DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment and Arguments
2. Claims 1-7 are pending.
Claims 1, 5 and 6 have been amended.
Claim 7 has been added.
Claims 1-7 are examined on the merits.
3. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Withdrawn Grounds of Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The former rejection of claim 5 cited as b. 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn as the preamble is congruent with the method steps, see Amendments to the Claims submitted December 19, 2025, spanning pages 3 and 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. The rejection of claim(s) 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al., WO 2019/200223 A1 (published 17 October 2019) is withdrawn in light of the amendment to claim 5 including the lymphatic drain fluid is proximal to a tumor and not remote as cited in Wang.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. The rejection of claim(s) 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al., WO 2019/200223 A1 (published 17 October 2019), and further in view of Teng et al. (Journal of Proteome Research 9: 6091-6100, 2010) is withdrawn in light of the amendment to claim 1, see Amendments to the Claims submitted December 19, 2025.
Double Patenting
7. The provisional rejection of claims 1, 5 and 6 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6-9, 11 and 12 of copending Application No. 17/491,237 (filed September 30, 2021) is withdrawn in light of the cancellation of the copending claims.
Maintained Grounds of Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. 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.
9. The rejection of claims 1-6 and new claim 7 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 is maintained and made.
a. Claims 1-7 read on a method of screening patients for treatment with an immunotherapeutic treatment and a method of evaluating the efficacy of an immunotherapy comprising assessing a cancer/tumor biomarker within a patient’s drain fluid through a surgical drain or lymphatic drain fluid sample at different time points.
Applicant argues “…claim 1 does not determine the value of an administered treatment but rather determines the value of a future treatment.”, see Remarks submitted December 19, 2025.
Applicant’s argument has been carefully considered, but fails to persuade.
Foremost, the instant rejection was not solely directed to independent claim 1, but also to independent claim 5.
Furthermore, whether instant or future, one of ordinary skill in the art requires knowledge of baseline value of the biomarker they seek to evaluate to make clinical decisions regarding whether or not immunotherapy treatment should begin, proceed or halt. The claims continue to not set forth values or state differences in values, one of ordinary skill in the art should observe and/or know in order to categorize a patient as a candidate for immunotherapy or determine the effect of the immunotherapy. Hence, the rejection is maintained and made for the reasons cited herein and of record.
It remains unclear how to determine difference within the samples for the biomarker, when there is no baseline measure of the biomarker and if the claims do not cite what difference should be detected indicative of whether treatment was a success or not. Hence, it is not clear how to evaluate differences in the biomarker, pre-treatment, nor post-treatment. Accordingly, the metes and bounds cannot be determined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
10. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
11. The claimed invention (claims 1-6 and new claim 7) continues to be directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Applicant asserts as amended “[t]he present claims are clearly not "directed to" a natural phenomenon. Neither screening patients for an immunotherapy treatment nor evaluating the efficacy of an immunotherapy treatment is a process performed in nature”, nor is “…obtaining a drain fluid sample and performing an assay to evaluate a biomarker in drain fluid.”, see Remarks submitted December 19, 2025, last paragraph (para.) on page 6; and 1st para. on page 7.
Applicant further asserts the claims are not directed to a natural phenomenon, nor a judicial exception, hence the claims are patent eligible, see page 7 of the Remarks, 2nd para. Applicant notes even if the instant claims did recite a judicial exception, they “…clearly integrate the alleged judicial exceptions into a practical application” and “…recite additional elements that are significantly different from the alleged judicial exception, such that they provide an inventive concept”, see page 7, paragraphs (paras.) 3-6.
Applicant’s arguments and points of view have been carefully considered, but fail to persuade.
The claim(s) continue to not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because based upon an analysis with respect to the claim as a whole, claims 1-7 are determined to be directed to a law of nature/natural principle.
Methods of detecting and determining the presence of a candidate cancer biomarker are well known in the art as established by the prior art rejections herein. The claims continue to rely on the natural correlation, the presence of a biomarker is indicative of the patient is in need of treatment and/or difference of biomarker between samples at different time points is indicative of effectiveness of the treatment.
The claim(s) recite(s) a method of screening patients for treatment with an immunotherapeutic treatment and a method of evaluating the efficacy of an immunotherapy comprising assessing a cancer/tumor biomarker within a patient’s drain fluid through a surgical drain or lymphatic drain fluid sample at different time points.
The claims have not changed that much to obviate the instant rejection. The claims continue to fail to recite clear and decisive steps that would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to make any judgements regarding the biomarker in the absence of defining information, for instance the presence of the marker equates to a particular decision, the level of the marker before, after, above, higher, lower treatment reveals a particular decision or determination. The claims are devoid of steps that cite differences between the biomarker at certain time points and proceeding, after, preceding and/or during treatment arriving at a particular decision with additional elements or combination of additional elements. Hence, the rejection is maintained and made for the reasons of record and herein.
The judicial exception or natural principle governing the relationship cited within the claimed inventions is the natural correlation between the presence of the biomarker in the patient’s drain fluid before and/or after immunotherapy is indicative of the whether or not the patient is a candidate for immunotherapy or the effectiveness of the immunotherapy.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because gathering information, detecting a biomarker or observing differences between cancer biomarker(s) levels in a biological sample from a subject and observing the differences of the biomarker(s) at different time points are routine in the art. These requirements do not add meaningful limitations to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it does not recite something significantly different than a judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
The analysis as set forth in the 2019 Guidance is as follows:
Step 1: Yes, claims are drawn to a method which is one of the four statutory categories, a process.
Step 2A, prong 1: Yes, the claims recite/describe/set forth a judicial exception. Claims 1-7 describe the relationship between the analysis of a biomarker within a patient’s drain fluid at different time points governed by when immunotherapy is administered to the patient and differences in the biomarker before or after immunotherapy.
Step 2A, prong 2: No, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not rely on or use the exception here. Once the biomarker is identified and/or assessed, a mental process follows, deciding upon whether or not the patient from which the fluid was obtained is a candidate for immunotherapy or the immunotherapy was effective. There are no additional elements or combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Step 2B: There is no inventive concept present in the clams. The steps of analyzing the level, presence or amount of a cancer biomarker in a biological sample at before, during and after clinical intervention is established by well understood, routine conventional methods, as well as prescribing clinical treatment. These steps are pre-solution activity, i.e. data gathering necessary to perform the correlation. The following claims and steps inform one of ordinary skill in the art the identity/presence/amount of a biomarker, which characterizes a patient as a candidate for immunotherapy or the outcome of the immunotherapy. The claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, these claims are not be eligible under step 2A or step 2B.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because assaying and/or identifying biomarkers does not add significantly more and is not an inventive concept. Because methods for making such determinations were well known in the art, these steps simply tell researchers to engage in well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously engaged in by scientists in the field. Such activities are normally not sufficient to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application of such law. Detection of candidate cancer biomarkers has been observed by applicant but not engineered by applicant. The claims do not add significantly more to the natural phenomenon because the claims do not require for example, a novel reagent, novel apparatus, or incorporate a novel treatment based on the correlation. Additional limitations such as calculations are insufficient to transform the identified natural law into a patentable process.
A claim that focuses on use of a natural principle must also include additional elements or steps to show that the inventor has practically applied, and added something significant to, the natural principle itself. See Mayo, 101 USPQ2d at 1966. Recited elements such as “evaluating”, “categorizing ", “performing” and “obtaining”, based on the natural principle impose no meaningful limit on the performance of the claimed invention. As set forth the claims do not impose meaningful limits on the performance of the claimed invention.
Patents cannot be obtained on subject matter identified by the courts as being exempted from eligibility (i.e., laws of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract ideas). Further, the active method steps are conventional and routine in the art for the reasons stated above and the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited natural principle. The claims do not "practically apply" the natural principle; rather, the claims "simply inform" the natural principle to one performing routine active method steps and do not amount to significantly more than the natural principle itself. Thus, the technology used by the instant claims is well-known in the art and does not contribute significantly more to the judicial exception. Moreover, the invention has not been practically applied. See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Federal Register (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/01/07/2018-28282/2019-revised-patent-subject-matter-eligibility-guidance) and/or FDsys.gov.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
13. Claim(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al., WO 2019/200223 A1 (published 17 October 2019), and further in view of Zevallos et al., WO 2022/256542 A1 (effective filing date, 02 June 2021) and Teng et al. (Journal of Proteome Research 9: 6091-6100, 2010). Wang teaches assessing tumor derived biomarkers or serum biomarkers “…obtained [from] a bodily fluid sample obtained remote from a tumor (e.g., venous blood and lymph fluid)”, see sections 0016-0019 spanning pages 3-5. Neoadjuvant chemo- and immunotherapy including an immune checkpoint inhibitor is administered prior to obtaining a sample, as well as after administration of said therapeutic agent(s), see sections 00125-00129 spanning pages 30-32. Checkpoint inhibitors include nivolumab, pembrolizumab and others, see section 0035 spanning pages 7 and 8; sections 00106-00108 on pages 25 and 26; and pages 29-32.
Wang does not teach the claimed method, wherein the sample is drain fluid through a surgical drain proximal to the tumor.
However, Zevallos teaches surgical drain fluid from a surgical site comprises biomarkers captured from circulation in drain fluid utilizing a single surgical drain device, see abstract; sections 0013 and 0014 spanning pages 5 and 6; page 7, section 0018; and page 12, section 0033.
A single drain sample can be utilized to measure a host of parameters related to wound healing, cancer residuals, as well as immunotherapy efficacy, see section 0014 spanning pages 5 and 6.
Zevallos also teaches a surgical margin assay module, wherein there is “…a proximal measure of tumor cells remaining in the surgical region”, see page 7, section 0021; and page 10, section 0025.
Moreover, Teng teaches the advances, advantages and ability to harvest “…proximal fluids as a primary sample source for protein biomarker discovery”, see abstract on page 6091; and entire document.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the prior art references to assay a drain fluid trough a surgical drain proximal to a tumor in a targeted manner.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success by teachings in the references, particularly Zevallos, wherein it is taught “[s]urgical drain fluid represents a potentially rich source of biomarkers indicative of a post-surgical patient’s condition and prognosis. Surgical drain fluid originates at the surgery site and is drained from the patient without further dilution. Surgical drain fluid biomarkers are typically present at higher concentrations than corresponding blood concentrations. Further, biomarkers in the surgical drain fluid may have a higher range of concentrations and therefore may be detectable using assays with higher minimum detection limits.”, see page 2, section 0005. Moreover, Teng teaches sampling fluids located in proximity to the tissue of interest, including a tumor or cancer may provide a rich source for biomarker discovery and most “…are clinically viable for collection and therefore could be a convenient source for routine screening.”, see page 6091, Introduction; and the entire document.
14. Claim(s) 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al., WO 2019/200223 A1 (published 17 October 2019), and further in view of Zevallos et al., WO 2022/256542 A1 (effective filing date, 02 June 2021) and Teng et al. (Journal of Proteome Research 9: 6091-6100, 2010). Wang teaches assessing tumor derived biomarkers or serum biomarkers “…obtained [from] a bodily fluid sample obtained remote from a tumor (e.g., venous blood and lymph fluid)”, see sections 0016-0019 spanning pages 3-5. Neoadjuvant chemo- and immunotherapy including an immune checkpoint inhibitor is administered prior to obtaining a sample, as well as after administration of said therapeutic agent(s), hence obtaining a first sample and a second sample, see sections 00125-00129 spanning pages 30-32.
Wang does not teach the claimed method, wherein the samples are from lymphatic drain fluid proximal to a tumor and during surgical resection of the tumor.
However, Zevallos teaches surgical drain fluid from a surgical site comprises biomarkers captured from circulation in drain fluid, see abstract; section 0014 spanning pages 5 and 6; and page 7, section 0018. The surgical drainage sample may be taken from the surgical site during resectioning surgery, see page 1, section 0004; page 2, section 0006; and sentence spanning pages 6 and 7.
Zevallos teaches a surgical margin assay module, wherein there is a proximal measure of tumor cells remaining the surgical region, see page 7, section 0021; and page 10, section 0025.
Moreover, Teng teaches the advances, advantages and ability to harvest “…proximal fluids as a primary sample source for protein biomarker discovery”, see abstract on page 6091; and entire document.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the prior art references to assay lymphatic drain fluid during a surgical resection of the tumor and proximal to said tumor in a targeted manner at different time points based on the time frame of administering treatment and not.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success by teachings in the references, particularly Zevallos, wherein it is taught a single drain sample can be utilized to measure a host of parameters related to … cancer residuals, as well as immunotherapy efficacy, see section 0014 spanning pages 5 and 6. Measuring at different time points allows one of ordinary skill in the art to discern whether or not treatment impacted the cancer and more specifically the cancer/tumor biomarkers.
Zevallos also teaches “[s]urgical drain fluid represents a potentially rich source of biomarkers indicative of a post-surgical patient’s condition and prognosis… Surgical drain fluid biomarkers are typically present at higher concentrations than corresponding blood concentrations. Further, biomarkers in the surgical drain fluid may have a higher range of concentrations and therefore may be detectable using assays with higher minimum detection limits.”, see page 2, section 0005.
As well as in Teng, sampling fluids located in proximity to the tissue of interest, including a tumor or cancer may provide a rich source for biomarker discovery and most “…are clinically viable for collection and therefore could be a convenient source for routine screening.”, see page 6091, Introduction; and the entire document.
Double Patenting
15. 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.
16. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection over claims 1-6 and new claim 7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 8 and 9 of copending Application No. 17/834,663 (filed June 7, 2022) is maintained and made.
“Applicant submits that the amended claims presented here are not obvious over the pending claims of the reference applications. The reference claims do not teach or relate to the use of drain fluid obtained through a surgical drain for the screening or efficacy evaluation of an immunotherapy… Applicant respectfully requests that the double patenting rejection be reconsidered and withdrawn.”, see Remarks submitted December 19, 2025, page 10, Double…segment.
Applicant’s argument and corresponding amendments to Applicant’s claims have been carefully considered, but fail to persuade.
The subject matter of both sets of claims continue to overlap, wherein biomarkers or analytes from a surgical drainage fluid sample are detected and assayed. Hence, the rejection is maintained and made.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims read on obtaining a drainage fluid sample including from a surgical site to identify and/or detect a biomarker or an analyte contained within the said fluid. The drainage fluid can be obtained before, during and/or after administration of a therapeutic regimen.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
17. The provisional rejection over claims 1-6 and new claim 7 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15-32 of copending Application No. 18/958,592 (filed November 25, 2024) in view of Ray et al. (Anesthesiology 112(4): 1023-1040, April 2010) is maintained and made.
“Applicant submits that the amended claims presented here are not obvious over the pending claims of the reference applications. The reference claims do not teach or relate to the use of drain fluid obtained through a surgical drain for the screening or efficacy evaluation of an immunotherapy… Applicant respectfully requests that the double patenting rejection be reconsidered and withdrawn.”, see Remarks submitted December 19, 2025, page 10, Double…segment.
Applicant’s argument and corresponding amendments to Applicant’s claims have been carefully considered, but fail to persuade.
The subject matter of both sets of claims continue to overlap, wherein biomarkers or analytes from a surgical drainage fluid sample are detected and assayed at different time points. Hence, the rejection is maintained and made.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims read on obtaining a drainage fluid sample including from a surgical site to identify and/or detect a biomarker or analyte within said sample. The drainage fluid can be obtained before, during and/or after administration of a therapeutic regimen.
The instant application does not teach measuring a concentration of a biomarker in a portion of the drain fluid samples and calculating a rate of increase or decrease in the concentration over time.
However, Ray teaches the statistical evaluation of a biomarker with detecting concentrations over time, as well as over utilizing statistical tools including area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUCROC), see ROC Curve segment spanning pages 1028-1030; Fig. 4 on page 1030; Role…segment spanning pages 1031 and 1032; Fig. 5 on page 1032; and entire document. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the prior art references to assay a plurality of drain fluid samples for biomarker(s)as these are markers for essential to the diagnosis of disease, severity of disease, assessment of disease risk, predictive of treatment and useful for monitoring disease, see Table 1 on page 1024; and entire document.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success by teachings in the references, obtaining biological samples are routine in the art and the assessment of the biomarkers therein are valuable in characterizing disease, aiding in making clinical decisions and evolving therapeutic options.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
18. 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.
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to ALANA HARRIS DENT whose telephone number is (571)272-0831. The Examiner works a flexible schedule, however she can generally be reached between the hours, 8AM-8PM, Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Julie Wu can be reached on 571-272-5205. 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://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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
ALANA HARRIS DENT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1643
Alana Harris Dent
April 8, 2026
/Alana Harris Dent/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1643
Prosecution Insights