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 .
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 26-40 and 45, drawn to an antibody or antigen-binding portion thereof, nucleic acid molecule encoding the heavy and/or light chain variable region of the antibody of claim 26, vector comprising the nucleic acid molecule, host cell comprising the vector, kit comprising the antibody or antigen-binding portion thereof, and method for producing the antibody or antigen-binding portion thereof of claim 26 by culturing a host cell comprising an expression vector, and method of modulating a CD40-related immune response, activating T cells and./or boosting CD40-related immune response against cancer cells by administering the antibody or antigen-binding portion thereof of claim 26.
Group II, claim(s) 41-44, drawn to a method for inhibiting growth of tumor cells or treating or preventing cancer, comprising administering the antibody or antigen-binding portion thereof of claim 26.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons: Group II represents a second method of use. 37 CFR 1.475 (b)-(d) allows for an invention with a product and a process of making and using the product. Additional methods and/or products do not have unity under this rule and are separately restrictable.
During a telephone conversation with James S. Keddie on September 2, 2025, a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of I, claims 26-40 and 45. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 41-44 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Response to Amendment
The substitute specification filed 07/06/2023 in response to the Notice to File Corrected Papers under 37 CFR 371 mailed 06/217/2023, fails to comply with the requirements therein, specifically:
Applicant must furnish a substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52 and 1.125(a), including the following:
A substitute specification in clean form without markings. See MPEP 608.01 (q).
A marked-up copy of the substitute specification showing all changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. See 37 CFR 1.125(c) and MPEP 608.01 (q).
A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter. See 37 CFR 1.125(b).
Applicant’s comment that no changes to the text have been made so no marked-up copy is believed to be required. This is not correct. Please refer to Notification to File Corrected Papers under 35 USC 317 mailed 6/27/2023.
Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Disclosures
REQUIREMENTS FOR PATENT APPLICATIONS CONTAINING NUCLEOTIDE AND/OR AMINO ACID SEQUENCE DISCLOSURES
Items 1) and 2) provide general guidance related to requirements for sequence disclosures.
37 CFR 1.821(c) requires that patent applications which contain disclosures of nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences that fall within the definitions of 37 CFR 1.821(a) must contain a "Sequence Listing," as a separate part of the disclosure, which presents the nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences and associated information using the symbols and format in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825. This "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure may be submitted:
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system (see Section I.1 of the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System (https://www.uspto.gov/PatentLegalFramework), hereinafter "Legal Framework") as an ASCII text file, together with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file in a separate paragraph of the specification as required by 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) identifying:
the name of the ASCII text file;
ii) the date of creation; and
iii) the size of the ASCII text file in bytes;
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) on read-only optical disc(s) as permitted by 37 CFR 1.52(e)(1)(ii), labeled according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(5), with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(8) and 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) in a separate paragraph of the specification identifying:
the name of the ASCII text file;
the date of creation; and
the size of the ASCII text file in bytes;
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(2) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF file (not recommended); or
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(3) on physical sheets of paper (not recommended).
When a “Sequence Listing” has been submitted as a PDF file as in 1(c) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(2)) or on physical sheets of paper as in 1(d) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(3)), 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1) requires a computer readable form (CRF) of the “Sequence Listing” in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.824.
If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the PDF copy and the CRF copy (the ASCII text file copy) are identical.
If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed on paper or read-only optical disc, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the paper or read-only optical disc copy and the CRF are identical.
Specific deficiencies and the required response to this Office Action are as follows:
Specific deficiency - The Incorporation by Reference paragraph required by 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) is missing or incomplete. See item 1) a) or 1) b) above.
Required response – Applicant must provide:
A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125 inserting the required incorporation-by-reference paragraph, consisting of:
A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version);
A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and
A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter.
Specification
All references to locations in the specification are in relation to the specification originally filed on 02/14/2023.
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01. See p. 21, line 7.
The use of the term “OmniRat” (see section 2.1 of the specification), which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On p. 23, lines 2-3, “would not likely to trigger” is incorrect. On p. 54, line 26, “will not likely to trigger” is incorrect. On p. 55, line 25, it appears “triggering a multiple of cytokine releasing” is incorrect.
Appropriate correction is required.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement (IDS). 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited in an IDS or by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 35, 39 and dependent claims 36-37 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 35 recites the limitation “the heavy chain variable region and/or light chain variable region of the isolated antibody”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: expression of the antibody or antigen-binding portion thereof. The method jumps from culturing a host cell comprising one or more expression vectors that encode the antibody or antigen-binding portion thereof of claim 26 to harvesting the antibody or antigen-binding portion thereof. While the first step requires “under suitable conditions” and while the preamble is given weight as to what the intended process is, that does not per se specify for what the conditions are suitable. Even if it did, the step of expressing the encoded antibody or antigen-binding fragment thereof is still a missing crucial active method step. Note that on p. 6, lines 2-3, a method of preparing a CD40 antibody is described as comprising “expressing the antibody or antigen-binding portion thereof in a host cell….”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 26-31, 33, 38, 39, 40 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for the antibody or antigen-binding portion thereof of claim 26 that binds CD40 and wherein the modulation of a CD40 related immune response in claim 40 is activation or stimulation thereof and the method uses and pharmaceutical composition comprises the antibody or antigen-binding portion thereof of claim 26 comprising an IgG Fc domain and, does not reasonably provide enablement for wherein the antibody or antigen-binding portion thereof does not bind CD40 and wherein the antibody or antigen-binding portion thereof of the pharmaceutical composition or which is used in the method of claim 40 does not comprise an IgG Fc domain and the modulation in claim 40 is not activation or stimulation of a CD40 related immune response. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Claim 26 is drawn to an antibody or antigen-binding portion thereof, with the only structure defined being heavy and light chain CDR1-3 sequences. There is no limitation about any framework which the CDRs are within. Note that claim 27 requires only a heavy chain variable region (VH) or light chain variable region (VL). The claims do not recite an antigen to which the antibody binds or an activity of the antibody except for claims 32 and 40. However, all the disclosed antibodies of the application are CD40-binding. Because claim 34 (not rejected here) recites that the antibody or antigen-binding portion thereof comprises both a specific heavy and light chain (SEQ ID NO:14 and 15, respectively), the antibody would inherently have an agonistic CD40 activity. Dependent claim 40 is drawn to a method of modulating a CD40 related immune response, activating T cells and/or boosting CD40 related immune response against cancer cells, requires not only binding of CD40 but activation thereof (unless the modulation of a CD40 related immune response is inhibition of that response, in which case the antibody would need to be antagonistic). A pharmaceutical composition requires the ability for the product to have some in vivo activity. The overarching enablement issues deal with the use of the claimed antibody, e.g., does it have agonistic activity or CD40L blocking activity? From that also comes the issue of use in a pharmaceutical composition and in the method of claims 38 and 40.
The antibodies made and used in the instant application have a full immunoglobulin structure, i.e., comprising an F(ab’)2 fused to an IgG Fc region (p. 46, lines 22-34). This is pertinent because the prior art supports the generalization that in most cases agonist activity of CD40 antibodies which are of the IgG1 isotype require antibody crosslinking to FcγR (p. 61, lines 10-12). Also, it was known that an IgG2 isotype, which has the weakest binding of isotypes to FcγRIIB and FcγRIIIA, can exert agonistic activity independent of Fc-mediated crosslinking by clustering CD40 to form a dimer and mimic the interaction of CD40L with CD40 (p. 22, lines 32-37, of the specification). No single chain or Fab antibody fragment is disclosed having the CDRs of claim 26. This is pertinent to claim 40, which requires activity by the antibody, and claim 38 drawn to a pharmaceutical composition comprising the antibody. Note that if the antibody or antigen-binding domain portion thereof as defined in claim 26 is not an active ingredient of the pharmaceutical composition, then the claim lacks enablement because one would not know how to use it in the absence of recitation of a usable active ingredient. In support of the need of an IgG Fc region for agonist activity, Ellmark et al. (Immnol. 106(4):456-463, 2002, p. 457, col. 1, second paragraph) was able to identify four scFv CD40-binding antibodies using a fully human phage display library. However, it is reported (p. 461, col. 2, first paragraph) that, “All our activating scFv fragments required crosslinking by the M2 anti-FLAG antibody to induce B cell proliferation, an observation which is consistent with previous studies, using mouse antibodies. 24,28,29 Hence, when using our activating CD40 binders in vivo or in vitro it is necessary to use a multimeric format, which can be obtained by converting the scFv into a whole IgG or by using other recombinant techniques.30-35” Li et al. (Oncology Lett. 20:176, 13 pages, 2020) reviewed agonistic CD40 antibodies in clinical trials for treatment of cancers (Table II), all of which have an IgG1 or IgG2 Fc region (Table I). Therefore, for claims 38 and 40, it reasonably appears the antibody or antigen-binding fragment thereof must include an IgG Fc domain to allow crosslinking or there must be an additional agent capable of crosslinking the claimed antibody or antigen-binding fragment thereof.
Further, claim 40 is drawn to a method of modulating a CD40 related immune response, activating T cells and/or boosting CD40 related immune response against cancer cells. The only disclosed modulation by an antibody comprising the CDRs of instant claim 26 of immune responses related to CD40 is agonistic modulation. That is, the antibodies disclosed which comprise the heavy and light chain CDR1-3 of claim 26 all have some level of agonistic activity and have not been shown to have antagonistic effects on immune responses related to CD40. Table 8 shows in vitro B cell proliferation is stimulated with antibody W3525, which is expected to enhance T cell response (p. 52, lines 3-7). Table 9 also shows immune cell activation by showing in vitro CD40 antibody-induced secretion of multiple cytokines by dendritic cells by W3525 (see also Figs. 11-15).
Argiriadi et al. (BMC Mol. Cell Biol. 20:29, 2019, cited in the IDS filed 2/14/23) looked at the crystal structure of agonistic and antagonistic CD40-binding antibodies. It was found (p. 7/13, start of col. 1) that overlaying antibody backbones for an agonistic (FAB516) and antagonistic (ABBV-323) antibody in the antibody-antigen complex, “[T]he CD40 monomer recognition for both Fabs is identical. However, … dimer formation is different.” Argiriadi et al. goes on to discuss the differences in the heavy and light chain CDR binding and sequences between the agonist and antagonist antibody (p. 7/13, col. 2). This supports the importance of the involvement of the antibody CDRs in activity and, therefore, type of immune response modulation that is enabled. The CDRs of an antibody are the dominant determinants of antigen binding (e.g., MacCallum et al., J. Mol. Biol. 262:732-745, 1996, p. 732, first paragraph of Introduction). Therefore, it appears that the CDRs set forth in claim 26 in an appropriate antibody framework and context of a full immunoglobulin would result in agonistic activity for the antibody, such that the method of instant claim 40 is not enabled for modulation of a CD40 related immune response other than enhancement of that immune response, e.g., not for inhibition of the immune response.
For the reasons discussed above and including the complexity of antibody-antigen interaction, the limited working examples in the specification, all of which are antibodies comprising an IgG1 or IgG2 Fc domain and for those of the instant invention which are also agonistic, the lack of guidance or direction for wherein the antibodies can be used therapeutically or for immune response modulation and/or T cell activation without an IgG Fc domain, and the showing by the prior art of the general need for crosslinking of CD40 antibodies for function, which can be Fc-dependent or -independent but which generally require an IgG Fc region, it would require undue experimentation to use the invention commensurate in scope with the claims.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 33 is drawn to wherein the antibody is chimeric, humanized or a fully human antibody. However, the only antibodies comprising the HCDR1-3 and LCDR1-3 of instant claim 26 are those produced in “OmniRats” (section 2.1 of the specification; OmniAb, https://www.omniab.com/technology/omnirat/, 2025, attached). These rats have their endogenous rat immunoglobulin genes knocked out and replaced with human counterparts. They produce antibodies with human idiotypes (About OmniRat). “OmniAB supports humanized rat antibody research ….” (second paragraph) It appears because the instant antibodies were made in OmniRats®, the antibodies are humanized instead of human. As defined in the specification (p. 10, lines 4-8), “humanized antibody” refers to antibodies with CDR sequence from a nonhuman mammal grafted on to human framework sequences. Since an OmniRat® does not have a human antibody repertoire, even though it has human immunoglobulin genes, it appears to fit the description of producing humanized antibodies, i.e., having rat CDRs (see also Joyce et al., Nat. Res. Sci. Rep. 10:1120, 9 pages, 24 Jan. 2020). Nor was the antibody produced as a chimeric antibody because that would require the full variable domains to be nonhuman, which is not the case for OmniRat®.
Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 19USPQ2d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1991), clearly states that “applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention. The invention is, for purposes of the ‘written description' inquiry, whatever is now claimed.” (See page 1117.) The specification does not “clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed.” (See Vas-Cath at page 1116).
With the exception of a humanized antibody, the skilled artisan cannot envision the detailed chemical structure of the encompassed chimeric and especially human antibodies, and therefore conception is not achieved until reduction to practice has occurred, regardless of the complexity or simplicity of the method of isolation. Adequate written description requires more than a mere statement that it is part of the invention and reference to a potential method of isolating it. See Fiers v. Revel, 25 USPQ2d 1601 at 1606 (CAFC 1993) and Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., 18 USPQ2d 1016 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
One cannot describe what one has not conceived. See Fiddes v. Baird, 30 USPQ2d 1481 at 1483 (BPAI 1993). In Fiddes, claims directed to mammalian FGF' s were found to be unpatentable due to lack of written description for that broad class. The specification provided only the bovine sequence.
Therefore, only wherein the antibody is humanized, but not the full breadth of the claim, meets the written description provision of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Applicant is reminded that Vas-Cath makes clear that the written description provision of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is severable from its enablement provision (see page 1115).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
There are many prior art references teaching CD40-binding antibodies; however, none reasonably appear to teach an antibody or antigen-binding portion thereof having the heavy chain and light chain CDR1-3 sequences of instant claim 26. Nor does the prior art make such an antibody or antigen-binding portion thereof obvious. Below are examples of the prior art.
WO 2012/149356 A2 (cited in the IDS filed 10/21/2024, Example 1) teaches agonist anti-CD40 antibody APX005 (see also, e.g., instant specification p. 17, lines 1-3, and Tables 18 and 19).
US Patent 10,577,425 B2 teaches CD40-binding antibodies of Ellmark et al. (supra) and the sequences of their heavy and light chain CDRs and variable regions (Table 1). The antibodies are agonistic and enhance CD40 related immune response as shown in Figs. 2-4 and 7-8 through B cell proliferation, increase in dendritic cell activation measured by CD86 expression, and tumor growth inhibition.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Claire Kaufman, whose telephone number is (571) 272-0873. Examiner Kaufman can generally be reached Monday through Friday 7am-3:30pm, Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Vanessa Ford, can be reached at (571) 272-0857.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application should be directed to the Group receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-1600.
Official papers filed by fax should be directed to (571) 273-8300. NOTE: If applicant does submit a paper by fax, the original signed copy should be retained by the applicant or applicant's representative. NO DUPLICATE COPIES SHOULD BE SUBMITTED so as to avoid the processing of duplicate papers in the Office.
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 .
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).
Claire Kaufman
/Claire Kaufman/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1674
November 26, 2025