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 and Claim Status
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 and the species of the hexamer polypeptide of beta (B6; see first structure of figure 11) and sulforaphane in the reply filed on 11/19/25 is acknowledged.
The combination of elected species was found to be free of the prior art in the context of the instant claims. No claims are drawn solely to the combination of elected species. The search was expanded in accord with MPEP 803.02.
Claims 17-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/19/25.
As recognized in the response of 11/19/25 claim 9 does not read on the elected species (the elected species contains substituted beta-alanine not gamma-alanine).
Claim 9 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/19/25.
Claims 1-8 and 10-16 are being examined.
Priority
The priority information is found in the filing receipt of 6/30/23.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/5/24 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code on page 16 line 14. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-8 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 line 2 recites ‘linear chain’. Claim 6 lines 1-2 recite ‘linear chain’. Claim 15 lines 2-3 recite ‘linear chain’. Pages 9-10 connecting paragraph and the first complete paragraph of page 10 of the specification define and describe what is meant by linear. Linear is described as not having any cyclic or aryl structures (page 9 lines 28-29) and then an example of a linear agent is for example thiotepa (page 10 line 7). Piccariello et al. (US 2004/0063628) teach the structure of thiotepa as including 3 3-membered rings (section 2381 on page 167). As such, contradictory information is provided about the meaning of linear. Linear is described as not having any cyclic structure, yet an example of a linear agent includes 3 cyclic structures. Thus, it is unclear what is intended to be within the scope of the claim. Further, instant claim 10 refers to ‘saccharide moieties’. It is unclear if claim 10 is a proper dependent claim since a saccharide would seem to contain a cyclic structure. It is not clear what substitutions or side chain groups are acceptable for the oligomer or agent to be within the scope of ‘linear’. None of the dependent claims clarify the claim scope.
Claim 10 refers to ‘steric groups’. It is unclear how to determine whether or not a group is a steric group. The term “steric groups” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “steric groups” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how to determine whether or not a group is a steric group.
Claim 11 recites ‘comprises between 4-8 nonproteogenic amino acids’. Such language causes confusion as to acceptable peptidic oligomers. First, it is unclear if claim 11 is intended to be in reference as to the length or type of amino acid. The use of the word ‘comprises’ is open ended while the word ‘between’ suggests a specific length. It is unclear if claim 11 is setting forth a minimum length of the oligomer or a maximum length of the peptide or is referring to the types of amino acids. The elected species has been interpreted as reading on claim 11.
Although unclear, the claims have been given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10-16 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The MPEP states that the purpose of the written description requirement is to ensure that the inventor had possession, as of the filing date of the application, of the specific subject matter later claimed by him. The courts have stated:
“To fulfill the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe an invention and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that “the inventor invented the claimed invention.” Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Gostelli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“[T]he description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed.”). Thus, an applicant complies with the written description requirement “by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious,” and by using “such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that set forth the claimed invention.” Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966.” Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 43 USPQ2d 1398.
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 “level of skill and knowledge in the art, partial structure, physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics alone or coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between structure and function, and the method of making the claimed invention. 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. While all of the factors have been considered, a sufficient amount for a prima facie case are discussed below.
Further, to provide evidence of possession of a claimed genus, the specification must provide sufficient distinguishing identifying characteristics of the genus. The factors to be considered include: a) the scope of the invention; b) actual reduction to practice; c) disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas; d) relevant identifying characteristics including complete structure, partial structure, physical and/or chemical properties, and structure/function correlation; e) method of making the claimed compounds; f) level of skill and knowledge in the art; and g) predictability in the art.
(1) Scope of the invention/Partial structure/disclosure of drawings:
Claim 1 refers to an oligomer and recites ‘two or more optionally substituted methylene groups’ and refers to ‘encapsulating an agent’.
Claim 11 refers to 8 amino acids. There are many possible substituted groups. If one simply considered an 8-mer with any given position substituted to at least any of the 20 standard amino acids, there are at least 208 (i.e. 25600000000) different possible sequences. Further, there are many other possible combinations of substitutions. There are at least 4 locations for substitutions for beta-alanine. There are at least 6 locations for substitutions for gamma-alanine. As such, the genus is large. With respect to the agent, the specification describes the agent broadly (page 9 of the specification). The agent is not limited to a specific size.
None of the dependent claims limit both the peptidic oligomer and agent to specific compounds.
The examples (see figure 11) appear to relate to 2 peptidic oligomers and a single agent (sulforaphane; see figure 17).
(2) Level of skill and knowledge in the art/predictability in the art:
The level of skill in the art is high.
Claim 1 refers to an oligomer and recites ‘two or more optionally substituted methylene groups’ and refers to ‘encapsulating an agent’. Since the claims requires the agent to be encapsulated, the peptidic oligomer must be able to perform such function.
Goel et al. (‘Self-assembly of beta-alanine homotetramer: formation of nanovesicles for drug delivery’ Journal of Materials Chemistry B v3 2015 pages 5849-5857; ‘Goel’) recognizes that beta-amino acids can form sheets, turns and aggregates and many structural variations are possible (page 5849 paragraph connecting columns 1-2). Goel teach that beta-peptide assembly has largely been theoretical and fabrication ‘in a controlled fashion is an area that is largely unexplored’ (page 5849 paragraph connecting columns 1-2). One would not necessarily recognize sheets, turns and aggregates as being capable of encapsulating an agent. One would not recognize a largely unexplored area as having an adequate structure function relationship to describe which structures would have the recited function.
(3) Physical and/or chemical properties and (4) Functional characteristics:
Claim 1 refers to an oligomer and recites ‘two or more optionally substituted methylene groups’ and refers to ‘encapsulating an agent’. Since the claims requires the agent to be encapsulated, the peptidic oligomer must be able to perform such function for a wide range of possible agents.
There is no adequate disclosed correlation between structure and function particularly related to what structures are adequate to result in the function of encapsulating as recited in the claim, specifically for the many possible substitutions and structures possible. One of skill in the art would reasonably conclude that the disclosure fails to provide a representative number of species to describe the genus and that there is a lack of the predictability in the art thus that the applicant was not in possession of the claimed genus.
(5) Method of making the claimed invention/actual reduction to practice:
The examples (see figure 11) appear to relate to 2 peptidic oligomers and a single agent (sulforaphane; see figure 17).
The description requirement of the patent statue requires a description of an invention, not an indication of a result that one might achieve if one made that invention. See In re Wilder, 736, F.2d 1516, 1521, 222 USPQ 369, 372-73 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (affirming rejection because the specification does “little more than outlin[e] goals appellants hope the claimed invention achieves and the problems the invention will hopefully ameliorate.”) Accordingly, it is deemed that the specification fails to provide adequate written description for the genus of the claims and does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the entire scope of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 10-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guichard et al. (US 2018/0244718; ‘Guichard’).
Guichard teach foldamer helix bundle-based molecular encapsulation via oligomeric compounds (title and abstract). Guichard specifically teach oligourea H1 (figure 1B and claim 1). Guichard teach that ‘u’ denotes urea based residue where figure 1a discloses the oligourea based sequence. Guichard teach oligourea H1 with isopropanol guest molecules within the helical bundle (sections 0069, 0279 and 0293 and figure 36).
In relation to the peptidic oligomer of claims 1, 6-8 and 10-12, Guichard specifically teach oligourea H1 (figure 1B). Guichard teach that ‘u’ denotes urea based residue where figure 1a discloses the oligourea based sequence. As shown in figure 1a, the oligourea sequence of each unit comprises -NH-CH(R)-CH2- where R is the amino acid side chain group. H1 comprise at least 2 substituted methylene groups (i.e. -CH(R)-CH2-) which correspond to substituted beta-alanine. Further, the residues are connected by amide bonds. With respect to amino and carboxylic acid groups, the Glu residue contains a terminal carboxylic acid group and the Lys residues contain terminal amino groups. Further, peptides are written from N-terminal to C-terminal end (see figure 1b). The amino acid side chains of oligourea H1 are interpreted to be steric groups as in claim 10. Oligourea H1 comprises at least 8 consecutive nonproteogenic amino acids as in claim 11. In relation to claim 12, the compounds are described as therapeutic (claim 27).
In relation to the encapsulated agent of claims 1-4, 6 and 15, Guichard teach oligourea H1 with isopropanol guest molecules within the helical bundle (sections 0069 and 0279 and figure 36). In relation to claim 4, isopropanol is a known antiseptic. In relation to claim 6, isopropanol is of structure (CH3)2-CH-OH.
In relation to claim 13, Guichard teach oligourea H1 with isopropanol guest molecules within the helical bundle (sections 0069, 0279 and 0293 and figure 36).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guichard et al. (US 2018/0244718; ‘Guichard’) in view of Dagan et al. (US 7,879,822; cited with IDS 11/5/24; ‘Dagan’).
Guichard teach foldamer helix bundle-based molecular encapsulation via oligomeric compounds (title and abstract). Guichard specifically teach oligourea H1 (figure 1B and claim 1). Guichard teach that ‘u’ denotes urea based residue where figure 1a discloses that the oligourea based sequence. Guichard teach oligourea H1 with isopropanol guest molecules within the helical bundle (sections 0069, 0279 and 0293 and figure 36). Guichard specifically teach the inclusion of an anti-cancer agent (section 0154).
Guichard does not teach the inclusion of sulforaphane.
Dagan teach that sulforaphane is a known anticancer agent (column 1 lines 30-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Guichard based on the specific teachings and suggestions of Guichard. Guichard specifically teach the inclusion of an anti-cancer agent (section 0154) so one would have been motivated to include the known anticancer agent sulforaphane as taught by Dagan (column 1 lines 30-31). Since Guichard teach for therapeutic applications (claim 27) one would have been motivated to optimize the amount of the agent. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success since the components and methods of making were known.
In relation to the peptidic oligomer of claims 1, 6-8 and 10-12, Guichard specifically teach oligourea H1 (figure 1B). Guichard teach that ‘u’ denotes urea based residue where figure 1a discloses the oligourea based sequence. As shown in figure 1a, the oligourea sequence of each unit comprises -NH-CH(R)-CH2- where R is the amino acid side chain group. H1 comprises at least 2 substituted methylene groups (i.e. -CH(R)-CH2-) which correspond to substituted beta-alanine. Further, the residues are connected by amide bonds. With respect to amino and carboxylic acid groups, the Glu residue contains a terminal carboxylic acid group and the Lys residues contain terminal amino groups. Further, peptides are written from N-terminal to C-terminal end (see figure 1b). The amino acid side chains of oligourea H1 are interpreted to be steric groups as in claim 10. Oligourea H1 comprises at least 8 consecutive nonproteogenic amino acids as in claim 11. In relation to claim 12, the compounds are described as therapeutic (claim 27).
In relation to the encapsulated agent of claims 1-4, 6 and 15, Guichard teach oligourea H1 with isopropanol guest molecules within the helical bundle (sections 0069 and 0279 and figure 36). In relation to claim 4, isopropanol is a known antiseptic. In relation to claim 6, isopropanol is of structure (CH3)2-CH-OH.
In relation to claim 13, Guichard teach oligourea H1 with isopropanol guest molecules within the helical bundle (sections 0069, 0279 and 0293 and figure 36).
In relation to claim 14, since Guichard teach for therapeutic applications (claim 27) one would have been motivated to optimize the amount of the agent.
In relation to claims 5 and 16, Dagan teach that sulforaphane is a known anticancer agent (column 1 lines 30-31).
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8 and 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel et al. (‘Self-assembly of beta-alanine homotetramer: formation of nanovesicles for drug delivery’ Journal of Materials Chemistry B v3 2015 pages 5849-5857; ‘Goel’) in view of Gopalan et al. (‘Geometrically precise building blocks: the self-assembly of beta-peptides’ Chemistry & Biology v22 November 19, 2015 pages 1417-1423; ‘Gopalan’).
Goel teach the beta-alanine homotetramer (H2N-BetaAla- BetaAla- BetaAla- BetaAla-CONH2) (abstract). Goel teach that nanovesicles were formed for drug delivery specifically of L-DOPA which is an anti-Parkinson’s drug (abstract). Goel teach that the nanovesicles encapsulate the L-DOPA and the assemblies can be considered as delivery vehicles (abstract). Goel teach a goal of targeting the blood brain barrier (page 5850 first paragraph). Goel teach the specifics of the peptide synthesis and the preparation of the assemblies and drug encapsulation (page 5855).
The peptide of Goel does not contain a carboxylic acid or ester group as recited in claim 1.
Gopalan teach beta-peptides (title and abstract). Gopalan teach the use of beta amino acids specifically those with a terminal carboxylic acid (figures 1 and 3) and recognizes hydrogen bonding (page 1418 first complete paragraph and last complete paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Goel based on the specific teachings and suggestions of Goel. Since Gopalan also teach beta-peptides (title and abstract) and recognizes the inclusion of a terminal carboxylic acid (figures 1 and 3) and recognizes hydrogen bonding as beneficial (page 1418 first complete paragraph and last complete paragraph) one would have been motivated to modify the beta-alanine homotetramer (H2N-BetaAla- BetaAla- BetaAla- BetaAla-CONH2) to include a C-terminal carboxylic acid instead of an amine (H2N-BetaAla- BetaAla- BetaAla- BetaAla-COOH). Further, since Goel teach that nanovesicles were formed for drug delivery specifically of L-DOPA which is an anti-Parkinson’s drug (abstract) and teach a goal of targeting the blood brain barrier (page 5850 first paragraph) one would have been motivated to include targeting moieties for such purpose. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success since the components and methods of making were known.
In relation to the peptidic oligomer of claims 1, 6-8 and 11-12, H2N-BetaAla- BetaAla- BetaAla- BetaAla-COOH as discussed above comprises 4 beta-alanine residues (which each comprise 2 methylene groups) and a terminal amino and carboxylic acid. In relation to claim 10, Goal teach a goal of targeting the blood brain barrier (page 5850 first paragraph) so one would have been motivated to include targeting moieties for such purpose. In relation to claim 12, Goel teach for drug delivery (title and abstract).
In relation to the encapsulated agent of claims 1-4, 6 and 15, Goel teach that nanovesicles were formed for drug delivery specifically of L-DOPA which is an anti-Parkinson’s drug (abstract) which is interpreted as being a linear agent.
In relation to claims 13-14, Goel teach the specifics of the peptide synthesis and the preparation of the assemblies and drug encapsulation (page 5855). Goel teach 3.3 umol of peptide and 3.04 umol L-DOPA (page 5855 section ‘Preparation of drug loaded vesicles’). Further, since Goel teach encapsulation efficiency (page 5855 last complete paragraph) one would have been motivated to optimize the amounts for such purpose.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel et al. (‘Self-assembly of beta-alanine homotetramer: formation of nanovesicles for drug delivery’ Journal of Materials Chemistry B v3 2015 pages 5849-5857) in view of Gopalan et al. (‘Geometrically precise building blocks: the self-assembly of beta-peptides’ Chemistry & Biology v22 November 19, 2015 pages 1417-1423) in view of Williams et al. (‘Expanded alpha helices as encapsulating drug delivery vehicles’ ACS Publications Spring 2021, 1 page).
Goel teach the beta-alanine homotetramer (H2N-BetaAla- BetaAla- BetaAla- BetaAla-CONH2) (abstract). Goel teach that nanovesicles were formed for drug delivery specifically of L-DOPA which is an anti-Parkinson’s drug (abstract). Goel teach that the nanovesicles encapsulate the L-DOPA and the assemblies can be considered as delivery vehicles (abstract). Goel teach a goal of targeting the blood brain barrier (page 5850 first paragraph). Goel teach the specifics of the peptide synthesis and the preparation of the assemblies and drug encapsulation (page 5855). Goel teach a helix type backbone (abstract and figure 4).
Goel does not teach the inclusion of sulforaphane.
Gopalan teach beta-peptides (title and abstract). Gopalan teach the use of beta amino acids specifically those with a terminal carboxylic acid (figures 1 and 3) and recognizes hydrogen bonding (page 1418 first complete paragraph and last complete paragraph).
Williams teach alanine derivatives that fold into an alpha helix for encapsulating sulforaphane (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Goel based on the specific teachings and suggestions of Goel. Since Gopalan also teach beta-peptides (title and abstract) and recognizes the inclusion of a terminal carboxylic acid (figures 1 and 3) and recognizes hydrogen bonding as beneficial (page 1418 first complete paragraph and last complete paragraph) one would have been motivated to modify the beta-alanine homotetramer (H2N-BetaAla- BetaAla- BetaAla- BetaAla-CONH2) to include a C-terminal carboxylic acid instead of an amine (H2N-BetaAla- BetaAla- BetaAla- BetaAla-COOH). Further, since Williams teach alanine derivatives that fold into an alpha helix for encapsulating sulforaphane (abstract) one would have been motivated to use the known encapsulating agent suggested by Goel (and modified by Gopalan) for encapsulating sulforaphane. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success since the components and methods of making were known.
In relation to the peptidic oligomer of claims 1, 6-8 and 11-12, H2N-BetaAla- BetaAla- BetaAla- BetaAla-COOH as discussed above comprises 4 beta-alanine residues (which each comprise 2 methylene groups) and a terminal amino and carboxylic acid. In relation to claim 10, Williams teach sulforaphane as a therapeutic molecule so one would have been motivated to include targeting moieties for such purpose. In relation to claim 12, Goel teach for drug delivery (title and abstract).
In relation to the encapsulated agent of claims 1-6 and 15-16, Williams teach alanine derivatives that fold into an alpha helix for encapsulating sulforaphane (abstract).
In relation to claims 13-14, Goel teach the specifics of the peptide synthesis and the preparation of the assemblies and drug encapsulation (page 5855). Goel teach 3.3 umol of peptide and 3.04 umol drug (page 5855 section ‘Preparation of drug loaded vesicles’). Further, since Goel teach encapsulation efficiency (page 5855 last complete paragraph) one would have been motivated to optimize the amounts for such purpose.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD T NIEBAUER whose telephone number is (571)270-3059. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 6:30 - 2:30 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, Melissa Fisher can be reached at 571-270-7430. 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.
RONALD T. NIEBAUER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1658
/RONALD T NIEBAUER/Examiner, Art Unit 1658