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
Claims 1-36 are canceled. Claims 37-55 are pending. Claims 44-55 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Accordingly, claims 37-43 are under consideration in this action.
Priority
The instant claims are entitled to an effective filing date of 11/17/2020.
Claim Objections
Claims 37 and 42 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 37 recites “micro- or nanoparticles” in line 4, which should be replaced with either “microparticles or nanoparticles”.
Claim 42 recites “pain , inherited” in the second to last line of the claim, which includes an extra space and should be replaced with “pain, inherited”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 37-43 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.
(Maintained) Claim 37 recites “wherein the drug and the hyaluronidase are administered intermittently at a time interval of three months to two years”, which is indefinite because there are multiple reasonable interpretations for this limitation. In the first interpretation, the claim requires both the drug and the hyaluronidase to be administered at a time interval of three months to two years, such that the drug and hyaluronidase are combined and the time interval refers the time between the administrations. In the second interpretation, the time interval is between the administration of the drug and the administration of the hyaluronidase.
(Necessitated by amendment) Claim 37 recites “a prolonged, extended, sustained release of the drug into the blood plasma is maintained” in the last line, which renders the claim indefinite because there are multiple reasonable interpretations of this limitation. The instant specification discloses that administration of hyaluronidase with a drug maintains an extended sustained or prolonged release of drug into the blood stream. See page 3 lines 34-36. Therefore, in the first reasonable interpretation, any drug administration with hyaluronidase can be considered to have a prolonged, extended, and sustained release into blood plasma. However, under this first interpretation it is further unclear whether any sequential administration of hyaluronidase can have the same drug release effect. Under a second interpretation, the claim requires the maintaining a prolonged, extended, sustained release of the drug into the blood plasma for the recited “time interval of three months to two years” (lines 8-9).
Claims 38-43 depend from claim 37 and are rejected for the reason set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
§112(b)
Applicant argues that the amendment renders the rejection moot. See the remarks page 7 paragraph 2.
This argument is not persuasive because the amendment further renders the claims indefinite for reasons set forth above.
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 37-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soundararajan (Molecular Pharmaceutics 2020 17 (7), 2599-2611; published May 7, 2020) in view of Frost (US 2009/0311237).
Regarding claim 37, Soundararajan teaches developing hyaluronidase (HYD) coated nanoparticles that encapsulate CUDC-101, an anticancer drug. See the abstract. Soundararajan teaches surface-coating freeze-dried Molecular Envelope Technology (MET)-CUDC-101 with hyaluronidase by reconstituting the freeze-dried cake with a solution of bovine hyaluronidase in water (i.e. nanoparticles in suspension) resulting in F3-HYD containing HYD-MET-CUDC-101 nanoparticles. See p. 2601, left column, first full paragraph. Animals are randomly assigned into a group that receives a low 60 mg/kg dose, a medium 90 mg/kg dose, or a high 120 mg/kg dose of F3-HYD. See p. 2602, right column, para. 1. The formulations are dosed subcutaneously once every day until a predetermined end date of 50 days. See p. 2602, right column, para. 2. Soundararajan teaches assessing the plasma levels of the drug CUDC-101 over 24 h after subcutaneous injection of F3-HYD in rats. See p. 2605, right column, para. 2. Soundararajan discloses that the plasma AUC0-24h (ng h mL-1) for the F3-HYD formulation is 1259 ± 287. See table 6. Soundararajan suggests that coating nanoparticles with hyaluronidase can improve their transport through the subcutaneous space, and result in higher plasma exposure. See p. 2608 last passage.
Soundararajan does not teach an intermittent administration at a time interval of three months to two years.
Frost teaches subcutaneously administering to a subject (a) an amount of a soluble hyaluronidase and (b) a bisphosphonate in an amount sufficient for treating the disease or condition. See claim 1 of Frost. The soluble hyaluronidase and a bisphosphonate are administered intermittently. See claim 6 of Frost. The frequency of the dosage regimen comprises once every week, once every two weeks, once every three weeks, once every four weeks, once every month, once every two months, once every three months, once every four months, once every five months, once every six months, once every seven months, once every eight months, once every nine months, once every ten months, once every eleven months, once every twelve months, once every eighteen months or once every two years. See claim 14 of Frost.
Frost does not explicitly teach an intermittent administration at a time interval of about three months to about two years; however, Frost teaches dosing regimen frequency options, in claim 14 of Frost, that overlap with the instantly claimed about three months to about two-year range.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to optimize the once daily for 50-day dosing regimen of Soundararajan as suggested by Frost. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Frost suggests dosing hyaluronidase with a drug intermittently. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Frost teaches dosing regimen frequency options that overlap with the instantly claimed time interval of three months to two years.
Regarding claim 38, Soundararajan teaches surface-coating freeze-dried MET-CUDC-101 with hyaluronidase by reconstituting the freeze-dried cake with a solution of bovine hyaluronidase in water resulting in F3-HYD containing HYD-MET-CUDC-101 nanoparticles. See p. 2601, left column, para. 1.
Soundararajan does not teach recombinant human hyaluronidase comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.
Frost teaches a soluble hyaluronidase that comprises rHuPH20. See claim 22 of Frost. The soluble hyaluronidase is selected from among polypeptides containing a sequence of amino acids set forth in any of SEQ ID NOS:4-9 and 48, and allelic variants, species variants and other variants thereof that retain hyaluronidase activity. See claim 19 of Frost. Frost teaches a soluble hyaluronidase variant SEQ ID NO:1. See claim 20 of Frost. Instant SEQ ID NO: 1 (length 443) is identical to SEQ ID NO: 8 of Frost (length 443); and SEQ ID NOs: 1, and 4-7 of Frost include subsequences that are 100% identical to instant SEQ ID NO: 1. See the sequence alignments in the office action appendix 12/16/2025.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to substitute Frost’s soluble hyaluronidase (SEQ ID NO: 8) for the bovine hyaluronidase of Soundararajan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Frost suggests that the soluble hyaluronidase is formulated for subcutaneous administration (see the abstract of Frost). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Soundararajan demonstrates subcutaneously injecting hyaluronidase-coated nanoparticles to rats (see p. 2602, right column, para. 2).
Regarding claim 39, Soundararajan teaches surface-coating freeze-dried MET-CUDC-101 with hyaluronidase resulting in F3-HYD. See p. 2601, left column, first full paragraph. Soundararajan teaches dosing animals with F3-HYD. See p. 2602, right column, para. 2.
Frost teaches a method in which the soluble hyaluronidase and a bisphosphonate are administered, sequentially, simultaneously in the same composition or in separate compositions, or intermittently. See claim 6 of Frost.
Thus, Soundararajan and Frost teach administering the drug and the hyaluronidase simultaneously.
Regarding claim 40, Soundararajan teaches dosing animals with F3-HYD. See p. 2602, right column, para. 2.
Frost teaches that the bisphosphonate and hyaluronidase are administered as a single subcutaneous injection. See claim 29 of Frost. Frost teaches pharmaceutical compositions and combinations containing the soluble hyaluronidase and bisphosphonate. See [0010].
Thus, Soundararajan and Frost teach administering the drug and the hyaluronidase as a combined pharmaceutical composition.
Regarding claim 41, Soundararajan teaches dosing animals with F3-HYD, which is a combined nanoparticle containing hyaluronidase (HYD) and the CUDC-101 anticancer drug. See p. 2602, right column, para. 2.
Soundararajan does not teach administering the drug and the hyaluronidase in separate pharmaceutical compositions.
Frost teaches that the bisphosphonate and hyaluronidase are administered separately. See claim 30 of Frost.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the administration method of Soundararajan by separately administering hyaluronidase in view of Frost. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Frost suggests that administering soluble hyaluronidase may reduce the incidence of an injection site reaction (see [0042]). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Frost teaches immediately administering a drug following the administration of hyaluronidase (see [0100]).
Regarding claim 42, Soundararajan teaches CUDC-101 an anticancer drug. See the abstract.
Regarding claim 43, Soundararajan teaches CUDC-101 (i.e. not an antibody or biologic). See the abstract.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/2026 have been fully considered but they do not apply to the new grounds of rejection set forth above.
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 37-43 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 67-89 of copending Application No. 18/037,204 (hereafter ‘204) (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the narrower scope of co-pending claims 67-75 anticipate instant claims 37-43.
Co-pending claim 67 of ‘204 recites a method for the treatment of HIV infection in a subject in need thereof, the method comprising administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount of rilpivirine or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof in the form of micro- or nanoparticles in suspension by intramuscular injection or subcutaneous injection, wherein the rilpivirine or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof is administered in combination with a hyaluronidase that is administered by intramuscular injection or subcutaneous injection, wherein the rilpivirine or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof is administered in combination with the hyaluronidase intermittently at a time interval of about three months to about two years, and wherein a prolonged, extended, sustained release of rilpivirine or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof into the blood plasma is maintained.
Co-pending claim 68 of ‘204 recites the method according to claim 67, wherein the hyaluronidase is recombinant human hyaluronidase comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1.
Co-pending claim 69 of ‘204 recites the method according to claim 67, wherein the time interval is about three months to about six months.
Co-pending claim 70 of ‘204 recites the method according to claim 67, wherein the rilpivirine or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof and the hyaluronidase are administered simultaneously.
Co-pending claim 71 of ‘204 recites the method according to claim 67, wherein the rilpivirine or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof and the hyaluronidase are administered sequentially.
Co-pending claim 72 of ‘204 recites the method according to claim 67, wherein the micro- or nanoparticles have a surface modifier adsorbed to their surface, wherein the surface modifier is a poloxamer.
Co-pending claim 73 of ‘204 recites the method according to claim 67, wherein the average effective particle size of the micro- or nanoparticles is less than about 1 µm.
Co-pending claim 74 of ‘204 recites the method according to claim 67, wherein the method is a method of treatment of HIV-1 infection.
Co-pending claim 75 of ‘204 recites the method according to claim 67, wherein the rilpivirine or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof is rilpivirine.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 37-43 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of copending Application No. 18/858,037 (hereafter ‘037) in view of Soundararajan (Molecular Pharmaceutics 2020 17 (7), 2599-2611; published May 7, 2020) and Frost (US 2009/0311237).
Co-pending claim 1 of ‘037 recites a solid composition obtainable by freeze drying an aqueous composition comprising rilpivirine or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof and a hyaluronidase.
Co-pending claim 2 of ‘037 recites the solid composition according to claim 1, wherein the hyaluronidase is rHuPH20.
Co-pending claim 3 of ‘037 recites the solid composition according to claim 1 wherein the aqueous composition comprises rilpivirine or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof in the form of particles suspended in the aqueous composition, optionally wherein the particles are micro- or nanoparticles suspended in the aqueous composition.
Co-pending claim 14 of ‘037 recites the reconstituted aqueous composition obtainable by reconstituting the solid composition as defined in claim 1 with an aqueous dispersion medium.
Co-pending claim 15 of ‘037 recites a method for the treatment or prevention of HIV infection in a subject, the method comprising administering to the subject a reconstituted aqueous composition as defined in claim 14.
The co-pending claims of ‘037 lack the following: administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount of a drug by intramuscular injection or subcutaneous injection, wherein the drug and the hyaluronidase are administered intermittently at a time interval of three months to two years, and wherein a prolonged, extended, sustained release of the drug into the blood plasma is maintained (relevant to instant claim 37); amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1 (relevant to instant claim 38); and wherein the drug and the hyaluronidase are administered in separate pharmaceutical compositions (relevant to instant claim 41).
However, Soundararajan teaches developing F3-HYD containing HYD-MET-CUDC-101 nanoparticles. See p. 2601, left column, first full paragraph. Soundararajan teaches subcutaneously administering F3-HYD to animals. See p. 2602, right column, para. 2. Soundararajan teaches assessing the plasma levels of the drug CUDC-101 over 24 h after subcutaneous injection of F3-HYD in rats. See p. 2605, right column, para. 2. Soundararajan discloses that the plasma AUC0-24h (ng h mL-1) for the F3-HYD formulation is 1259 ± 287. See table 6. Frost teaches a dosage regimen frequency that includes once every three months or once every two years. See claim 14 of Frost (relevant to instant claim 37). Frost teaches a soluble hyaluronidase that comprises rHuPH20. See claim 22 of Frost. The soluble hyaluronidase is selected from among polypeptides containing a sequence of amino acids set forth in any of SEQ ID NOS:4-9 and 48, and allelic variants, species variants and other variants thereof that retain hyaluronidase activity. See claim 19 of Frost. Instant SEQ ID NO: 1 is identical to SEQ ID NO: 8 of Frost (relevant to instant claim 38). Frost teaches a method in which the soluble hyaluronidase and a bisphosphonate are administered, sequentially, simultaneously in the same composition or in separate compositions, or intermittently. See claim 6 of Frost. Frost teaches that the bisphosphonate and hyaluronidase are administered separately. See claim 30 of Frost (relevant to instant claim 41).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to substitute the nanoparticles recited in co-pending claim 3 of ‘037 for the F3- HYD nanoparticles of Soundararajan, and to further optimize the timing of the administration in view of Frost to in order to treat a disease.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 37-43 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 15-16, 28-30, 39-40 and 68-72 of copending Application No. 18/858,242 (hereafter ‘242) in view of Soundararajan (Molecular Pharmaceutics 2020 17 (7), 2599-2611; published May 7, 2020) and Frost (US 2009/0311237).
Co-pending claim 1 of ‘242 recites an aqueous composition comprising: (i) rilpivirine (a drug) or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof; (ii) a hyaluronidase; and (iii) 0.001-100 mg/mL of at least one excipient selected from the group consisting of:(a) cellulose or a derivative thereof, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof; and/or (b) an amino acid, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof.
Co-pending claim 2 of ‘242 recites the aqueous composition according to claim 1, wherein the rilpivirine is in the form of particles suspended in the aqueous composition.
Co-pending claim 3 of ‘242 recites the aqueous composition according to claim 2, wherein the rilpivirine is in the form of microparticles or nanoparticles suspended in the aqueous composition.
The co-pending claims of ‘242 lack the following: a method for the treatment or prevention of a disease or a disorder in a subject in need thereof, the method comprising administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount of a drug in the treatment or prevention of the disease or disorder by intramuscular injection or subcutaneous injection, wherein the drug and the hyaluronidase are administered intermittently at a time interval of three months to two years, and wherein a prolonged, extended, sustained release of the drug into the blood plasma is maintained (relevant to instant claim 37); the hyaluronidase comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1 (relevant to instant claim 38); wherein the drug and the hyaluronidase are administered simultaneously or sequentially (relevant to instant claim 39); wherein the drug and the hyaluronidase are administered as a combined pharmaceutical composition (relevant to instant claim 40); wherein the drug and the hyaluronidase are administered in separate pharmaceutical compositions (relevant to instant claim 41); and wherein the drug is for the treatment of chronic and long-term diseases and disorders for example HIV or rheumatoid arthritis (relevant to instant claim 42).
However, Soundararajan teaches developing F3- HYD containing HYD-MET-CUDC-101 nanoparticles. See p. 2601, left column, first full paragraph. Soundararajan teaches subcutaneously administering F3-HYD to animals. See p. 2602, right column, para. 2. Soundararajan teaches assessing the plasma levels of the drug CUDC-101 over 24 h after subcutaneous injection of F3-HYD in rats. See p. 2605, right column, para. 2. Soundararajan discloses that the plasma AUC0-24h (ng h mL-1) for the F3-HYD formulation is 1259 ± 287. See table 6. Frost teaches a dosage regimen frequency that includes once every three months or once every two years. See claim 14 of Frost (relevant to instant claim 37). Frost teaches a soluble hyaluronidase that comprises rHuPH20. See claim 22 of Frost. The soluble hyaluronidase is selected from among polypeptides containing a sequence of amino acids set forth in any of SEQ ID NOS:4-9 and 48, and allelic variants, species variants and other variants thereof that retain hyaluronidase activity. See claim 19 of Frost. Instant SEQ ID NO: 1 is identical to SEQ ID NO: 8 of Frost (relevant to instant claim 38). Frost teaches a method in which the soluble hyaluronidase and a bisphosphonate are administered, sequentially, simultaneously in the same composition or in separate compositions, or intermittently. See claim 6 of Frost. Frost teaches that the bisphosphonate and hyaluronidase are administered separately. See claim 30 of Frost (relevant to instant claims 39-41). Frost teaches a bisphosphonate an amount sufficient for treating the disease or condition; a bisphosphonate-treatable or preventable disease or condition that is selected from a group that includes rheumatoid arthritis. See claims 1 and 53 of Frost (relevant to instant claim 42).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to substitute the nanoparticles recited in co-pending claim 3 of ‘243 for the F3-HYD of Soundararajan, and to further optimize the timing of the administration in view of Frost to in order to treat a disease.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/2026 have been fully considered to the extent that they might apply to the new grounds of rejection set forth above, but they are unpersuasive.
Double Patenting
Applicant requests that the double patenting rejection over co-pending applications 18/037,204, 18/858,037 and 18/858,242 be held in abeyance. See the remarks p.11, para. 1.
A request to hold a rejection in abeyance is not a proper response to a rejection. Rather, a request to hold a matter in abeyance may only be made in response to an OBJECTION or REQUIREMENTS AS TO FORM (see 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP §714.02). Thus, the double patenting rejections of record have been maintained as no response to these rejections has been filed by Applicant at this time.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY C BREEN whose telephone number is (571)272-0980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-4:30, F 8:30-1:30 (EDT/EST).
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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, LOUISE HUMPHREY can be reached at (571)272-5543. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LOUISE W HUMPHREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1657
/K.C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1657
Prosecution Insights