 68-70.
For the foregoing reasons, Bradner et al. anticipates claims 1, 45, 53, and 68-70.
Claims 1, 45, 53, 54, and 68-70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuo et al. (US Pub. 20160022684, cited on PTO-892).
Kuo et al. disclose and claim methods of treating a B-cell (hematological) malignancy in a subject in need thereof, comprising administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount of a synergistic combination of a BTK inhibitor, e.g., ibrutinib, and a BET inhibitor, e.g., JQ-1, wherein the B-cell malignancy is, inter alia, multiple myeloma (claims 1-6);
wherein the B-cell malignancy is a relapsed or refractory B-cell malignancy (claim 9), and further comprising administering a third therapeutic agent selected from, inter alia, thalidomide or lenalidomide (claims 13-14).
Thus, Kuo et al. claim methods of treating a relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma comprising administering Compound 2 (lenalidomide) or Compound 3 (thalidomide) in combination with a BTK inhibitor (ibrutinib) and a BET inhibitor (JQ-1), which reads on claims 1, 45, 53, 54, and 68-70.
For the foregoing reasons, Kuo et al. anticipates claims 1, 45, 53, 54, and 68-70.
Claims 1, 45, 53-62, and 68-70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sherbenou et al. (WO 2021/119023, cited on the IDS dated 8/8/2023).
Sherbenou et al. disclose and claim methods of treating multiple myeloma in a subject, comprising administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount of at least one immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) and a therapeutically effective amount of at least one BET inhibitor (claim 1), wherein the IMiD is selected from, e.g., lenalidomide, pomalidomide, thalidomide, and iberdomide; and the BET inhibitor is selected from, e.g., JQ-1 (claim 7).
Thus, Sherbenou et al. disclose and claim methods of treating multiple myeloma, a hematological malignancy, by administering to a patient in need thereof a therapeutically effective amount of the elected compound, iberdomide (a.k.a. compound 5, (S)-3-(4-((4-(morpholino-methyl)benzyl)oxy)-1-oxoisoindolin-2-yl)piperidine-2,6-dione) in combination with the elected BET/BRD4 inhibitor, JQ-1, as recited by claims 1, 45, 53, and 68-70.
Sherbenou et al. further disclose that the multiple myeloma treated is relapsed or relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (para. [123]), as recited by claim 54.
The methods of Sherbenou et al. can be used at any stage of disease, e.g., as a first-line treatment or as a late-line treatment (para. [123]), implicitly disclosing the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, as recited by claim 56.
The multiple myeloma to be treated may also be resistant to lenalidomide, pomalidomide, thalidomide, bortezomib, carfilzomib, marizomib, ixazomib, oprozomib, bendamustine, carmustine, cyclophosphamide, melphalan, melphalan hydrochloride, afuresertib, ibrutinib, dinaciclib, panobinostat, rocilinostat, vorinostat, siltuximab, filanesib, daratumumab, elotuzumab, indatuximab, SAR650984, doxorubicin hydrochloride, panobinostat, plerixafor, and selinexor, or is refractory to many of these drugs (para. [123]; claims 21-22), as recited by claims 55 and 57-62.
For the foregoing reasons, Sherbenou et al. anticipates claims 1, 45, 53-62, and 68-70.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1, 45, 53-62, and 68-70 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bradner et al. (WO 2015/070020, cited on PTO-892) in view of Jan et al. (WO 2020/132039, cited on PTO-892), Amatangelo et al. (Blood 132, Suppl. 1, p. 1935 (2018), cited on the IDS dated 3/6/2026) and Schafer et al. (US Pub. 2016/0256468, cited on the IDS dated 8/8/2023).
Bradner et al. disclose and claim a method of treating neoplasia comprising administering to a subject in need thereof JQ-1 in combination with an anti-neoplastic agent selected from, e.g., revlimid (a.k.a. lenalidomide; 3-(4-amino-1-oxo-1,3-dihydro-2H-isoindol-2-yl)piperidine-2,6-dione) in an amount effective to treat the neoplasia (claim 7).
As evidenced by, e.g., Jan et al., lenalidomide was marketed under the name REVLIMID® (para. [0290]).
Subjects treated include mammals (claim 12) and human patients (claim 13), wherein the neoplasia is, e.g., myeloma (claim 14). Bradner et al. disclose that "hematological cancers are exemplified by aggressive and indolent forms of . . . multiple myeloma" (p. 5, lines 20-26).
Thus, Bradner et al. disclose and claim methods of treating multiple myeloma, a hematological malignancy, by administering to a patient in need thereof a therapeutically effective amount of the combination of lenalidomide (compound 2) in combination with the elected BET/BRD4 inhibitor, JQ-1, as recited by claims 1, 45, 53, and 68-70.
Bradner et al. does not disclose the elected compound, iberdomide (a.k.a. compound 5, (S)-3-(4-((4-(morpholino-methyl)benzyl)oxy)-1-oxoisoindolin-2-yl)piperidine-2,6-dione).
However, Jan et al. establish that the claimed IMiD (immunomodulatory drugs) and CM (cereblon modulators) compounds were known in the art, including thalidomide (Compound 3), pomalidomide (Compound 1), lenalidomide (Compound 2), CC-122 (a.k.a. avadomide; compound 4), CC-220 (a.k.a. iberdomide; Compound 5); and CC-885, or salts thereof.
The IMiD compounds thalidomide (marketed under the name THALOMID®), lenalidomide (marketed under the name REVLIMID®) and pomalidomide (marketed under the name POMALYST®), have each been approved by the FDA for treatment of multiple myeloma (among other diseases). The CM compounds CC-122, CC-220 (iberdomide) and CC-885 were undergoing review by the FDA (para. [0290]).
For example, Schafer et al. disclose and claim methods of treating myeloma comprising administering to a patient a therapeutically effective amount of the elected compound, iberdomide (a.k.a. Compound 5, 3-(4-((4-(morpholinomethyl)benzyl)oxy)-1-oxoisoindolin-2-yl)piperidine-2,6-dione) (compounds (I), (I-R), (I-S); claim 1),
wherein the myeloma is multiple myeloma (claim 4),
wherein the multiple myeloma is relapsed or refractory (claim 12),
wherein the multiple myeloma is drug-resistant (claim 13),
wherein the multiple myeloma is resistant to lenalidomide (claim 65),
wherein the patient has been newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (para. [0351]),
further comprising the administration of a therapeutically effective amount of one or more additional active agents (claim 30; paras. [0178]-[0180]),
as recited by claims 1, 45, and 53-62.
Amatangelo et al. disclose that iberdomide is being investigated in a phase I/II study for treatment of lenalidomide- and pomalidomide-relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) in combination with dexamethasone. Preclinical studies of iberdomide have shown that it more potently binds to cereblon than other cereblon-binding compounds, is more efficient at degrading Aiolos and Ikaros, and has enhanced immunomodulatory activity, inducing greater interleukin-2 secretion and granzyme-b degranulation in immune cells (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the filing date to substitute iberdomide for lenalidomide in the methods of Bradner et al. to arrive at methods of treating multiple myeloma by administering iberdomide in combination with JQ-1 with a reasonable expectation of success, because Amatangelo et al. teach that iberdomide belongs to the same class of immunomodulatory agent (IMiD) compounds as lenalidomide and pomalidomide, with the advantages of greater potency and efficacy in treating lenalidomide-relapsed/refractory/resistant forms of multiple myeloma.
As recognized by MPEP §2143, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would motivate the skilled artisan to modify the references with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion of prima facie obviousness is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and a skilled artisan could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (550 U.S. 398, 409).
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, 45, 53-57, and 68-70 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,660,297 in view of Kuo et al. (US Pub. 20160022684, cited on PTO-892).
The reference claims are drawn to methods of treating multiple myeloma comprising administering to a patient having multiple myeloma a therapeutically effective amount of mezigdomide (Compound 6) or an enantiomer, mixture of enantiomers, tautomer, isotopolog, or pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof;
in combination with a Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor selected from ibrutinib or acalabrutinib, or a stereoisomer, mixture of stereoisomers, tautomer, isotopolog, or pharma-ceutically acceptable salt thereof;
wherein the multiple myeloma is relapsed, refractory or resistant; refractory or resistant to lenalidomide or to pomalidomide; newly diagnosed multiple myeloma;
further comprising administering to the patient an additional active agent, e.g., dexamethasone or bortezomib,
which reads on examined claims 1, 45, and 53-57.
In addition, Kuo et al. disclose and claim methods of treating a B-cell (hematological) malignancy in a subject in need thereof, comprising administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount of a synergistic combination of a BTK inhibitor, e.g., ibrutinib, and a BET inhibitor, e.g., JQ-1, wherein the B-cell malignancy is multiple myeloma (claims 1-6);
wherein the B-cell malignancy is a relapsed or refractory B-cell malignancy (claim 9), and further comprising administering a third therapeutic agent selected from thalidomide or lenalidomide (claims 13-14).
Thus, Kuo et al. claim methods of treating a relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma comprising administering Compound 2 (lenalidomide) or Compound 3 (thalidomide) in combination with a BTK inhibitor (ibrutinib) and a BET inhibitor (JQ-1), as recited by examined claims 1, 45, 53, 54, and 68-70.
As recognized by MPEP §2144.06, “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).
Claims 1, 45, 53, and 68-70 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1-7 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,596,180;
claims 1-7 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,463,672;
claims 1-28 and 34 of U.S. Patent No. 9,884,062; and
claims 1-36 and 41 of U.S. Patent No. 9,629,849,
in view of Bradner et al. (WO 2015/070020, cited on PTO-892) and Jan et al. (WO 2020/132039, cited on PTO-892).
The '180 reference claims are drawn to methods of treating cancer in a subject, comprising administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount of a solid crystalline polymorphic form of iberdomide, wherein the cancer is multiple myeloma.
The '672 reference claims are drawn to methods of treating cancer in a subject, comprising administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount of a solid crystalline polymorphic form of iberdomide, wherein the cancer is multiple myeloma.
The '062 reference claims are drawn to methods of treating cancer in a subject, comprising administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount of a solid crystalline polymorphic form of iberdomide, wherein the cancer is multiple myeloma.
The '849 reference claims are drawn to methods of treating cancer in a subject, comprising administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount of a solid crystalline polymorphic form of iberdomide, wherein the cancer is multiple myeloma.
The reference claims differ from the examined claims in that the reference claims do not recite the co-administration of a second active agent, e.g., the elected BRD4/BET inhibitor JQ-1.
Bradner et al. disclose and claim a method of treating neoplasia comprising administering to a subject in need thereof JQ-1 in combination with an anti-neoplastic agent selected from, e.g., revlimid (a.k.a. lenalidomide; 3-(4-amino-1-oxo-1,3-dihydro-2H-isoindol-2-yl)piperidine-2,6-dione) in an amount effective to treat the neoplasia (claim 7).
As evidenced by, e.g., Jan et al., lenalidomide (Compound 2) was marketed under the name REVLIMID® (para. [0290]).
Subjects treated include mammals (claim 12) and human patients (claim 13), wherein the neoplasia is, e.g., myeloma (claim 14). Bradner et al. disclose that "hematological cancers are exemplified by aggressive and indolent forms of . . . multiple myeloma" (p. 5, lines 20-26).
Thus, Bradner et al. disclose and claim methods of treating multiple myeloma, a hematological malignancy, by administering to a patient in need thereof a therapeutically effective amount of the combination of lenalidomide (compound 2) in combination with the elected BET/BRD4 inhibitor, JQ-1, as recited by claims 1, 45, 53, and 68-70.
Further, Jan et al. establish that the claimed IMiD compounds were known in the art, including lenalidomide (compound 2) and CC-220 (a.k.a. iberdomide; compound 5).
The IMiD compounds thalidomide (marketed under the name THALOMID®), lenalidomide (marketed under the name REVLIMID®) and pomalidomide (marketed under the name POMALYST®), have each been approved by the FDA for treatment of multiple myeloma. The CM compounds CC-122, CC-220 (iberdomide) and CC-885 were undergoing review by the FDA (para. [0290]).
Therefore, it would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the methods of the reference claims by administering iberdomide in combination with JQ-1 as a second active agent to arrive at the examined claims with a reasonable expectation of success, because Bradner et al. and Jan et al. disclose methods of treating multiple myeloma by administering JQ-1 in combination with the IMiD compounds recited by the examined claims, all of which were FDA-approved or under review for the treatment of multiple myeloma.
As recognized by MPEP §2144.06, “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).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA E. TOWNSLEY whose telephone number is 571-270-7672. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm (EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jeff S. Lundgren, can be reached at 571-272-5541. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SARA ELIZABETH TOWNSLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 1629
Prosecution Insights