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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I; i.e., claims 1, 15, 19, 21, 33, 43, 53, 57, 60, and 70 and 74-75 drawn to a dsRNA inhibiting expression of GPR75, in the reply filed on Feb 26, 2026, is acknowledged. Additionally, Applicant’s election with traverse of the following Species: pair: SEQ ID NO: 819 and 279, and 2’-O-methyl nucleotide modification, in the same reply is acknowledged.
Applicants have further cancelled recitations of any other species of SEQ ID Nos., making the selection of a species pair of SEQ ID NOs moot.
Claims withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on Feb 26, 2026.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s CON of PCT Application
PCT/US2021/53332 filed on 10/04/2021, and Applicant’s claim to Domestic Benefit of earliest provisional application 63/087342 filed on 10/05/2020.
The priority date of instant is therefore, 10/05/2020.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 15, 19, 21, 33, 43, 53, 57, 60, and 70 and 74-75 are under consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(2)
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
It is noted that the invention and applied art have one common Applicant but no common inventors.
Claims 1, 15, 19, 21, and 74-75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lotta (Lotta et al., US 2022/0042101 A1 with an effectively filed date of Provisional application No. 63/042,327, filed on Jun 22, 2020).
Regarding claim 1, Lotta teaches a inhibitory nucleic acid molecules for inhibiting expression of GPR75 in a cell, wherein the inhibitory nucleic acid molecules comprise a sense and an antisense strand (claims 20-22; [0840]; “the siRNA molecules comprise or consist of the nucleotide sequences (sense and antisense strand pairs) set forth in SEQ ID NOs:530-1457” pg. 12, left col., [0081]). A pair of modified sense and antisense sequences identical to instant pair are provided (exemplary modified pair of sequences, [0092]). The antisense strand is complementary to an mRNA encoding GPR75 (GPR75 inhibitor according to embodiment 258, which is an antisense nucleic acid molecule, a small interfering RNA (siRNA), or a short hairpin RNA (shRNA) that hybridizes to a GPR75 mRNA, [0840]).. In some embodiments, the siRNA molecules are conjugated to lipids [0091]. Lotta teaches an exemplary sequence of the sense and antisense strand which is fully modified:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown in Fig. A below, one pair and the alignments of record comprises at least 15 contiguous nucleotides 100% identical to the antisense nucleotide sequence disclosed as SEQ ID NO: 279 (underlined). Lotta teaches the sequence of the sense strand (“5’-rArGrCrUrArUrUrCrArArUrArGrCrArGrUrGrArCrGrCrGCT-3’,” Supplementary Table 1). As shown in Fig. A below, Lotta’s sense and an antisense strand, SEQ ID NO 1450 and SEQ ID NO 1451, are identical to instant recited sequences. The sense strand comprises at least 15 contiguous nucleotides 100% identical to the sense nucleotide sequence disclosed as SEQ ID NO: 279, which corresponds to the aforementioned sense nucleotide sequence (underlined) and the antisense strand comprises at least 17 contiguous nucleotides 100% identical to the sense nucleotide sequence disclosed as SEQ ID NO: 819, which corresponds to the aforementioned antisense nucleotide sequence (underlined).
FIGURE A
Query: US-18-129-923-819, Database: Issued_Patents_NA
FILE REFERENCE: 189238.04801 (3337) (10803US01)
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/17/353,313A
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2021-06-21
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 1461
SEQ ID NO 1451
LENGTH: 19
TYPE: DNA
ORGANISM: artificial sequence
FEATURE:
OTHER INFORMATION: Synthetic sequence; antisense nucleic acid molecule
Query Match 82.6%; Score 19; Length 19;
Best Local Similarity 84.2%;
Matches 16; Conservative 3; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 2 ATGTCAACAAACTACAAAG 20
|:|:||||||||:||||||
Db 1 AUGUCAACAAACUACAAAG 19
US-18-129-923-279, Database: Issued_Patents_NA
Sequence 1450, US/17353313A
Patent No. 11359246
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
APPLICANT: LOTTA, Luca Andrea
APPLICANT: FERREIRA, Manuel Allen Revez
APPLICANT: BARAS, Aris
TITLE OF INVENTION: Treatment Of Obesity With G-Protein Coupled Receptor 75 (GPR75)
TITLE OF INVENTION: Inhibitors
FILE REFERENCE: 189238.04801 (3337) (10803US01)
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/17/353,313A
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2021-06-21
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 1461
SEQ ID NO 1450
LENGTH: 19
TYPE: DNA
ORGANISM: artificial sequence
FEATURE:
OTHER INFORMATION: Synthetic sequence; sense nucleic acid molecule
Query Match 90.5%; Score 19; Length 19;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 19; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 2 CTTTGTAGTTTGTTGACAT 20
|||||||||||||||||||
Db 19 CTTTGTAGTTTGTTGACAT 1
When the disclosed strands are aligned, perfect complementarity is seen, thus making the disclosed pair a dsRNA.
Query Match 100.0%; Score 19; DB 1; Length 19;
Best Local Similarity 84.2%;
Matches 16; Conservative 3; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 AUGUCAACAAACUACAAAG 19
|:|:||||||||:||||||
Db 19 ATGTCAACAAACTACAAAG 1
Regarding claim 15, Lotta teaches the inhibitory dsRNA molecule can comprise, for example, nucleotides or non-natural or modified nucleotides, such as nucleotide analogs or nucleotide substitutes, some examples: Sugar modifications include, but are not limited to, the following modifications at the 2' position: OH; F; O-, S-, or N-alkyl; O-, S-, or N-alkenyl; O-, S- or N-alkynyl…, [0083]-[0087].
Regarding claim 19, Lotta teaches modified phosphate moieties include, but are not limited to, those that can be modified so that the linkage between two nucleotides contains a phosphorothioate [0086].
Regarding claim 21, as seen in the alignment data above, Lotta teaches each strand is 19 ntds; i.e., within the recited 17-25 ntds.
Regarding claim 74, Lotta teaches the GPR75 inhibitor comprises an antisense RNA that hybridizes to a GPR75 genomic nucleic acid molecule or mRNA molecule and decreases expression of the GPR75 polypeptide in a cell in the subject (claims 20-22, [0081]).
Regarding claim 75, Lotta teaches the GPR75 inhibitor in a pharmaceutical composition [0095].
Thus, Lotta anticipates instant claims 1, 15, 19, 21, and 74-75.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 15, 19, 21, and 74-75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lotta (Lotta et al., US 2022/0042101 A1 with an effectively filed date of Provisional application No. 63/042,327, filed on Jun.22, 2020) as applied to claims 1, 15, 19, 21, and 74-75 above, and further in view of Nair (WO 2019/217459 A1).
The dsRNA anticipated by Lotta is discussed above.
Lotta does not teach wherein the one or more lipophilic moieties are conjugated to one or more internal positions on at least one strand or any other specific details regarding the lipophilic moiety.
However, before the effective filing date of instant invention, Nair had taught lipophilic moieties-conjugated double- stranded iRNAs (abstract, summary). Nair’s ds - iRNA reads on instant dsRNA agent comprising sense and antisense strands.
Regarding claim 33, Nair had taught lipophilic moieties-conjugated double- stranded iRNAs at one or more internal positions on at least one strand optionally via a linker or carrier (abstract, summary).
Regarding claim 43, Nair had taught the particular internal positions as recited ([0030]: In one embodiment, one or more lipophilic moieties are conjugated to one or more of the following internal positions: positions 4-8 and 13-18 on the sense strand, and positions 6-10 and 15-18 on the antisense strand, counting from the 5' end of each strand.).
Regarding claim 53, Nair had taught the lipophilic moiety may contain a C4-C30 hydrocarbon chain [0104].
Regarding claim 57, Nair had taught the carrier replaces one or more nucleotide(s) in the internal position(s) of the double-stranded iRNA agent [0018].
Regarding claim 60, Nair had taught lipophilic moiety may be conjugated to the iRNA agent via a direct attachment to the ribosugar of the iRNA agent [0012].
Regarding claim 70, Nair had taught the double-stranded iRNA agent further comprises a phosphate or phosphate mimic at the 5' -end of the antisense strand [0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adapted the dsRNA agent of Lotta using a design of Nair (e.g., “internally conjugated lipophilic moiety”), so that the agent comprised a specific chemical modification pattern that would be more efficacious and avoid liver toxicity. It would have amounted to adapting a known dsRNA agent effective for inhibiting GPR75 gene expression, by known means to yield predictable results. The skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in adapting Lotta’s dsRNA agent to comprise one of Nair’s chemical modification patterns, because I) Lotta teaches their dsRNA agent is effective, II) Nair’s and Lotta’s dsRNA agents are substantially identical in form and function (i.e., both teach inhibitory ds-RNAs), and III) Nair teaches that their designs “maintain efficacy across a large panel of sequences, and lower toxicity.” The skilled artisan would have recognized that Nair’s designs would be useful in enhancing GPR75 inhibition in cells as taught by Lotta, and therefore, would have been motivated to apply Nair’s designs to the effective dsRNA agent of Lotta. See MPEP 2143 I A.
Thus, Lotta in view of Nair make obvious instant claims 33, 43, 53, 57, 60, and 70.
Therefore the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains.
Claims 1, 15, 19, 21, and 74-75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McSwiggen (McSwiggen et al, WO 03074654 A2) and evidenced by Genbank (NM_006794; GPR75 Sequence Genbank revision history Oct 2019 , 4 pages. Retrieved from the United States NCBI webpage on the internet <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov> [retrieved on 25 April 2026]).
Regarding claim 1, McSwiggen teaches various exemplary dsRNA molecules “In one embodiment, the invention features a double-stranded short interfering nucleic acid (siNA) molecule that down-regulates expression of an endogenous mammalian target gene, wherein the siNA molecule comprises one or more chemical modifications and each strand of the double-stranded siNA is about 21 nucleotides long” (pg. 8, lines 15-19).
Thus, McSwiggen’s siNA molecule reads on instant dsRNA. The design of the exemplary dsRNA molecules have the following criteria further summarized from Summary of Invention, pgs. 6-22:
wherein the siNA molecule comprises an antisense region comprising a nucleotide sequence that is complementary to a nucleotide sequence of the endogenous mammalian target gene or a portion thereof, and wherein the siNA further comprises a sense region, wherein the sense region comprises a nucleotide sequence substantially similar to the nucleotide sequence of the endogenous mammalian target gene or a portion thereof.
a double-stranded short interfering nucleic acid (siNA) molecule that down-regulates expression of an endogenous mammalian target gene (e.g., a human gene), wherein the antisense region and the sense region each comprise about 19 to about 23 nucleotides, and wherein the antisense region comprises about 19 nucleotides that are complementary to nucleotides of the sense region.
Up to 100% of the nucleotide positions are modified to improve in vitro or in vivo characteristics such as stability, activity, and/or bioavailability.
wherein pyrimidine nucleotides in the sense region are 2'-O-methyl pyrimidine nucleotides, 2'-deoxy nucleotides, and/or 2'-deoxy-2'-fluoro pyrimidine nucleotides, "universal base" nucleotides, 5-C-methyl nucleotides, etc.
2 nucleotide 3' overhangs with deoxyribonucleotides
Sugar and backbone chemical modifications include without limitation phosphorothioate internucleotide linkages, 2'-O-methyl ribonucleotides, 2'-deoxy-2'-fluoro ribonucleotides, 2'-deoxy ribonucleotides, and inverted deoxyabasic residue incorporation. These chemical modifications, when used in various siNA constructs, are shown to preserve RNAi activity in cells while at the same time, dramatically increasing the serum stability of these compounds.
comprises a 5'-terminal phosphate group
conjugating with lipids imparts therapeutic activity by transferring therapeutic compounds across cellular membranes, altering the pharmacokinetics, and/or modulating the localization of nucleic acid molecules of the invention.
McSwiggen teaches that “The sequence of an RNA target of interest…can be obtained from a database, or can be determined experimentally as known in the art.” (Example 3, pg. 104). McSwiggen also teaches that “Various parameters can be used to determine which sites are the most suitable target sites within the target RNA sequence. These parameters include but are not limited to secondary or tertiary RNA structure, the nucleotide base composition of the target sequence, the degree of homology between various regions of the target sequence, or the relative position of the target sequence within the RNA transcript. Based on these determinations, any number of target sites within the RNA transcript can be chosen to screen siNA molecules for efficacy, for example by using in vitro RNA cleavage assays, cell culture, or animal models. In a non- limiting example, anywhere from 1 to 1000 target sites are chosen within the transcript based on the size of the siNA construct to be used. High throughput screening assays can be developed for screening siNA molecules using methods known in the art, such as with multi-well or multi-plate assays or combinatorial/siNA library screening assays to determine efficient reduction in target gene expression” (Example 3).
In Example 4: Selection of siNA molecule target sites in a RNA, McSwiggen teaches the steps to follow, which are:
The target sequence is parsed in silico into a list of all fragments or subsequences of a particular length, for example 23 nucleotide fragments, contained within the target sequence using software.
Ranked to identify subsequences that are unique to a target sequence
ranked siNA subsequences can be further analyzed and ranked according to GC content. A preference can be given to sites containing 30-70% GC, with a further preference to sites containing 40-60% GC.
ranked siNA subsequences can be further analyzed and ranked according to self-folding and internal hairpins. Weaker, internal folds are preferred; strong hairpin structures are to be avoided.
ranked siNA subsequences can be further analyzed and ranked according to whether they have the dinucleotide UU (uridine dinucleotide) on the 3'-end of the sequence, and/or AA on the 5'-end of the sequence (to yield 3' UU on the antisense sequence), or replacing the 3'-terminal nucleotide overhanging segments of a 21-mer siRNA duplex having two -nucleotide 3'-overhangs with deoxyribonucleotides does not have an adverse effect on RNAi activity (pg. 3, lines 15-17).
siNA molecules are screened in an in vitro, cell culture or animal model system to identify the most active siNA molecule or the most preferred target site within the target RNA sequence.
McSwiggen teaches GenBank Accession No that provide GPR75 transcript, i.e., NM_006794 (Table V references on pg. 8; GPR75 middle row of Table V on pg. 478). An internet search of “NM_006794” leads one to the locus NM_006794, which is 2094 bp mRNA corresponding to GPR75. McSwiggen recites a preference for “siNA molecule comprises one or more chemical modifications and each strand of said double-stranded siNA comprises about 21 nucleotides” (claim 1).
McSwiggen does not teach targeting regions within this transcript.
However, as discussed above, McSwiggen taught the design rules for selecting subsequences that meet the criteria for siRNA given a transcript sequence.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have prepared additional sense strands to the transcribed GPR75 sequence, using the sequence disclosed by McSwiggen, and the design rules also taught by McSwiggen to arrive at a sense sequence comprising about 21 nucleotides comprising a contiguous nucleotide sequence selected from the disclosed sequence and then design the antisense strand comprising about 19 nucleotides that are complementary to nucleotides of the sense region. It would have amounted to choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
McSwiggen teaches following up such in silico design with experimentation in vitro. Thus, it was known in the art that routine experimentation was necessary to reach the final inhibitory dsRNAs that inhibit a desired target. The transcribed sequence of GPR75 is 2094 nucleotides in length as evidenced by NM_006794. McSwiggen’ exemplary inhibitory dsRNA is 21nts in length, 100% identical to the target genomic sequence. Applying the design principles of McSwiggen’ exemplary inhibitory dsRNA, there are 2094 – 21 = 2073 possible oligonucleotides 21nts in length and 100% complementary to the transcribed sequence of GPR75. Among these finite possibilities, which are further reduced following subsequence selection rules taught by McSwiggen and further modifying terminal nucleotides with suitable overhangs, also taught by McSwiggen, are inhibitory dsRNAs comprising the pair SEQ ID NO:279 and SEQ ID NO:819. See attached alignments.
A skilled artisan could have pursued these finite, identified solutions with a reasonable expectation of success in producing effective inhibitory dsRNAs that inhibit GPR75 because I) McSwiggen teaches an exemplary inhibitory dsRNA with the same structural elements that produces an effect in vitro by targeting various other transcripts (e.g., VEGF transcript in vivo, Example 12 and other transcripts up till Example 22); II) it was well within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill to design inhibitory dsRNAs which are 100% complementary to a known sequence, and determine their effectivity as evidenced by McSwiggen. In an effort to produce additional, and potentially more effective, inhibitory dsRNAs targeting an until recently an orphan receptor, GPR75, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply the design parameters taught by McSwiggen to the known, transcribed GPR75 sequence disclosed by NM_006794, because McSwiggen teaches this Genbank Ref Seq and teaches that experimental validation is necessary to design effective inhibitory dsRNAs. See MPEP 2143 I E.
Regarding claim 15, McSwiggen teaches the inhibitory dsRNA molecule can comprise, for example, nucleotides or non-natural or modified nucleotides, such as nucleotide analogs or nucleotide substitutes (Sugar modifications include, but are not limited to, the following modifications at the 2' position: 2'-O-methyl pyrimidine nucleotides, 2'-deoxy nucleotides, and/or 2'-deoxy-2'-fluoro pyrimidine nucleotides (pg. 10 lines 10-11; Fig. 22).
Regarding claim 19, McSwiggen teaches modified phosphate moieties include, but are not limited to, those that can be modified so that the linkage between two nucleotides contains a phosphorothioate In another embodiment, one or more, for example about 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10, or more, pyrimidine nucleotides of the sense and/or antisense siNA strand are chemically-modified with 2'-deoxy, 2'-O-methyl and/or 2'-deoxy-2'-fluoro nucleotides,….with or without one or more, for example about 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, or more, phosphorothioate internucleotide linkages and/ or a terminal cap molecule at the 3 '-end, the 5'-end, or both of the 3'- and 5'-ends, being present in the same or different strand (pg. 21 lines 6-11).
Regarding claim 21, as discussed for claim 1 above, McSwiggen teaches each strand is about 21 ntds; i.e., within the recited 17-25 ntds.
Regarding claim 74, McSwiggen teaches the dsRNA inhibitor in a cell (pg. 29 line 5).
Regarding claim 75, McSwiggen teaches the dsRNA inhibitor in a pharmaceutical composition (claim 51).
Thus, McSwiggen anticipates instant claims 1, 15, 19, 21, and 74-75.
Claim(s) 33, 43, 53, 57, 60, and 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McSwiggen (McSwiggen et al, WO 03074654 A2) and evidenced by Genbank (NM_006794; GPR75 Sequence Genbank revision history Oct 2019 , 4 pages. Retrieved from the United States NCBI webpage on the internet <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov> [retrieved on 25 April 2026]) as applied to claims 1, 15, 19, 21, and 74-75 above, and further in view of Nair (WO 2019/217459 A1).
The dsRNA rendered obvious by McSwiggen is discussed above.
McSwiggen does not teach wherein the one or more lipophilic moieties are conjugated to one or more internal positions on at least one strand or any other specific details regarding the lipophilic moiety or limitations of dependent claims 33, 43, 53, 57, 60, and 70.
However, before the effective filing date of instant invention, Nair had taught lipophilic moieties-conjugated double- stranded iRNAs (abstract, summary). Nair’s ds - iRNA reads on instant dsRNA agent comprising sense and antisense strands.
Therefore, the teachings of Nair regarding claims 33, 43, 53, 57, 60, and 70 as discussed in the § 103 rejection above apply.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adapted the dsRNA agent of McSwiggen using a design of Nair (e.g., “internally conjugated lipophilic moiety”), so that the agent comprised a specific chemical modification pattern that would be more efficacious and avoid liver toxicity. It would have amounted to adapting a known dsRNA agent effective for inhibiting GPR75 gene expression, by known means to yield predictable results. The skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in adapting McSwiggen’s dsRNA agent to comprise one of Nair’s chemical modification patterns, because I) McSwiggen teaches their dsRNA agent is effective, II) Nair’s and McSwiggen’s dsRNA agents are substantially identical in form and function (i.e., both teach inhibitory ds-RNAs), and III) Nair teaches that their designs “maintain efficacy across a large panel of sequences, and lower toxicity.” The skilled artisan would have recognized that Nair’s designs would be useful in enhancing GPR75 inhibition in cells as taught by McSwiggen, and therefore, would have been motivated to apply Nair’s designs to the effective dsRNA agent of McSwiggen. See MPEP 2143 I A.
Thus, McSwiggen in view of Nair make obvious instant claims 33, 43, 53, 57, 60, and 70.
Therefore, again, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHABANA MEYERING, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (703)756-4603. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 9am to 5pm 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, Ram Shukla can be reached on 571-272-0735. 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.
/SHABANA S MEYERING/Examiner, Art Unit 1635
/SHABANA S MEYERING/Examiner, Art Unit 1635 /CATHERINE KONOPKA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1635
Prosecution Insights