Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election with traverse of Group 2, claims 5-7 and 24, in the reply filed on 29 May 2026 is acknowledged. Applicant’s election of antibodies as the species of METRNL inhibitor, and melanoma as the species of cancer is also acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Examiner has not established that a serious burden would result if all the claims are examined together. This is not found persuasive because this application is a national stage application and therefore U.S. restriction practice (i.e., undue search burden) does not apply.
3. Claims 1-4, 7 and 25-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 29 May 2026.
4. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Status of Application, Amendments, and/or Claims
5. The Response filed on 29 May 2026 has been entered in full. Claims 1-4, 7 and 25-26 are withdrawn from further consideration as discussed above. Therefore, claims 1-8 and 24-26 are pending, and claims 5-6 and 24 are the subject of this Office Action. The claims also read on the elected species of antibodies and have been searched to the extent they read on such.
Information Disclosure Statement
6. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06 May 2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Disclosures
7. 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’s electronic filing system (see Section I.1 of the Legal Framework for EFS-Web or Patent Center (https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application- process/filing-online/legal-framework-efs-web), 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 EFS-Web or Patent Center 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 EFS-Web or Patent Center 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:
The file size is incorrect (See image below for correct file name and size).
PNG
media_image1.png
104
1007
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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), with the file size in bytes;
A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and
A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter.
Improper Markush
8. Claim 6 is rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117.
9. In the instant case, the Markush grouping of METRNL inhibitors recited in claim 6 is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons: the small molecules, antibodies, and inhibitory nucleic acids have different chemical structures, and thus share no structural similarity. Therefore, there is no substantial common structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature.
10. To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, 1st Paragraph (Written Description)
11. The following is a quotation 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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.
12. Claims 5-6 and 24 are 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
13. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently reaffirmed, in an en banc decision, that the written description requirement for a genus may be satisfied either by (i) the disclosure of a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or (ii) structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can "visualize or recognize" the members of the genus. Ariad Pharmaceuticals', Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1350, 94 U.S.P.Q.2d 1161, 1171 (en banc) (Fed. Cir. 2010), citing Regents" of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1568-69, 43 U.S.P.Q.2d 1398, 1406 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
14. The representative ways of satisfying the written description requirement as set out by the Federal Circuit in Ariad Pharmaceuticals comport with statements set out in the USPTO's Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (M.P.E.P.). In particular, the M.P.E.P. provides that the written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species of relevant identifying characteristics. M.P.E.P. § 2163, II, A, 3, (a), (ii).
15. The MPEP lists factors that can be used to determine if sufficient evidence of possession has been furnished in the disclosure of the Application. These include: (1) Actual reduction to practice, (2) Disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas, (3) Sufficient relevant identifying characteristics (such as: i. Complete structure, ii. Partial structure, iii. Physical and/or chemical properties, iv. Functional characteristics when coupled with a known or disclosed, and correlation between function and structure), (4) Method of making the claimed invention, (5) Level of skill and knowledge in the art, and (6) Predictability in the art. “Disclosure of any combination of such identifying characteristics that distinguish the claimed invention from other materials and would lead one of skill in the art to the conclusion that the applicant was in possession of the claimed species is sufficient.” MPEP § 2163.
16. The claims are drawn very broadly to a method for treating cancer in a patient comprising the step of administering to the patient an effective amount of a METRNL inhibitor. The claims also recite wherein the METRNL inhibitor is a small molecule, antibody or an inhibitory nucleic acid molecule. Thus, the claims have been broadly interpreted by the Examiner as reading upon method of treatment utilizing an extremely large genus of “METRNL inhibitors” that are only defined by a desired function/activity in that they are useful for treating cancer.
17. In this case, the only factor present in the claims is a desired functional property in the form of the recitation of being a METRNL inhibitor. However, there does not appear to be an adequate written description in the specification as filed of the inhibitors and antibodies encompassed by the claims, which fail to recite any physical or structural properties. The specification fails to provide any critical structural feature to adequately describe the genus of inhibitors or antibodies that inhibit METRNL activity that may be administered in the claimed methods. There is no defined relationship between the desired function of the antibodies and any particular structure of the antibodies in the specification. Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient recitation of distinguishing identifying characteristics, the specification does not provide adequate written description of the genus of antagonist or antibodies. The distinguishing characteristics of the claimed genus are not described. Accordingly, the specification does not provide adequate written description of the claimed genus.
18. For genus claims, an adequate written description of a claimed genus requires more than a generic statement of an invention's boundaries. A patent must set forth either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus. Kubin, Exparte, 83 USPQ2d 1410 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007); Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly& Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
A “patentee of a biotechnological invention cannot necessarily claim a genus after only describing a limited number of species because there may be unpredictability in the results obtained from species other than those specifically enumerated.”), see MPEP 2163.IIAii.
19. The Federal Circuit has clarified Written Description as it applies to antibodies in the recent decision Amgen v. Sanofi, 872 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The Federal Circuit explained in Amgen that when an antibody is claimed, 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (or pre-AlA first paragraph) requires adequate written description of the antibody itself. Amgen, 872 F.3d at 1378-79. The Amgen court expressly stated that the so-called “newly characterized antigen” test, which had been based on an example in USPTO-issued training materials and was noted in dicta in several earlier Federal Circuit decisions, should not be used in determining whether there is adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for a claim drawn to an antibody. Citing its decision in Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., the court also stressed that the “newly characterized antigen” test could not stand because it contradicted the quid pro quo of the patent system whereby one must describe an invention in order to obtain a patent. Amgen, 872 F.3d at 1378-79, quoting Ariad, 598 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2010). In view of the Amgen decision, adequate written description of an antigen alone is not considered adequate written description of a claimed antibody to that antigen, even when preparation of such an antibody is routine and conventional. Id.
20. While generically the structure of antibodies is known, the structure of the presently recited antibodies to be produced and screened in the instant method can vary substantially within the above given claimed recitations. As noted in Amgen, knowledge that an antibody binds to a particular epitope on an antigen tells one nothing at all about the structure of the antibody, wherein “instead of analogizing the antibody-antigen relationship to a ‘key in a lock,’ it [is] more apt to analogize it to a lock and ‘a ring with a million keys on it.” (Internal citations omitted). Therefore, those of skill in the art would not accept that the inventor had been in possession of the full genus of inhibitors of METRNL.
21. Functionally defined genus claims can be inherently vulnerable to invalidity challenge for lack of written description support, especially in technology fields that are highly unpredictable, where it is difficult to establish a correlation between structure and function for the whole genus or to predict what would be covered by the functionally claimed genus. Abbvie Deutschland GMBH & Co. v. Janssen Biotech, Inc. (759 F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “When a patent claims a genus using functional language to define a desired result, the specification must demonstrate that the applicant has made a generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus." Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
22. An adequate written description of a chemical invention requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties, and not merely a wish or plan for obtaining the chemical invention claimed. See, e.g., Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 927, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1894-95 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The patent at issue claimed a method of selectively inhibiting PGHS-2 activity by administering a non-steroidal compound that selectively inhibits activity of the PGHS-2 gene product, however the patent did not disclose any compounds that can be used in the claimed methods. While there was a description of assays for screening compounds to identify those that inhibit the expression or activity of the PGHS-2 gene product, there was no disclosure of which peptides, polynucleotides, and small organic molecules selectively inhibit PGHS-2. The court held that “[w]ithout such disclosure, the claimed methods cannot be said to have been described.”). See MPEP 2163IIA3(a).
23. Consequently, in the absence of sufficient recitation of distinguishing identifying characteristics, the specification does not provide adequate written description of the claimed genus of METRNL inhibitors or antibodies, nor guidance as to which of the myriad of structurally undefined molecules encompassed by the claims would meet the limitations of the claims, particularly in view of the evidence cited supra.
24. It is noted that while the claims here are directed to methods of using inhibitors METRNL, rather than the inhibitors themselves, the same standard applies with regard to the written description requirement. See University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916,926 (Fed. Cir. 2004):
Regardless whether a compound is claimed per se or a method is claimed that entails the use of the compound, the inventor cannot lay claim to that subject matter unless he can provide a description of the compound sufficient to distinguish infringing compounds from non-infringing compounds, or infringing methods from non-infringing methods.
In University of Rochester, the "claimed method depend[ed] upon finding a compound that selectively inhibits PGHS-2 activity. Without such a compound, it is impossible to practice the claimed method of treatment." Id. ( citation omitted). Similarly here, the claimed methods cannot be practiced without the recited activity.
25. For inventions in an unpredictable art, adequate written description of a genus, which embraces widely variant species, cannot be achieved by disclosing only one or two species within the genus. See, e.g., Eli Lilly. Description of a representative number of species does not require the description to be of such specificity that it would provide individual support for each species that the genus embraces. If a representative number of adequately described species are not disclosed for a genus, the claim to that genus must be rejected as lacking adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
26. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 19USPQ2d 1111, clearly states “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). As discussed above, the skilled artisan cannot envision the detailed structure of the encompassed genus of 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. The compound itself is required. See Fiers v. Revel, 25 USPQ2d 1601 at 1606 (CAFC 1993) and Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., 18 USPQ2d 1016.
27. One cannot describe what one has not conceived. See Fiddles v. Baird, 30 USPQ2d 1481, 1483. In Fiddles v. Baird, claims directed to mammalian FGF’s were found unpatentable due to lack of written description for the broad class. The specification provided only the bovine sequence.
28. Therefore, the claims fail to meet the written description provision of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (Enablement)
29. The following is a quotation 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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.
30. Claims 5-6 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
31. The factors considered when determining if the disclosure satisfies the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is “undue” include, but are not limited to: 1) nature of the invention, 2) state of the prior art, 3) relative skill of those in the art, 4) level of predictability in the art, 5) existence of working examples, 6) breadth of claims, 7) amount of direction or guidance by the inventor, and 8) quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
32. The claims are directed to a method for treating cancer in a patient comprising the step of administering to the patient an effective amount of a METRNL inhibitor. The claims also recite wherein the METRNL inhibitor is a small molecule, antibody or an inhibitory nucleic acid molecule. However, the instant specification fails to teach how to achieve the proposed treatment, thus requiring undue experimentation of one skilled in the art to use the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success.
33. Thus the claims encompass complex and unpredictable subject matter, involving the effects of complex biological molecules on diseased physiological states. As was found in Ex parte Hitzeman, 9 USPQ2d 1821 (BPAI 1987), a single embodiment may provide broad enablement in cases involving predictable factors such as mechanical or electrical elements, but more will be required in cases that involve unpredictable factors such as most chemical reactions and physiological activity. This invention is in a class of invention which the CAFC has characterized as “the unpredictable arts such as chemistry and biology”, Mycogen Plant Sci., Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 243 F.3d 1316, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2001). See also In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970); Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., 927 F.2d 1200, 1212, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1026 (Fed. Cir.), cert, denied, 502 U.S. 856 (1991).
34. The Specification Metrnl KO mice had delayed tumor growth and improved survival compared with WT animals, and locally administered Metml accelerated tumor growth in a murine glioma model (See pg. 75). Accordingly, the Specification asserts the possibility that therapeutics targeting METRNL could have activity in checkpoint inhibitors (CI)-insensitive cancers (See pg. 75). However, the Specification does not teach how to extrapolate the data obtained from the in vitro and in vivo observations in a KO mouse to the development of effective methods of treating a plethora of cancers encompassed by the claims or specifically recited therein.
35. Furthermore, the specification fails to provide any critical structural feature of the genus of inhibitors or antibodies that inhibit METRNL activity that may be administered in the claimed methods. Although the Specification provides assays for assessing these activities, this is not adequate guidance as to the nature of the inhibitors or antibodies that may be identified, but is merely an invitation to the artisan to use the current invention as a starting point for further experimentation. Therefore, in view of the lack of guidance and the complete lack of working examples, it is unpredictable, without a definitive structure, whether a METRNL inhibitor or antibody is effective at treating cancer. Therefore, it would require undue experimentation for one skilled in the art to make the genus of inhibitors, screen for activity, and then use the inhibitors in the claimed methods.
36. The instant specification does not teach how to treat any cancer by administering a METRNL inhibitor or antibody. The specification fails to disclose how to assess in vivo a pharmaceutically effective amount of a METRNL inhibitor or antibody, nor has it established that said inhibitor would have any therapeutic benefit to the subject. In the absence of this guidance, a practitioner would have to resort to a substantial amount of undue experimentation involving (1) the identification of a METRNL inhibitor, and (2) the variation in the amount and duration of administration of said inhibitor. and making a determination of whether a successful result was achieved. The instant situation is analogous to that which was addressed in In re Colianni, 195 USPQ 150, (CCPA 1977), which held that:
“a “[d]isclosure that calls for application of “sufficient” ultrasonic energy to practice claimed method of fusing bones but does not disclose what “sufficient” dosage of ultrasonic energy might be or how those skilled in the art might select appropriate intensity, frequency, and duration, and contains no specific examples or embodiment by way of illustration of how claimed method is to be practiced does not meet requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 first paragraph”.
37. In the instant case, there are no working examples presented in the instant specification that describe (1) an inhibitor of METRNL, including a METRNL antibody, or (2) the successful treatment of cancer comprising administering a METRNL antibody or inhibitor. Therefore, without this guidance, one skilled in the art would not know, with any level of predictability, that the administration of an undetermined amount of a METRNL antibody or inhibitor would lead to the treatment of cancer.
38. A patent is granted for a completed invention, not the general suggestion of an idea and how that idea might be developed into the claimed invention. In the decision of Genentech, Inc, v. Novo Nordisk, 42 USPQ 2d 100, (CAFC 1997), the court held that:
“[p]atent protection is granted in return for an enabling disclosure of an invention, not for vague intimations of general ideas that may or may not be workable”, and that “[t]ossing out the mere germ of an idea does not constitute enabling disclosure”. The court further stated that “when there is no disclosure of any specific starting material or of any of the conditions under which a process is to be carried out, undue experimentation is required; there is a failure to meet the enablement requirements that cannot be rectified by asserting that all the disclosure related to the process is within the skill of the art”, “[I]t is the specification, not the knowledge of one skilled in the art, that must supply the novel aspects of an invention in order to constitute adequate enablement”.
39. In the instant case, the Specification specifically states “Future experiments will determine if pharmacologic inhibition of METRNL or its binding partners can reverse CD8 TIL exhaustion and mediate clinical tumor regression” (See pg. 76).
40. Due to the large quantity of experimentation necessary to generate a METRNL inhibitor or METRNL antibody which inhibits the activity of METRNL; the lack of direction/guidance presented in the specification regarding which structural features are required in order to provide activity of the inhibitor; the breadth of the claims which fail to recite any structural limitations of inhibitors utilized in the claimed methods; and the complete absence of working examples that demonstrate (1) a METRNL inhibitor or METRNL antagonist antibody, or (2) the successful treatment of cancer by administering a METRNL inhibitor or METRNL antagonist antibody; it would require undue experimentation and making a substantial inventive contribution for the skilled artisan to discover how to make and/or use the Applicants' invention as currently claimed.
Summary
41. No claim is allowed.
Advisory Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JON M LOCKARD whose telephone number is (571) 272-2717. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 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, Joanne Hama can be reached on (571) 272-2911. 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.
/JON M LOCKARD/Examiner, Art Unit 1647 June 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights